When was Jesus first considered to be God?

[polonius]

Many misunderstand the term "son of God" to mean Jesus. But actually, "son of God" was a common expression in the Old Testament which did not mean divinity.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In the Old Testament

The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship.

Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero, a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc.

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

So when was it claimed that Jesus was actually divine?

[marco]

RESPONSE: The problem is that these are three unequal and therefore different persons.

One must be a little more Divine than the other two.

I'm not sure whether you are correcting what I said or elaborating on it. They are taken as three persons. I have no great understanding of how one "proceeds" from another, especially the Spirit proceeding from the Son, which gave rise to the Flioque schism.

It might have been better had Jesus not mentioned Spirit and remained quiet about who men said that he was. But maybe pride got the better of him - who knows?

[polonius]

I have no great understanding of how one "proceeds" from another, especially the Spirit proceeding from the Son, which gave rise to the Flioque schism.

RESPONSE:

You suggest an excellent issue!

However, I think (and imagine the moderator will agree) this is a bit off-topic. But I think I''ll be allowed to answer it (and other questions which will arise ) on a new thread under Dogma.

Please allow me a day to put my thoughts in order (I'm getting older), And let me introduce the new thread probably tomorrow morning. (Unless the moderator objects).

That little old philosopher -me

[marco]

I have no great understanding of how one "proceeds" from another, especially the Spirit proceeding from the Son, which gave rise to the Filioque schism.

RESPONSE:

You suggest an excellent issue!

However, I think (and imagine the moderator will agree) this is a bit off-topic. But I think I''ll be allowed to answer it (and other questions which will arise ) on a new thread under Dogma.

We are discussing the mystery of the Trinity and Christ's accession to the divine throne. The Filioque controversy is obviously of relevance since it suggests an order of divine hierarchy.

Is Jesus greater than The Spirit but subordinate to the Father? These issues I think are man made and Jesus was deified by implication in John, backed up by Paul and his apotheosis confirmed in Church Council.

[onewithhim]

That's pretty contorted of Jewish society, I would say. They were mistaken. Jesus did not claim to be God. The Jews were accusing him of that, but they were wrong.

So you think that I have contorted Jewish society and that the Jews, who were a part of that society, were wrong with they thought Jesus was claiming to be God.

You are claiming to know first century Jewish culture better than first century Jews. This is immensely unlikely. A far more likely and less convoluted explanation is that in first century Jewish culture claiming to be the son of God was claiming to be equal to God.

According the gospels that is what the first century Jews actually thought.

Whatever their reason for thinking that Jesus was claiming to be God, they were out in left field. They were wrong to accuse him of that.

I noticed, too, that when he was dying, the Jewish leaders did not insist that Jesus claimed to be God. I think they knew in their heart of hearts that he did not claim such a thing. They had been always on alert to find ways to give him a hard time, and accusing him of claiming to be God was just another tactic. See what they said when he was hanging and ready to die:

"He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, 'I am God's Son.'" (Matthew 27:43)

[onewithhim]

Here is what the Jewish people were saying who Jesus was.

Matthew 16:14 says, "“Some say John the Baptist, others E·liʹjah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.�

I see no mention of God in there.

And given the stupidity of the the reply we can deduce zero from it.

"So the high priest said to him: “I put you under oath by the living God to tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God!� Jesus said to him: “You yourself said it. But I say to you: From now on you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.� - Matthew 26:63, 64.

No mention they thought he was Almighty God here either.

There are men and there are gods. Someone who comes from the clouds of heaven would be like someone in the Roman or Greek pantheon. Christ's reply is needlessly evasive. "I am not a god," would have sufficed. You will find no denial of his divinity from the lips of Christ. Is it a wonder, then, he was deified?

There are firm denials from the lips of Christ, and I have posted them a few times.

(1)John 5:18,19: "The Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God. [Brackets mine: We notice that they accused him of two things here that he was not guilty of. He never broke the Sabbath, and he merely called God his Father, not claiming to be God.] Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: 'Most truly I say to you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing! For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.'"

I would say that that was a forthright denial of any idea that he claimed to be God. He said that he couldn't even do anything on his own, but he copied God, his Father. He was obviously placing himself in a subordinate position to God.


(2)John 10:31-36: "Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. Jesus replied to them: 'I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?' The Jews answered him: 'We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god [or, some versions say "God"].' Jesus answered them: 'Is it not written in your Law, "I said: 'You are gods'"? If He called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came...do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God's Son?"

Jesus objected to what they were saying, and I imagine he did it forcefully, and not like the movies that have him quietly speaking practically in a monotone most of the time. I'm sure he was an animated speaker, and would make his points enthusiastically. HE DID SET THEM STRAIGHT. Plus, he was constantly telling people that he was looking for all glory to go to the Father, because the Father was doing works through him.

(3)Luke 18:19: "A certain ruler questioned him, saying: 'Good Teacher, by doing what shall I inherit everlasting life?' Jesus said to him: 'Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.'" One more example of him distinguishing himself from the Father who is God. He went so far as to indicate that even he was not on an equal par with God.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 22 by steveb1]

I too must admit the "Trinity doctrine" is full of holes. Once I decided to examine my religion, I realized we are misled for the most part. I believe in the Father, son and holy spirit, I don't believe they are the same persona anymore.

They are not regarded as the same person in the Trinity doctrine. They are three separate persons in one God. If you accept the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit I don't see your problem with the Trinity.

I just posted three passages that show that Jesus did not teach that he was equal to the Father. Three separate Persons in one God = Three Gods. That is pagan polytheism. Nowhere in the Scriptures when the Father, Son and H.S. are mentioned together do they indicate that the three are equal.

[onewithhim]

Like brianbbs67 said the Trinity doctrine to describe Almighty God 'is full of holes'.

It's a way of reconciling the three apparently divine entities: the Father, Christ who rose and ascended and the Paraclete who would arrive in mystical form. Technically they enter a panthon of gods but since the ruling is that there's but one God, then in some mysterious way Father, Son and Spirit must be divinely interwoven. The result is the concept of the Trinity which may well have holes in it, as reason goes, but is taken as a mystery, so the holes need not worry believers.

Anyway, as I said, if a person accepts the three entities then it's a tiny journey from there to the Trinity.

No, there's no problem with the relationship of Jehovah and Jesus. Jesus is never referred to as God anywhere in the Bible, so there is no need to try and "reconcile" three entities. Jesus is not equal to the Father, and is referred to as GOD'S SON throughout the Scriptures. No problem. No "mystery." That the H.S. should be tacked on to the idea of God is a pagan fabrication with no basis at all. It isn't even a person.

It is not acceptable that there are three entities that are God or even that are equal. That just isn't true.

[onewithhim]

I have no great understanding of how one "proceeds" from another, especially the Spirit proceeding from the Son, which gave rise to the Filioque schism.

RESPONSE:

You suggest an excellent issue!

However, I think (and imagine the moderator will agree) this is a bit off-topic. But I think I''ll be allowed to answer it (and other questions which will arise ) on a new thread under Dogma.

We are discussing the mystery of the Trinity and Christ's accession to the divine throne. The Filioque controversy is obviously of relevance since it suggests an order of divine hierarchy.

Is Jesus greater than The Spirit but subordinate to the Father? These issues I think are man made and Jesus was deified by implication in John, backed up by Paul and his apotheosis confirmed in Church Council.

Not so. Jesus was not deified by John in any sense, and Paul did not suggest in any way that Jesus was God. That whole mess was started up by "wolves" that entered among the flock and twisted Scriptures to get the disciples to go with them....the Great Apostacy (Acts 20:29,30), which took hold at the end of the first century when all the Apostles were gone.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 48 by onewithhim]

Not so. Jesus was not deified by John in any sense, and Paul did not suggest in any way that Jesus was God. That whole mess was started up by "wolves" that entered among the flock and twisted Scriptures to get the disciples to go with them....the Great Apostacy (Acts 20:29,30), which took hold at the end of the first century when all the Apostles were gone

In view of this, what do you do with what Paul wrote in Titus 2:13?

waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

[marco]

There are firm denials from the lips of Christ, and I have posted them a few times.

There are NO firm denials. Billions believe him to be God; theologians have concluded this and a dismissal in a few lines hardly addresses the matter.

'Most truly I say to you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing! For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner[/b].'

I would say that that was a forthright denial of any idea that he claimed to be God.

The human Christ is regarded as truly human, God made into man. In his human form he acted as a man with a man's ability to feel. In human form he derives his power from God, acting all the time in the role of man, subject even to temptation.

(2)John 10:31-36: "Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him.
...... Jesus objected to what they were saying, and I imagine he did it forcefully,

You are supposed to be offering instances where Jesus definitely denied being God. You have chosen the contentious: "Before Abraham was, I am," which was interpreted by his listeners as Christ claiming to be God. His explanation is not a retraction, just a play on Scriptural terms. The fact he said this lends weight to the belief he has an eternal nature. What you "imagine" isn't relevant.

(3)Luke 18:19: "A certain ruler questioned him, saying: 'Good Teacher, by doing what shall I inherit everlasting life?' Jesus said to him: 'Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.'" One more example of him distinguishing himself from the Father who is God. He went so far as to indicate that even he was not on an equal par with God.

Again you miss the point. This is confirmation of the Incarnation; he is a man speaking to people; he carries the burden of human flesh. People who believe Christ to be God the Son accept his human form. It is explained by the hypostatic union - two natures in Jesus, human and divine. When Jesus ate a piece of fish he was demonstrating his human nature NOT denying his divine.

You have failed to find anything that conclusively denies the doctrine that Jesus is God. One may reject this doctrine but let's not pretend that Scripture backs up our objections. Clutching at straws gives power to your opponents' arguments.