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

[mpartyka]

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?

Being subject to temptation isn’t sinful in itself. Adam and Eve were created perfect in Eden, yet they were also subject to temptation. It was their succumbing to temptation that was sinful, and succumbing to temptation is something Jesus never did and never will do.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

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.

The Church does teach that Jesus became a human being, just not in the sense that He had to give up being divine in order to do so. I.e., He did not change from having a divine nature to having a human nature, but rather acquired the human nature without affecting the divine nature.

–Mike

 

[mschrank]

You need to read “Jesus of Nazareth” by the Pope. He explains, quite well, how the Synoptic Gospels do indeed claim Jesus as referring to himself as God.

For example, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath”. He wasn’t saying that the Sabbath was only in force if a guy wanted to take the day off, that the old regard for the day of rest was abrogated, what he was saying is that “This is MY day”.

 

[mpartyka]

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?

From what I’ve read so far, there’s no question that the first-century Christians believed in Jesus’ divinity. The christological controversies of that century dealt with the humanity of Christ and did not appear to touch on the divinity of Christ much at all. The Gnostics were unwilling to accept that God became fully man because the idea of mixing “good” spirit with “evil” matter was anathema to them, so many of them adopted the notion that Christ’s flesh was unreal – that he only seemed to be human. The verse in 1 John which reads, “Here we know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error. Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of the truth,” is a direct attack against this early heresy.

I would say that the divinity of Christ did not come under assault until the presbyter Arius hit the scene in the early fourth century. There may have been hints of the heresy before then, but by and large the divinity of Christ was accepted without question up to that point.

As for the term “God the Son”, the first occurrence of it I’ve seen is in the writings of Justin Martyr, who died around 165 A.D. In “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” Chap. 128, he calls Christ “God the Son of God.”

The divinity of the Holy Spirit began to be questioned about a decade or so after the Arian heresy questioned the divinity of Christ, around the mid-fourth century.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

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.

But the Bible also says that Jesus was with the Father before the world began, and that all things in heaven and earth were created by Jesus. So, Jesus was divine prior to his assuming humanity.

–Mike

 

[JRKH]

You need to read “Jesus of Nazareth” by the Pope. He explains, quite well, how the Synoptic Gospels do indeed claim Jesus as referring to himself as God.

For example, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath”. He wasn’t saying that the Sabbath was only in force if a guy wanted to take the day off, that the old regard for the day of rest was abrogated, what he was saying is that “This is MY day”.

Now this is something that has always bothered me.
Jesus often refers to himself as “Son of Man” which the notes in my bible (New American Catholic Ed.) 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.”

Now we know that the Hebrew word messiah means annointed one and in itself does not denote any claim divinity.
Therefore the term, “Son of Man”, likewise is not a direct claim of divinity.

Peace
James

 

[mschrank]

In any case, He said that the Son of Man is God in the verse I mentioned.

 

[JRKH]

In any case, He said that the Son of Man is God in the verse I mentioned.

I’m sorry, I must have misunderstood something. What verse are you refering to?

Peace
James

 

[onmywayagain]

I think many fail to realize that in the 1st chapter in the Gospel of John it tells us who Jesus is.

It says in verse 1, “In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Then it goes on to say in verse 14, “And the Word became Flesh and made his dwelling amoung us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Fathers’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”

Sounds to me like Jesus is God. Don’t know how anyone can question/say that Jesus isn’t God himself in the flesh.

how many of you believe that Jesus was present way back in Genesis? I do. For if back then we only had the Word of God and Jesus in the Word of God in the Flesh, that means Jesus was present in the days of Adam, Noah, Moses and so on. Sounds easy to me.

 

[mschrank]

I’m sorry, I must have misunderstood something. What verse are you refering to?

Peace
James

When He says he is Lord of the Sabbath. I’m sure someone like Bart Erhman would probably say he’s actually referring to a kind of breakfast cereal and Crossan would say he never said that, but I believe otherwise.

 

[JRKH]

I think many fail to realize that in the 1st chapter in the Gospel of John it tells us who Jesus is.

It says in verse 1, “In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Then it goes on to say in verse 14, “And the Word became Flesh and made his dwelling amoung us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Fathers’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”

Sounds to me like Jesus is God. Don’t know how anyone can question/say that Jesus isn’t God himself in the flesh.

how many of you believe that Jesus was present way back in Genesis? I do. For if back then we only had the Word of God and Jesus in the Word of God in the Flesh, that means Jesus was present in the days of Adam, Noah, Moses and so on. Sounds easy to me.

I don’t know that we are trying to argue that Jesus isn’t God’s Son. We are just following in the footsteps of many rgreat religious people trying to understand the incarnation.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

When He says he is Lord of the Sabbath. I’m sure someone like Bart Erhman would probably say he’s actually referring to a kind of breakfast cereal and Crossan would say he never said that, but I believe otherwise.

Well I don’t know about those other fellows, But I just don’t see the term, “Son of Man” being synonomous with the term, Son of God. I don’t know how people can get “Son of God”, from “Son of Man”.

The closest thing I can come to would be the idea that the, “Son of Man” might be somehow tied to the idea of the “New Adam”. Or that Jesus used the term as a reference to His corporeal/human nature.

Thus, in this instance he is admonishing the scribes to worry less about the letter of the law, and more about the spirit and intention of the law.

Peace
James

 

[onmywayagain]

I don’t know that we are trying to argue that Jesus isn’t God’s Son. We are just following in the footsteps of many rgreat religious people trying to understand the incarnation.

Peace
James

Sorry. But from the OP’s question. We as Christians agree that Jesus is God from the beginning, not a specific time/date/year. Just my thought on it anyway.

 

[mpartyka]

The closest thing I can come to would be the idea that the, “Son of Man” might be somehow tied to the idea of the “New Adam”. Or that Jesus used the term as a reference to His corporeal/human nature.

“Son of Man” is also a messianic term from Daniel 7:13-14 – “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”

–Mike

 

[JRKH]

Sorry. But from the OP’s question. We as Christians agree that Jesus is God from the beginning, not a specific time/date/year. Just my thought on it anyway.

Welllllll…Yes…but…there were these discussions/teachings/herasy thingees out there early on about Jesus humanity/divinity/when/how/etc. etc.
I think that is wah teh OP was alluding to.

James

 

[JRKH]

“Son of Man” is also a messianic term from Daniel 7:13-14 – “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”

–Mike

Thank you for the reference and quote. It intrigued me greatly. So much so that I went back and read the entire chapter.
The first thing that struck me was that my translation used the term, "like a son of man, instead of, "like the Son of man.
I decided to check this against some other translations using bible gateway, and found that all used “a” instead of “the” except for the KJV. (I even checked it against youngs literal translation.
A small point I’ll admit but significant in the context. It seems to simply be pointing out here that this person/entity appears like a man rather than like the beasts previously described.
In addition to this, the interpretation of the dream/visions indicates that the “son of man” image indicates that:
Then the kingship and dominion and majesty of all the kingdoms under the heavens shall be given to the holy people of the Most High. (Daniel 7: 27)
Thus the "son of man image here seems to point to a group rather than a particular person.
It’s all very confusing…:hypno:

Peace
James

 

[NanaR]

From what I’ve read so far, there’s no question that the first-century Christians believed in Jesus’ divinity. The christological controversies of that century dealt with the humanity of Christ and did not appear to touch on the divinity of Christ much at all. The Gnostics were unwilling to accept that God became fully man because the idea of mixing “good” spirit with “evil” matter was anathema to them, so many of them adopted the notion that Christ’s flesh was unreal – that he only seemed to be human. The verse in 1 John which reads, “Here we know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error. Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of the truth,” is a direct attack against this early heresy.

I would say that the divinity of Christ did not come under assault until the presbyter Arius hit the scene in the early fourth century. There may have been hints of the heresy before then, but by and large the divinity of Christ was accepted without question up to that point.

As for the term “God the Son”, the first occurrence of it I’ve seen is in the writings of Justin Martyr, who died around 165 A.D. In “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” Chap. 128, he calls Christ “God the Son of God.”

The divinity of the Holy Spirit began to be questioned about a decade or so after the Arian heresy questioned the divinity of Christ, around the mid-fourth century.

–Mike

Mike:

Excellent points!!

It was hard for me at first to understand that Christian doctrines were not spelled out and declared by Council until/unless they had come under attack. It was also hard for me (coming from a JW background) to comprehend that what was decided at these Councils was not some “new” truth, but that a determination was being made of what was already part of the deposit of faith and what was not.

The criteria that Truth was doctrine that had been believed “always, everywhere” confirms that the major elements of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity – The Godship of the Father, the Godship of the Son, and the Godship of the Holy Spirit, were believed from the earliest days of Christianity.

Pax,

Ruth

 

[mschrank]

Another thing to think of is the sheer impact of the “Christ Event”.

Think about this. All the philosophy in the world that men ever spoke had not the energy of just one of His footsteps in the Palestinian backwater in which he taught and died, and rose again.

Can you imagine what it would be like to look Him in the eye? To hear Him call your name? Would Peter attempt to promulgate dogma when his whole being was enraptured by the very presence of the Christ of God, the realization of which caused him to break down and cry out “depart from me, for I am a wicked man”.

A key theme of Mark is His power, “Immediately” is used many times.

There was little dogma at that time because just seeing Him (and in turn, hearing those who did) was enough. It was only after the age of the Apostles that a real grinding down of dogma was needed, to recapture the energy, in philosophical and theological form, of just one word spoken from His lips.

We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life…

Him who has ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[mpartyka]

Then the kingship and dominion and majesty of all the kingdoms under the heavens shall be given to the holy people of the Most High. (Daniel 7: 27) Thus the "son of man image here seems to point to a group rather than a particular person.

Agreed. The holy people of the Most High are all contained within the image of a singular person, which in New Testament terms would mean the Church, which is collectively known as the Body of Christ (i.e., a singular person) – many people, yet all one in Christ, the Son of Man.

–Mike

 

[FaithofAbraham]

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.

I grew up a Christian, I understand the doctrine but it never convinced me that a man would be born fully human subject to temptations as we are, but also fully God. What purpose does it serve to make him a God if he can just be a man who gets God’s Holy Spirit, and then God elevates him to power to rule like a God over us though he is still a man and servant of God. Which is what the Bible really says.

I just kind of went along with that not really believing it until I figured out Jesus was born to David and Bathsheba, died, then was resurrected into Mary so in reality he was born a regular man who came to have God’s Spirit dwell in him with all power. So now I could never be convinced of the arrangement the way Christians teach it, I think I have a better answer that clears up many questions.

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.

The Quran just means God didn’t have a son like Zeus siring Dionysus with a mortal, through real sex. It’s not saying we all can’t be children of God with God’s Spirit.

John 1 doesn’t mention Jesus until God’s Word is made flesh, that means God’s Spirit dwells in a human and he speaks God’s Word, a prophet. Nothing in the Bible says God’s Word is a God dwelling with another God. God’s Word is just the knowledge of God, what He says, what He intends for humanity, His will. It’s not a person.

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

God made all things with the intention of an everlasting kingdom of Messiah. It doesn’t mean Jesus was there with God.

Especially since even for Christians, Jesus has a human soul. So even if Christian believe that part of Jesus is there in John 1:1, he did not really exist as the real Jesus until he had a human soul, which is the Jesus we know today who is a man.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

So it is better to say Jesus was born a regular human with a human body and soul, and God’s Spirit went to dwell with him forever. There doesn’t need to be any complication or confusion if you follow the clear meaning of what the Bible really says.