When did all Christians start agreeing that Jesus is God the Son?

[MH84]

The bible doesnt mention Jesus being of the same substance or nature as His Father, except in my opinion John 1:1-14 and 8:58. The Gospel of John provides the most hints of His divinity, but that wasnt written until around 90 AD apparently. I think Matthew provides some higher Christological reflections than Mark and Luke, but not so far as saying he was God Himself.

1. I’ve read some posts here, as well as the Catechism, that basically say that believing that Jesus is God the Son is one of the prerequisites of being a Christian. How come Mark (apparently the first Gospel written) didnt even touch upon the subject, as opposed to John? How come in Acts there doesnt appear to be any evidence that the early Christians believed that Jesus was their God along with the Father?
2. At what date would it be fair to say that all those who called themselves “Christian”, actually believed that the Messiah was God Incarnate? And having said that when did Christians fully believe that the Son was also their Creator with the Father and the Holy Spirit?
3. What percentage of the early Christians were Ebonites, which still followed the Jewish law, and who also rejected the Son’s pre-existence and the Virgin Birth?

 

[East_Anglican]

Luke called him The Lord

(Same Greek word as JW’s translate Jehovah)

Luke 7:12-16

12As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out—the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. 13When **the Lord **saw ]her, his heart went out to her and he said, “Don’t cry.”

14Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said, “Young man, I say to you, get up!” 15The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother.

16They were all filled with awe and praised God. “A great prophet has appeared among us,” they said. “**God has come **to help his people.”

 

[MH84]

Luke called him The Lord

(Same Greek word as JW’s translate Jehovah)

Luke 7:12-16

12As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out—the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. 13When **the Lord **saw ]her, his heart went out to her and he said, “Don’t cry.”

14Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said, “Young man, I say to you, get up!” 15The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother.

16They were all filled with awe and praised God. “A great prophet has appeared among us,” they said. “**God has come **to help his people.”

The title “Lord” doesnt confirm belief that Jesus was God. In Acts 2:36, Peter says that Jesus was “made both Lord and Christ”. If “Lord” is equal to “God”, are we saying that Jesus was made (to be) God? Did St. Peter?

I have never noticed that phrasing in Luke 7:16. Its interesting. But its not proof. Luke records the people calling Jesus a “prophet”. Do you think the people who were shouting that Jesus was a prophet was also claiming Him to be God at the same time? I doubt it. Maybe Luke put wording like this deliberately to hint the Jesus was divine, but I don’t know. Another thing is, Luke didnt call Jesus “God” anywhere else in the text, so its probably more likely that he was referring to the Father.

Look at Luke 1:68. Zechariah said something similar after John the baptist was born.

68Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

Who was Zechariah talking about? God (the Father) probably. Unless one believes that Zechariah knew that the baby in the womb of Mary was God incarnate, and that He was talking about Jesus. But I myself doubt it.

 

[East_Anglican]

The title “Lord” doesnt confirm belief that Jesus was God. In Acts 2:36, Peter says that Jesus was “made both Lord and Christ”. If “Lord” is equal to “God”, are we saying that Jesus was made (to be) God? Did St. Peter?

I have never noticed that phrasing in Luke 7:16. Its interesting. But its not proof. Luke records the people calling Jesus a “prophet”. Do you think the people who were shouting that Jesus was a prophet was also claiming Him to be God at the same time? I doubt it. Maybe Luke put wording like this deliberately to hint the Jesus was divine, but I don’t know. Another thing is, Luke didnt call Jesus “God” anywhere else in the text, so its probably more likely that he was referring to the Father.

Look at Luke 1:68. Zechariah said something similar after John the baptist was born.

68Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

Who was Zechariah talking about? God (the Father) probably. Unless one believes that Zechariah knew that the baby in the womb of Mary was God incarnate, and that He was talking about Jesus. But I myself doubt it.

Good points.

 

[NanaR]

The bible doesnt mention Jesus being of the same substance or nature as His Father, except in my opinion John 1:1-14 and 8:58. The Gospel of John provides the most hints of His divinity, but that wasnt written until around 90 AD apparently. I think Matthew provides some higher Christological reflections than Mark and Luke, but not so far as saying he was God Himself.

1. I’ve read some posts here, as well as the Catechism, that basically say that believing that Jesus is God the Son is one of the prerequisites of being a Christian. How come Mark (apparently the first Gospel written) didnt even touch upon the subject, as opposed to John? How come in Acts there doesnt appear to be any evidence that the early Christians believed that Jesus was their God along with the Father?

MH84:

Ignatius of Antioch, who was born in 50 A.D. and suffered martyrdom sometime between 98 A.D. and 117 A.D., used the term “blood of God” in his Epistle to the Ephesians:

Chapter 1. Praise of the Ephesians.
I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. For, on hearing that I came bound from Syria for the common name and hope, trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome, that so by martyrdom I may indeed become the disciple of Him “who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God,” Ephesians 5:2 [you hastened to see me]. I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop.

Justin Martyr, who was born and martyred in the Second Century and who was perhaps the first great Christian apologist, uses the term “God the Son of God” in his Dialogue with Trypho

Chapter 128. The Word is sent not as an inanimate power, but as a person begotten of the Father’s substance.
“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.” Then I repeated once more all that I had previously quoted from Exodus, about the vision in the bush, and the naming of Joshua (Jesus), and continued: "And do not suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these words frequently: but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. In this way, they teach, He made the angels. But it is proved that there are angels who always exist, and are never reduced to that form out of which they sprang. And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.

Clement of Alexandria, whose birth date is unknown but who is said to have died early in the third century, uses the phrase “blood of God the Son” in his Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?

XXXIV. This visible appearance cheats death and the devil; for the wealth within, the beauty, is unseen by them. And they rave about the carcass, which they despise as weak, being blind to the wealth within; knowing not what a “treasure in an earthen vessel” 2 Corinthians 4:7 we bear, protected as it is by the power of God the Father, and the blood of God the Son, and the dew of the Holy Spirit.

You also might find the following article interesting:

The Watchtower and the Anti-Nicene Fathers

I’ll let someone else tackle # 2 and # 3.

Good questions!

Pax,

Ruth

 

[MH84]

NanaR, thanks for the link. It looks like an interesting read. However, Im already concerned by this quote early from it.

… Consider the common, everyday relationship between employer and employee. Both are human beings, so employer and employee are equal in respect to their basic nature. However, the employee is under the authority of the employer, which makes the employee inferior to the employer by way of position. **This same distinction exists within the Godhead: The three persons of the Godhead are equal according to nature, but when it comes to position, God the Father is superior to God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

So, it must be understood when reading the Fathers that whenever the Church Fathers refer to Jesus as being inferior or subordinate to God, they are speaking in terms of position only, not of nature. This squares just fine with the doctrine of the Trinity, which only maintains that God the Father and Jesus are equal in nature.**

I have a feeling that the author is not Catholic. That’s not a bad thing, but I cant recall reading this kind of argument from a Catholic apologist.

Anyway, I don’t like this kind of argument: “the Son has the same nature, but is subordinate in position to the Father”, because it seems to put a clause into relationship of the Trinity. This means that there is subordination within the Trinity, which I understand is not compatible with the Catholic understanding of God.

See these threads:
How can evangelical Christians believe in the same Trinity as the CC? - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209675

The theory of subordinationism within the Trinity - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209791

Son subject to the Father? - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=190639

Some proof that there IS a difference between Biblical Trinitarians and Catholics! - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=211612

I know this may sound childish, but why can’t the Triune Persons be completely equal in position and nature? It seems that we are forcing the Trinitarian doctrine into the Scriptures if we allow subordination to be in our understanding of the Trinity. In my opinon, either They are equal or they are of a different nature to each other.

Anyway, I’ll continue to read the article. It does seem to try to address some of the questions I have head on which is good.

 

[AgnosTheist]

When did all Christians start agreeing that Jesus is God the Son?

THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

 

[NanaR]

NanaR, thanks for the link. It looks like an interesting read. However, Im already concerned by this quote early from it.

I have a feeling that the author is not Catholic. That’s not a bad thing, but I cant recall reading this kind of argument from a Catholic apologist.

Anyway, I don’t like this kind of argument: “the Son has the same nature, but is subordinate in position to the Father”, because it seems to put a clause into relationship of the Trinity. This means that there is subordination within the Trinity, which I understand is not compatible with the Catholic understanding of God.

See these threads:
How can evangelical Christians believe in the same Trinity as the CC? - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209675

The theory of subordinationism within the Trinity - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209791

Son subject to the Father? - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=190639

Some proof that there IS a difference between Biblical Trinitarians and Catholics! - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=211612

I know this may sound childish, but why can’t the Triune Persons be completely equal in position and nature? It seems that we are forcing the Trinitarian doctrine into the Scriptures if we allow subordination to be in our understanding of the Trinity. In my opinon, either They are equal or they are of a different nature to each other.

Anyway, I’ll continue to read the article. It does seem to try to address some of the questions I have head on which is good.

MH84:

I am very new at this Catholic stuff . I found an email address for Mr. Partyka on the web and have sent him an inquiry.

I found his article linked from several Catholic web sites, as well as other articles written by him refuting the JW teachings.

You pose an excellent question.

The BIG thing Mr. Partyka’s article accomplished with me (as a former JW) was that it proved the blatant intellectual dishonesty of the Watchtower organization. Ever since reading his article, I have been searching the Watchtower publications for other misquotes and missing references. They are full of them!!

If I had ever turned in an English paper to my freshman comp professor with the kind of sloppy referencing found in Watchtower publications, I would have flunked.

I’ll let you know if I hear from Mr. Partyka.

Pax,

Ruth

 

[MH84]

The BIG thing Mr. Partyka’s article accomplished with me (as a former JW) was that it proved the blatant intellectual dishonesty of the Watchtower organization. Ever since reading his article, I have been searching the Watchtower publications for other misquotes and missing references. They are full of them!!

If I had ever turned in an English paper to my freshman comp professor with the kind of sloppy referencing found in Watchtower publications, I would have flunked.

I think there is a lot of evidence out there that their leaders have mislead many with their claims.

I’ll let you know if I hear from Mr. Partyka.

Thanks

 

[FaithofAbraham]

I know this may sound childish, but why can’t the Triune Persons be completely equal in position and nature?

They can’t ever be. Their ideal Trinity is Fully God each Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

But for them the Son is now Fully Man and Fully God.

So their real Trinity is Fully God each Father and Holy Spirit, plus a Son that is Fully God/Fully Man.

This does not make for just one God, but one God that has a third person also fully man. That’s not monotheism of just one God.

 

[MH84]

They can’t ever be. Their ideal Trinity is Fully God each Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

But for them the Son is now Fully Man and Fully God.

So their real Trinity is Fully God each Father and Holy Spirit, plus a Son that is Fully God/Fully Man.

This does not make for just one God, but one God that has a third person also fully man. That’s not monotheism of just one God.

But the Trinitarian doctrine states that the human nature was perfectly united to the Word (the Eternal Son). I think that the Divine nature of the Son is not affected by the union of the His divine and human natures. The Son is fully human and fully divine. His humanity did not lower his divinity.

In other words, I think that the Son is from all eternity divine, and during the incarnation He took on a human nature.

I am confused when people say he is less than the Father because he became Man. Why? Because if I use another analogy, when I add something to myself I am not weakened or lowered; I just possess more. For example, if I was to get a tattoo I wouldnt be a lesser man. My human nature would not be affected at all.

For the record Im not speaking with authority here, just my opinion.

 

[Genesis315]

Right from the beginning they all did. Then heresies arose causing confusion on this issue, but the truth was confirmed at the First Council of Nicea and the subsequent Christological Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

 

[MH84]

They can’t ever be. Their ideal Trinity is Fully God each Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

But for them the Son is now Fully Man and Fully God.

So their real Trinity is Fully God each Father and Holy Spirit, plus a Son that is Fully God/Fully Man.

This does not make for just one God, but one God that has a third person also fully man. That’s not monotheism of just one God.

Anyway, why would God not be one God anymore because one Person (the Son) took on the human nature? How does that change the divine nature of the Godhead? I don’t think it does.

 

[MH84]

Right from the beginning they all did. Then heresies arose causing confusion on this issue, but the truth was confirmed at the First Council of Nicea and the subsequent Christological Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

1 Proof? When is the “beginning”?

2 When most people attempt to prove the divinity of Jesus they turn to the Gospel of John. How come it took 60 or 70 years for the Gospel of John to be finalised? How come the earlier Gospels make no mention of this?

3 What about the Ebionites?

 

[Evan]

I think you’re looking in the wrong place. The gospels were written later when it became apparent that the eye witnesses would not survive to the 2nd coming. Look to the epistles.

St Paul writes “Jesus Christ is Lord” To a pharisee that could be translated as “Jesus, the anointed one, the messiah of Israel is Lord, Adonai, Yehweh”.

 

[MH84]

I think you’re looking in the wrong place. The gospels were written later when it became apparent that the eye witnesses would not survive to the 2nd coming. Look to the epistles.

St Paul writes “Jesus Christ is Lord” To a pharisee that could be translated as “Jesus, the anointed one, the messiah of Israel is Lord, Adonai, Yehweh”.

Please see post 3 in this thread. I don’t think that “Lord” necessarily means “God”. See post 3.

 

[MH84]

I was just posting on another thread when I noticed this verse spoken by Jesus.

John 14: 6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know** my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” **

Why does John record Jesus saying, "no one can come to the Father except through me? Aren’t the all the Persons equally God? Why is going to the Son or the Holy Spirit not the same as going to the Father? Is going to the Father the ultimate goal?

Then there’s the infamous verse used by non-Trinitarians, spoken by Jesus:

John 17:3
3"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Jesus doesnt appear to be saying that He is God as well. It seems He only acknowledges His Father as God.

I don’t know a good defence to this.

John isnt as clear about Jesus’ divinity as I used to think.

 

[Open_Your_Heart]

I am confused when people say he is less than the Father because he became Man. Why? Because if I use another analogy, when I add something to myself I am not weakened or lowered; I just possess more. For example, if I was to get a tattoo I wouldnt be a lesser man. My human nature would not be affected at all.

Christ says this as well in John. But he makes this statement in the context that he is doing the will of the Father, that He is a servant of His Father therefore he makes this statement in the humility of His Flesh

 

[MH84]

Christ says this as well in John. But he makes this statement in the context that he is doing the will of the Father, that He is a servant of His Father therefore he makes this statement in the humility of His Flesh

So is Jesus at a lower “position” than the Father in eternity as well? What about the Holy Spirit? Is He even lower “positionally”?

Where in the Bible does Jesus say He is lower positionally, but not in nature?

Jesus said the “…for the Father is greater than I”.

1. How do we know we was talking about position and not nature?
2. If John knew that Jesus wasnt talking about His divine nature, why didnt he clarify the meaning of the point in his Gospel account? If John really knew Jesus was equal to God, surely he should have clarified this.

 

[JRKH]

So is Jesus at a lower “position” than the Father in eternity as well? What about the Holy Spirit? Is He even lower “positionally”?

Where in the Bible does Jesus say He is lower positionally, but not in nature?

Jesus said the “…for the Father is greater than I”.

1. How do we know we was talking about position and not nature?
2. If John knew that Jesus wasnt talking about His divine nature, why didnt he clarify the meaning of the point in his Gospel account? If John really knew Jesus was equal to God, surely he should have clarified this.

Been following this with much interest.
The above reminds me of something Jesus said in Matthew 22:23-30. Here the question was put as to who’s wife the woman would be after the resurection.
Jesus response was that they were not understanding the scripture or the power of God.

I realize that this is not a direct response to the questions posed above, but I think it is quite applicable. Here, we are trying to understand and “position” the persons in the trinity, without understanding the Power of God.
We are trying to understand as men understand instead of as God understands.

Jesus was a man, Christ, who is the HS personified, is God. These two were blended perfectly into our Lord and Savior.
That is why Jesus is the perfect example and the perfect sacrifice.
That is why the Paraclete could not come to the apostles until after Jesus ascended.

This is my understanding of the incarnation.

Peace
James