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

[Open_Your_Heart]

I agree with JKRH
What i was trying to say in my previous post is only that Christ serves the will of the Father,
That HE and the Father are “one and the same”

 

[MH84]

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

I have to admit that I was a bit alarmed when I read the bolded texts of your post. Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say that the Jesus was/is the Holy Spirit personified? I think you might be forgetting the distinction between the Persons of the Trinity. Or maybe you are trying to elude to something else. I would be interested to hear it.

James, you as a Catholic, what do you make of this “equal by nature, not by position” type argument about the Trinity? I don’t think it is an orthodox teaching (sounds like a theory from Sola Scripturists).

However, to be honest, when I myself read the bible, do see subordination, at least between the Father and Son. However, if you look at this thread you will see that it is apparently contradictory to Church teaching: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209791

I am so confused. I see Jesus once calling Himself “I am”, John calling Him the “Word”, and Thomas saying to Him “my Lord and my God”.

But in the rest of the New Testament I see Jesus, St. Peter and St. Paul in some instances claiming that Jesus is not equal to His Father (God). For example, Matthew 24:36, John 5:30, John 14:28, John 17:3, Acts 2:36, Acts 10:38, 1 Corinthians 15:27-28. Jesus often called His Father, “My God”. That doesnt sound like words from a man who knew that He was God.

 

[MH84]

I agree with JKRH
What i was trying to say in my previous post is only that Christ serves the will of the Father,
That HE and the Father are “one and the same”

How can they be “one and the same”? Do you mean they are the same Person or that they have the same nature?

Btw, Jesus said that He and the Father are one, not He and the Father are “one and the same”.

 

[JRKH]

Origionally Poste by JRKH
Jesus was a man, Christ, who is the HS personified, is God.

Churchmen and theologens have been trying to make sense of this for eons.
The first thing I would suggest is reading each of the Gospels staight through without trying to make sense of each point. Get a sense of the overall picture. (macroview) Then look at specific ideas rather than points. For instance look at Jesus teachings about Scripture, etc. or read through the passions etc. Once I did this, (and I was not practicing at the time) I found some interesting patterns emerging that were quite enlightening.

Feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss any of this privately.

Peace
James

 

[MarkBrown]

1 Proof? When is the “beginning”?

John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and My God!” So to answer when, within days of the resurrection. When Christ appeared in the flesh.

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?

The dating you are giving the gospel accounts could be off. Clement of Alexandria states the canon was closed by the time of the deaths of Paul and Peter. Some believe Mark was written in the early 40’s @ 10 years after the resurrection. The gospel of Luke begins with references to other writings concerning our Lord.
The late date holding to John and Revelations is not a teaching of the early church.

Mark 1:24 the demons acknowledge Jesus divinity.
Mark 2:1-12 Jesus forgives sins, scribes state only God can forgive sins.
Mark 2:28 Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath, hence the Lord of creation.
Mark 3:11 "and the unclean spirits, whenever they saw Him, fell down before Him and cried out, saying, “You are the Son of God.”

Just a few passages from the gospel many scholars hold as the First one written, again in the early 40’s A.D. These passages show the divinity of Jesus.

3 What about the Ebionites?

Judaizers who held to Jewish law for salvation. The church council in Jerusalem, held by the apostles, Acts 15 rejected their teachings. According to the Book of Acts of the Apostles, the Judaizers caused disputes within the early church. In Acts 15:5 they are referred to as “sect of the Pharisees”.

The early church fathers rejected their teachings as heretical, ie Justin, Origen etc.

 

[fbl9]

subscribe

 

[fbl9]

in the trinity the Fahter is God but not he HS or the Son,the Son is God but not the Father or HS,the Holy Sprirt is God but not the Father or the Son… during His time for our salvation the Son with His human expressed and gave perfect example for us as humans to follow.has any one today spoke to,face to face, with God Himself?the flesh of Christ after His reserection has divine properties that we as unglorified humans do not posses.the flesh of Christ is in perfect union with God so it now takes on as it’s own the divine nature of God.God is pure spirit and Christ is God.we kid ourselves if we can think we can pack what is inffinate knowlegde into our finate minds.

 

[MH84]

The dating you are giving the gospel accounts could be off. Clement of Alexandria states the canon was closed by the time of the deaths of Paul and Peter. Some believe Mark was written in the early 40’s @ 10 years after the resurrection. The gospel of Luke begins with references to other writings concerning our Lord.
The late date holding to John and Revelations is not a teaching of the early church.

Mark 1:24 the demons acknowledge Jesus divinity.
Mark 2:1-12 Jesus forgives sins, scribes state only God can forgive sins.
Mark 2:28 Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath, hence the Lord of creation.
Mark 3:11 "and the unclean spirits, whenever they saw Him, fell down before Him and cried out, saying, “You are the Son of God.”

1. I have never heard about such early completion dates of the New Testament canon proposed before; I hope it is true, but it seems rather optimistic? What evidence did Clement base this on? Also, doesnt the proposal of such early dates fly against the theory that the Church thought the end was imminent and didnt bother writing the Gospels because of this? and also that perhaps since Jesus didnt command his disciples to write the accounts so they initially ddnt feel the need to?
2. It think you are reading too much into the texts regarding Mark. “Son of God” doesnt necessarily mean they were calling Jesus “God”. You need be honest with yourself here, do you really think the people thought (at that time) that Jesus was God incarnate, the same God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob? If they did, don’t you think someone would have asked Him directly about Creation, and about who was “governing” the universe while He was in Judea? Or even about how their God could be Man at the same time?!!

If many who call themselves Christians throughout the last 2000 thousand years have debated and fought about who Jesus really was (His nature) without agreement, do you think the average Jew of Jesus’ time automatically concluded that He was their Creator? Because if they believed He was God, that means they believed He was also their creator doesnt it?

Mark, please read what I posted in another thread. Its an excerpt of the notes from the 1965 Jerusalem Bible talking about the term “Son of God”. It’s **post #12 **of this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=205710

Having said all this, this doesnt rule out the fact that upon deeper reflection, those references now have a deeper meaning. Those people may not have realised how true their words really were.

Mark 2:28 Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath, hence the Lord of creation.

In regards to this, you may be right that it points to Jesus’ divinity. But I can’t forget the fact that St. Peter says in Acts 2:36 that “Jesus was made both Lord and Christ” (read the full verse for more context). Now in light of this, objectively speaking how do we know that God didnt appoint or make Jesus to be Lord of the Sabbath, as He was appointed to be Lord and Messiah of the world?

Mark 1:24 the demons acknowledge Jesus divinity.

Who do we know that “Holy One of God” means “God”? That term in itself seems to imply that they thought Jesus was of God, but not necessarily God.

 

[JRKH]

MH84 touched on a couple of these quotes and I would like to add my 2cents.
(I am using the “New American” Translation)

…
Mark 1:24 the demons acknowledge Jesus divinity

The demons acknowledge Jesus as “the Holy One of God”. They do not refer to Him as the “Son of God”, or of being God.

Mark 2:1-12 Jesus forgives sins, scribes state only God can forgive sins.

Yes, this is how the scribes interpreted Jesus, that it was He who was forgiving the sins. However, Jesus does not say “I forgive…”, He says, “your sins are forgiven”, which could simply be Jesus delivering to the man God’s forgivenss based on the man’s own faith. (We see this often in Jesus miracles: “Your faith has cured you…”)
Again this is not a clear statement of divinity.

Mark 2:28 Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath, hence the Lord of creation.

The two verses here are actually 27 and 28.
“Then He said to them: 'The sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. That is why the Son of Man is lord even on the Sabbath.”
So Jesus stated title here is “Son of Man”, not “Son of God”.
Not a clear statement of divinity.

Mark 3:11 "and the unclean spirits, whenever they saw Him, fell down before Him and cried out, saying, “You are the Son of God.”

Now here is a clear statement - From a demon, who is fully capable of deceit, and who would wish to destroy Jesus misssion.

Just a few passages from the gospel many scholars hold as the First one written, again in the early 40’s A.D. These passages show the divinity of Jesus.

Jesus often refers to himself as “Son of Man” which the notes in my bible calls:
“an enigmatic title. Jewish apocraphal tradition uses it to describe a unique religious personage, a messiah with extraordinary spiritual endowments.
Jesus use of it seems to derive from Ez 2, where it is a title of humility, and Dn 7,13, where it clearly indicates a messianic figure.”

Again, this is not a clear statement of divinity, but rather implies a master/servant relationship. One where the Servant, (the man Jesus) is fully committed to doing the Master’s (The Father God’s) will.
This concept fits nicely with the fact that Jesus never took claim for the miracles of healing performed. Instead refering to the persons faith, and in the Will of the Father.

Peace
James

 

[mpartyka]

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.

Hello, all. NanaR wrote me and asked me to clarify these statements from my paper “The Watchtower and the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers.”

As a little bit of background, I’m an Orthodox catechumen, and I’ve been reading the works of the early Church Fathers at www.ccel.org for a few years now. When I wrote my paper on the Watchtower’s mishandling of the early Church Fathers, I had only just begun my studies. Had I known then what I know now, I don’t think I would necessarily have used this “positional superiority vs. ontological superiority” argument in my paper.

My point was simply to show that an equal can willingly submit himself to another equal without losing any claim to equality of being. Unfortunately, one unforeseen implication generated by this argument is that the divine Lordship is depicted as something possessed by the Father alone because the Son and Spirit have in a sense “abdicated” their Lordship, albeit willingly. It’s clear from the writings of such Fathers as Sts. Augustine and Ambrose that this is not the case. They maintained that Father, Son, and Spirit are equal in Lordship, for the divine Lordship belongs to the Godhead, not to any peculiar person of the Trinity. So the Son is Lord (and the Holy Spirit is Lord) just as the Father is Lord.

Had I to do it over again, I probably would have argued that any claims made by the early Church Fathers concerning the subordination of the Son to the Father were applicable only to the humanity appropriated by the Son in the Incarnation, not to the divinity which He shares equally with the Father (and the Holy Spirit) according to His eternal generation. This interpretation would be much more in line with the later teachings of Sts. Augustine and Ambrose.

If I need to clarify my thoughts further, or if there’s anything else in the paper that needs clarification (or correction), please let me know. I hope you enjoy the paper, and thanks to NanaR for her gracious invitation to the forum.

–Mike

 

[MH84]

Hello, all. NanaR wrote me and asked me to clarify these statements from my paper “The Watchtower and the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers.”

As a little bit of background, I’m an Orthodox catechumen, and I’ve been reading the works of the early Church Fathers at www.ccel.org for a few years now. When I wrote my paper on the Watchtower’s mishandling of the early Church Fathers, I had only just begun my studies. Had I known then what I know now, I don’t think I would necessarily have used this “positional superiority vs. ontological superiority” argument in my paper.

My point was simply to show that an equal can willingly submit himself to another equal without losing any claim to equality of being. Unfortunately, one unforeseen implication generated by this argument is that the divine Lordship is depicted as something possessed by the Father alone because the Son and Spirit have in a sense “abdicated” their Lordship, albeit willingly. It’s clear from the writings of such Fathers as Sts. Augustine and Ambrose that this is not the case. They maintained that Father, Son, and Spirit are equal in Lordship, for the divine Lordship belongs to the Godhead, not to any peculiar person of the Trinity. So the Son is Lord (and the Holy Spirit is Lord) just as the Father is Lord.

Had I to do it over again, I probably would have argued that any claims made by the early Church Fathers concerning the subordination of the Son to the Father were applicable only to the humanity appropriated by the Son in the Incarnation, not to the divinity which He shares equally with the Father (and the Holy Spirit) according to His eternal generation. This interpretation would be much more in line with the later teachings of Sts. Augustine and Ambrose.

If I need to clarify my thoughts further, or if there’s anything else in the paper that needs clarification (or correction), please let me know. I hope you enjoy the paper, and thanks to NanaR for her gracious invitation to the forum.

–Mike

Thanks so much for taking your time to post here and going to the trouble of joining up for this.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

“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.”

Had I to do it over again, I probably would have argued that any claims made by the early Church Fathers concerning the subordination of the Son to the Father were applicable only to the humanity appropriated by the Son in the Incarnation, not to the divinity which He shares equally with the Father (and the Holy Spirit) according to His eternal generation. This interpretation would be much more in line with the later teachings of Sts. Augustine and Ambrose.

However if according to Trinity Jesus has a fully God nature like the Father, but also a fully human nature unlike the Father, how can Jesus now be equal in nature to the Father if having a human nature means having a human spirit which is subject to all temptations as we are?

 

[MH84]

However if according to Trinity Jesus has a fully God nature like the Father, but also a fully human nature unlike the Father, how can Jesus now be equal in nature to the Father if having a human nature means having a human spirit which is subject to all temptations as we are?

1. Could you explain why you think the divinity of the Son would decrease when he took on a human nature?

Just in case you are not aware, the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union means that the natures of Jesus (divine and human) were not mixed during the Incarnation, but His human nature was fused to His divine nature, thus His divine nature was unaltered.

Jesus always was from all eternity a divine Person, who in time took on the human nature, but I believe that the church teaches that He did not become a human being. I am a bit unsure myself about this. However, I do know that Jesus was one Person who had two natures. Also, the Church teaches that when Jesus walked among us, He was both fully human and fully divine.

For a more clearer explantion of the hypostatic union check this out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_Union

It is also easy to fall into the Nestorian heresy. Check out this thread I started a while back: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=194074

Check out the details of the Nestorian heresy here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism

1. Also, what do you mean by “human spirit”? Are you talking about His soul?

 

[MH84]

I just want to add that I think the Nestorian heresy was false according to the Church because the Nestorians taught that Christ existed as two Persons, the human Jesus and the divine Word. Whereas the CC teaches that Jesus had two nature but is one Person.

Nestorius did not believe God the Son died on the cross, only the “human Jesus” died. They also refused to call Mary the Mother of God, because they believed that Mary only gave birth to the human Jesus, not the Word (God the Son).

The Nestorian belief also has an impact on the atonement Christ could have provided. If only the human Jesus died, that atonement was not enough to make atonement for the infinite offences (our sins) against God. Only God could redeem men.

Check out this explanation, its more concise and clear than the wikipedia one I think: carm.org/heresy/nestorianism.htm

 

[MH84]

Do you all think that definitely by the end of the first century that all orthodox Christians believed Jesus was God the Son? If so, was the term “God the Son” used at all?

Also, when was there agreement that the Holy Spirit was also a divine Person and equal as God?

 

[FaithofAbraham]

1. Could you explain why you think the divinity of the Son would decrease when he took on a human nature?

Just in case you are not aware, the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union means that the natures of Jesus (divine and human) were not mixed during the Incarnation, but His human nature was fused to His divine nature, thus His divine nature was unaltered.

Jesus always was from all eternity a divine Person, who in time took on the human nature, but I believe that the church teaches that He did not become a human being. I am a bit unsure myself about this. However, I do know that Jesus was one Person who had two natures. Also, the Church teaches that when Jesus walked among us, He was both fully human and fully divine.

1. Also, what do you mean by “human spirit”? Are you talking about His soul?

Sure, the human soul he had in order to be fully human, the thing that either goes to heaven or hell.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Where is the human soul of Jesus now?

 

[MH84]

Sure, the human soul he had in order to be fully human, the thing that either goes to heaven or hell.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Where is the human soul of Jesus now?

I think the human soul is part of Jesus’ human nature, which is united to His divine nature.

At the Incarnation He was still one Person, but consisted of two complete natures.

 

[MH84]

By the way, I think I was wrong by describing the human nature being “fused” to the divine nature of Jesus. I think that would mean either the divine nature or the human nature would have been changed.

I think it is more accurate to say that when Jesus took on the His human nature it was substantially united to the divine nature.

This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Hypostatic Union: The uninon of the divine and human natures in the one divine Person of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

I think the human soul is part of Jesus’ human nature, which is united to His divine nature.

At the Incarnation He was still one Person, but consisted of two complete natures.

If Jesus was born with a fully human soul and body, why don’t you just say what the Bible says.

He was born fully human, and God’s Spirit went to dwell in his human body with his human soul forever, which makes him a human prophet and king and priest dwelling with God forever. Born a human like David but made greater as Messiah.

1 Samuel 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Rather than all this Word/Son/fully-man/fully-God Trinity 3 person 1 God incarnation stuff which just confuses everything.

 

[MH84]

If Jesus was born with a fully human soul and body, why don’t you just say what the Bible says.

He was born fully human, and God’s Spirit went to dwell in his human body with his human soul forever, which makes him a human prophet and king and priest dwelling with God forever. Born a human like David but made greater as Messiah.

1 Samuel 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Rather than all this Word/Son/fully-man/fully-God Trinity 3 person 1 God incarnation stuff which just confuses everything.

You need to understand that religion, like life, is complicated. I myself have posted some questions because I am trying to understand the Church better, and also because sadly, I have been having doubts.

What is confusing for you is not confusing for a theologian, just like science may be confusing to me, but easier for a physicist. Truth is truth. We need to try to follow the truth no matter how easy it is or how hard. Its relative.

A lot of Muslims here complain that Christian theology is hard and confusing. The reason it is hard is because they havent looked at it, and tried to understand it; at least the basics.

Something we need to remember is that the bible didnt just magically appear. The early Christians had to complete it, put it together and reject some of the books deemed uninspired by God.

FaithofAbraham, you face a problem too. Jesus calls Himself the “only begotten Son (of God)” (John 3:16). However the Quran says that God doesnt have a Son.

John 1 and Hebrews 1 also says that the universe was made through (or by) Jesus. A purely human person could not have done this.

There are messages in the Bible that contradict what is said in the Quran.