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

[mpartyka]

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.

Wow. That’s the first time I ever heard anything of the kind. I have to ask, though, how does that satisfy Jesus’ question to the people, “If the Messiah is the Son of David, how can David, speaking by the Holy Spirit, call him Lord?” If Jesus was originally David’s child, then he was originally beneath David in rank (i.e., a prince ranks beneath a king), not above David (i.e., a king ranks beneath a Lord).

The Quran just means God didn’t have a son like Zeus siring Dionysus with a mortal, through real sex

Why, then,. does the Quran deny something neither the Bible nor the Church ever taught? Isn’t it promoting a misconception of Christian beliefs concerning the Incarnation when it asks, “How could He have a son when He has no consort?” (6:101)

It’s not saying we all can’t be children of God with God’s Spirit.

On the contrary, the Quran specifically says, “It is not worthy of the Beneficent Allah that He should take to Himself a son. There is no one in the heavens and the earth but will come to the Beneficent Allah as a servant.” (19:93) Indeed, the Quran even goes so far as to deny the principle of adoption: “Allah hath not…made those whom ye claim to be your sons your sons. This is but a saying of your mouths. But Allah saith the truth and He showeth the way. Proclaim their real parentage. That will be more equitable in the sight of Allah. And if ye know not their fathers, then they are your brethren in the faith, and your clients.” (33:4-5) If Allah forbids men the adoption of sons, how then can you claim that Allah will adopt us as sons, especially when the Quran specifically says that all come to God as servants, never as sons?

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.

Then what does Jesus mean when he says in John 17:5, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was”? How could Jesus have been sharing glory with God before the world began if he was not born until, at best, David committed adultery with Bathsheba (according to your theory)? For that matter, why would God have suffered a prophet to be born of adultery?

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.

John 1:1 reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.” How can the Word be with God and yet be God?

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

Again, explain how Jesus – not the Spirit, but Jesus, mind you – claimed to have been sharing glory with God before the world began?

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.

We know the person of God the Son as the man Jesus Christ because that’s who God the Son became through His assumption of human nature in the Incarnation. It’s the same person, only that person was divine at first, and not until later both divine and human.

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.

Except that’s not what the Bible teaches, nor has that ever been the teaching of the Church.

Instead, it would be better for you to accept that the Bible does teach the doctrine of the Trinity and simply admit that you don’t believe what the Bible says, rather than interpret the Bible to fit the Quran. They simply don’t agree, and it’s a waste of time to even try to reconcile them.

–Mike

 

[MH84]

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”.

Was He really saying this “This is MY day”? Or was He saying what was in the text (that He was “Lord of the Sabbath”)?

I want to bring up some personal opinions based on this:

1. “Lord” doesnt necessarily equal “God”, especially in the New Testament. Again I ask to refer to Acts 2:36, where St. Peter says that Jesus was made (by God) to be Lord and Christ.
2. In England and other countries, people call themselves “lord”; that doesnt mean mean they are claiming that something is theirs (or even that they are divine!). It means that they have authority over something. But then again, the former could be true as well (as you suggest). Maybe Jesus was giving a hint of His divinity. I’m going to quote some definitions of “Lord” here (Please click on the link to see all the definitions available):

Lord:

1. a person who has authority, control, or power over others; a master, chief, or ruler.

1. a person who exercises authority from property rights; an owner of land, houses, etc.

1. (initial capital letter) the Supreme Being; God; Jehovah.

1. (initial capital letter) the Savior, Jesus Christ.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/lord

1. This is only my implied argument, but if you look at the scriptures there seems to be no reaction from the Pharisees after He called Himself “the Lord of the Sabbath”. IMO, either Jesus was not claiming to be divine here, or maybe Jesus was “only” claiming to be the Messiah (maybe the Messiah was expected to re-interpret the law of Moses), or Matthew and Mark left out the words and surprise of the Pharisees from their accounts.
2. Another poster mentioned Jesus saying that the Son of Man is “Lord of the Sabbath”. And I seem to agree that Jesus was not declaring divinity. If Jesus was clearly referring to His divinity, why didnt He say that “God the Son is Lord of the Sabbath”?

 

[mpartyka]

“Lord” doesnt necessarily equal “God”, especially in the New Testament. Again I ask to refer to Acts 2:36, where St. Peter says that Jesus was made (by God) to be Lord and Christ.

Yes, St. Peter did say that, but consider again the two natures of Christ. In his divinity, he was Lord by right of nature. In his humanity, his Lordship was not something he naturally possessed, but something to be acquired through his obedient death and resurrection.

Another poster mentioned Jesus saying that the Son of Man is “Lord of the Sabbath”…If Jesus was clearly referring to His divinity, why didnt He say that “God the Son is Lord of the Sabbath”?

I think the main reason that Jesus didn’t ever explicitly declare his divinity is that (1) his numerous claims added up to that anyway – his enemies surely thought that’s what he was driving at – and (2) if it’s hard enough for us today to understand even with the New Testament available to us, imagine how difficult to grasp it would have been for the Jews who only had the Old Testament to rely upon?

–Mike

 

[East_Anglican]

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.

Jesus is at the right hand of the father far above all other a
uthority. That seems like equality to me. but this was after the reserection.

 

[MH84]

Jesus is at the right hand of the father far above all other a
uthority. That seems like equality to me. but this was after the reserection.

Remember that we are talking about when Jesus was believed to be God by the Church and early Christians, not the actual reality that He is God.

Also, why did you quote me, as there was no attempt to address the points raised in the quotes.

For example, how do we know that Jesus was talking about position and not His nature when He said “the Father is greater than I”? At face value (without much thought), Jesus Himself is implying He is subordinate to the Father.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by MH84
So is Jesus at a lower “position” than the Father in eternity as well? What about the Holy Spirit? Is He even lower “positionally”?

I use to frustrate myself on these kinds of questions until I had something of a revelation. The really funny thing is the revelation came while watching a Miss America pageant years ago.
I’m looking at all the beautiful women on stage, from all over the country (and territories) and the judges are announcing the finalists. So now the choice is between 5 gals (I think). They are all equally beautiful, they are all talented etc… So

1. How does one choose between things that are so closely matched? (and)
2. Why bother to try?

I realize this is maybe a bad example, but it really illustrates the point. We worship one God. There are three persons/entities/spirits/characheristics that we associate with God. Trying to decipher the intricacies of this raises the same questions as above:

1. How do you define/decipher quantify the infinite?
2. Why Try?

Of course we still do

Peace
James

 

[MH84]

Jesus is at the right hand of the father far above all other a
uthority. That seems like equality to me. but this was after the reserection.

Btw, when I hear the term, “right-hand man” used in the secular world that normally means that the person is an assistant to his employer, manager etc.

Example: thefreedictionary.com/right-hand%20man

 

[MH84]

I use to frustrate myself on these kinds of questions until I had something of a revelation. The really funny thing is the revelation came while watching a Miss America pageant years ago.
I’m looking at all the beautiful women on stage, from all over the country (and territories) and the judges are announcing the finalists. So now the choice is between 5 gals (I think). They are all equally beautiful, they are all talented etc… So

1. How does one choose between things that are so closely matched? (and)
2. Why bother to try?

I realize this is maybe a bad example, but it really illustrates the point. We worship one God. There are three persons/entities/spirits/characheristics that we associate with God. Trying to decipher the intricacies of this raises the same questions as above:

1. How do you define/decipher quantify the infinite?
2. Why Try?

Of course we still do

Peace
James

Interesting story.

I think we can try to at least understand what the Church teaches. We should be able to agree with the Church’s teaching and how they reached her conclusions.

Why try? I guess its in the human nature to search for the truth.

You know, the Internet has opened up so many avenues to access knowledge and information (although a lot is false or misleading). One thing it has done for me lately, is bring up a lot of questions that otherwise I would never have or thought of. Is that a good thing, Im not so sure.

This has definately occured to me regarding religion. I was at a time quite closed-minded and desperately wanted to believe all that the Church teaches. I still want to believe in the Church (its only for sinful and selfish reasons that a part of me wants otherwise), however, of late I have allowed myself to be more open to questioning my faith and to try to seek more reassurance and “proof” that the Church is teaching the truth.

I have noticed that I see things in the scriptures that seem to contradict what I have taken for granted growing up. I have realised that some of the doctrines of the Church cannot be found in the bible alone.

This all flared up when I made a mistake (seemingly) of reading a Christadelphian book which teaches the bible. I have since realised that their organisation can’t be the true church, and they misrepresented the Church’s teaching of the Trinity for example a few times. How can I believe them, when they have told falsities about the Trinitarian and Catholic belief? But what the book did was confirm some of the questions (and more) I was already having in my understand of the faith compared to what Jesus and the apostles said in the bible.

Another book which would have shocked me previously is Fr. Fitzmyer’s short book, A Christological Catechism. He seems to bring into question a lot of the historical interpretations of the bible Catholics take for granted. Like about the perpetual virginity of Mary, and whether Jesus knew He was God. But what I can tell from the book is that the author doesnt fall into heresy because he just posed “the facts” in the scriptures and falls back on Catholic tradition. He never seems to confirm something that would be contradictory to the Church, he just says what are the facts he sees in the bible.

There’s a thread about this book here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209992

 

[MH84]

One thing I want to add is that while searching for “truths” is kind of liberating, and I feel that in a way Im being honest with myself, I have never been as confused and as unhappy with my personal faith. Having doubts about something so important is not pleasant.

 

[1234]

My impression is not until the 4th century, the Councils of Nicea in 325 and Constantinople in 381. Nicea was convoked by the emperor Constantine and under his control.

Until then there were many different arguments and differences of opinion (called “heresies”) regarding Jesus’ nature.

 

[MH84]

My impression is not until the 4th century, the Councils of Nicea in 325 and Constantinople in 381. Nicea was convoked by the emperor Constantine and under his control.

Until then there were many different arguments and differences of opinion (called “heresies”) regarding Jesus’ nature.

Constantine was on the Arian side, he was even baptised by an Arian priest.

But the Church still believed in the Trinity. They were not coerced.

 

[mpartyka]

Remember that we are talking about when Jesus was believed to be God by the Church and early Christians, not the actual reality that He is God.

The earliest-written book of the New Testament is 1 Corinthians, written about 54 A.D. if I remember correctly. So, even as early as 54 A.D., then, the apostles were teaching such things as:

1 Cor 2:11-13,16 – …the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received…the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God…which the Holy Ghost teacheth…For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Cor 10:5-6,9 – …with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted…Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Btw, when I hear the term, “right-hand man” used in the secular world that normally means that the person is an assistant to his employer, manager etc.

I think the best “secular” illustration of Christ’s being the right hand of the Father is actually found in Genesis, where Pharaoh makes Joseph his right-hand man:

Genesis 41:39-44 – Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “…there is no one as discerning and wise as you. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall be ruled according to your word; only in regard to the throne will I be greater than you.” And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” Then Pharaoh took his signet ring off his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand; and he clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. And he had him ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried out before him, “Bow the knee!” So he set him over all the land of Egypt. Pharaoh also said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no man may lift his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.”…

Pharaoh shared with Joseph his full power and authority, yet they remained distinct persons – in identity they were two, but in power and authority they were as one.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Constantine was on the Arian side, he was even baptised by an Arian priest. But the Church still believed in the Trinity. They were not coerced.

This is incorrect. Constantine was a Trinitarian, and he convoked the Council of Nicea to defeat the Arian heresy. He is even given partial credit by some sources for suggesting that the phrase “of one substance” be incorporated into the creed to make the creed a firm declaration of Jesus’ divinity. For his instrumentality in defeating the Arian heresy, the Orthodox Church honors Constantine even to this day as an “apostle among kings.”

–Mike

 

[FaithofAbraham]

“If the Messiah is the Son of David, how can David, speaking by the Holy Spirit, call him Lord?” If Jesus was originally David’s child, then he was originally beneath David in rank (i.e., a prince ranks beneath a king), not above David (i.e., a king ranks beneath a Lord).

David’s own son was promised to be Messiah from the start and the Holy Spirit confirmed that by causing David to call him his lord, since Messiah rules over everyone even his father David.

But the child died and David made his younger brother the king instead, and we know Solomon didn’t have an everlasting throne as promised for his own child. Jesus does.

Isn’t it promoting a misconception of Christian beliefs concerning the Incarnation when it asks, “How could He have a son when He has no consort?” (6:101)

Some Christians and gnostic types do explain the incarnation by saying God has His own sperm and impregnated Mary and she is His wife in Heaven ruling with their son Jesus. I’ve heard it all.

Indeed, the Quran even goes so far as to deny the principle of adoption:

This isn’t condemning all adoption at all, but a rebuke to the sinful situation created when Mohammed adopted Zeyd as his own flesh and blood, and then turned around and married his wife, which then violates these Laws:

Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

Leviticus 18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

Quran 3:4-5 …nor hath He made your wives whom ye declare (to be your mothers) your mothers, nor hath He made those whom ye claim (to be your sons) your sons.

So if an adopted son is like your own flesh and blood, you may not marry their wives since it is like marrying your own daughter, and also causing the son to have sex with his own mother.

Then what does Jesus mean when he says in John 17:5, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was”? How could Jesus have been sharing glory with God before the world began if he was not born until, at best, David committed adultery with Bathsheba (according to your theory)?

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jesus isn’t saying before the earth began, but before the world gave him glory, as he preferred glory from God rather than glory from men (to be seen of men). So he had humility. But he had to have glory from men to do his job for God.

John 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

So throughout his speech here, the world here is the worldly system of men he was sent to be glorified by, it is not referring to the planet earth.

John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

For that matter, why would God have suffered a prophet to be born of adultery?

But you forget he was resurrected into Mary, so he wasn’t born from adultery into Mary, but from the Spirit by resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:42-45 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

See God makes all things new, even the mamzers so they can enter the congregation.

John 1:1 reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.” How can the Word be with God and yet be God?

I can be singing right now and my words are with me, and are also me because they come from me. So God’s Word is just what God desires, and says, and commands, etc. Not another deity or person, any more than the words in my song are another person besides me.

Again, explain how Jesus – not the Spirit, but Jesus, mind you – claimed to have been sharing glory with God before the world began?

So we now see WORLD does not mean EARTH so the human Jesus is not there in John 1:1.

We know the person of God the Son as the man Jesus Christ because that’s who God the Son became through His assumption of human nature in the Incarnation. It’s the same person, only that person was divine at first, and not until later both divine and human.

The Bible doesn’t say there is any such thing as GOD THE SON. It says the Holy Spirit came to Jesus at his baptism and there God declared Jesus His son. Just as it says here other men can be adopted:

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

 

[1234]

David’s own son was promised to be Messiah from the start and the Holy Spirit confirmed that by causing David to call him his lord, since Messiah rules over everyone even his father David.

But the child died and David made his younger brother the king instead, and we know Solomon didn’t have an everlasting throne as promised for his own child. Jesus does.

Some Christians and gnostic types do explain the incarnation by saying God has His own sperm and impregnated Mary and she is His wife in Heaven ruling with their son Jesus. I’ve heard it all.

This isn’t condemning all adoption at all, but a rebuke to the sinful situation created when Mohammed adopted Zeyd as his own flesh and blood, and then turned around and married his wife, which then violates these Laws:

Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

Leviticus 18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

Quran 3:4-5 …nor hath He made your wives whom ye declare (to be your mothers) your mothers, nor hath He made those whom ye claim (to be your sons) your sons.

So if an adopted son is like your own flesh and blood, you may not marry their wives since it is like marrying your own daughter, and also causing the son to have sex with his own mother.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jesus isn’t saying before the earth began, but before the world gave him glory, as he preferred glory from God rather than glory from men (to be seen of men). So he had humility. But he had to have glory from men to do his job for God.

John 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

So throughout his speech here, the world here is the worldly system of men he was sent to be glorified by, it is not referring to the planet earth.

John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

But you forget he was resurrected into Mary, so he wasn’t born from adultery into Mary, but from the Spirit by resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:42-45 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

See God makes all things new, even the mamzers so they can enter the congregation.

I can be singing right now and my words are with me, and are also me because they come from me. So God’s Word is just what God desires, and says, and commands, etc. Not another deity or person, any more than the words in my song are another person besides me.

So we now see WORLD does not mean EARTH so the human Jesus is not there in John 1:1.

The Bible doesn’t say there is any such thing as GOD THE SON. It says the Holy Spirit came to Jesus at his baptism and there God declared Jesus His son. Just as it says here other men can be adopted:

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Dumb question.

The NT was written in Greek.

Are words capitalized in the Greek used to write the NT?

Are the beginning of words and/or are specific words capitalized, like:

son

spirit

god.

It makes a difference in the meaning.

 

[MH84]

This is incorrect. Constantine was a Trinitarian, and he convoked the Council of Nicea to defeat the Arian heresy. He is even given partial credit by some sources for suggesting that the phrase “of one substance” be incorporated into the creed to make the creed a firm declaration of Jesus’ divinity. For his instrumentality in defeating the Arian heresy, the Orthodox Church honors Constantine even to this day as an “apostle among kings.”

–Mike

I was actually trying to defend the legitimacy of the Council. But anyway… check out this link.

Sickness and death

He summoned the bishops, and told them of his hope to be baptized in the River Jordan, where Christ was written to have been baptized. He requested the baptism right away, promising to live a more Christian life should he live through his illness. The bishops, Eusebius records, “performed the sacred ceremonies according to custom”.[158] He chose the** Arianizing bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia as his baptizer**.[159]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I

Check out this link as well:

Arians and the Meletians soon regained nearly all of the rights they had lost, and consequently, Arianism continued to spread and to cause division in the Church during the remainder of the fourth century. Almost immediately, Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop and cousin to Constantine I, used his influence at court to sway Constantine’s favor from the orthodox Nicene bishops to the Arians. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed and exiled in 330. Athanasius, who had succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria, was deposed by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 and Marcellus of Ancyra followed him in 336. Arius himself returned to Constantinople to be readmitted into the Church, but died shortly before he could be received. Constantine died the next year, after finally receiving baptism from Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedi , and “with his passing the first round in the battle after the Council of Nicaea was ended.”[34]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

 

[MH84]

Check out this link as well:

Arians and the Meletians soon regained nearly all of the rights they had lost, and consequently, Arianism continued to spread and to cause division in the Church during the remainder of the fourth century. Almost immediately, Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop and cousin to Constantine I, used his influence at court to sway Constantine’s favor from the orthodox Nicene bishops to the Arians. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed and exiled in 330. Athanasius, who had succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria, was deposed by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 and Marcellus of Ancyra followed him in 336. Arius himself returned to Constantinople to be readmitted into the Church, but died shortly before he could be received. Constantine died the next year, after finally receiving baptism from Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedi , and “with his passing the first round in the battle after the Council of Nicaea was ended.”[34]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

 

[MH84]

This is incorrect. Constantine was a Trinitarian, and he convoked the Council of Nicea to defeat the Arian heresy. He is even given partial credit by some sources for suggesting that the phrase “of one substance” be incorporated into the creed to make the creed a firm declaration of Jesus’ divinity. For his instrumentality in defeating the Arian heresy, the Orthodox Church honors Constantine even to this day as an “apostle among kings.”

–Mike

I initially learned about Constantine’s arian leanings from this post from another thread:

That would seem unlikely, else his view would presumably have prevailed unless the Holy Spirit was really working overtime.

It wasn’t a matter of Constantine throwing his Imperial support behind Athanasius, either, as for most of the rest of his life Constantine actually supported the Arians. (His well-known last-minute baptism was ministered to him by an Arian.)

I have read in various places (mostly here on CA, actually) that the Council did not have much success in silencing the Arians, and that in fact there was a point after Nicaea when the vast majority of bishops held to Arianism, with Rome and a few other sees holding the orthodox line. Perhaps that is what you also heard, and got confused with the Council itself.

 

[MH84]

The earliest-written book of the New Testament is 1 Corinthians, written about 54 A.D. if I remember correctly. So, even as early as 54 A.D., then, the apostles were teaching such things as:

I believe that it more commonly believed that the letters to the Thessalonians were written first.

See: mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/bjohnson/hg1/PNT00Q.HTM

and

blueletterbible.org/Comm/jb_lightfoot/paulchron.html

and

Laux, J; 1990; Introduction to the Bible; pg 266.

Where did you get your information from? Is it just your opinion?

1 Cor 2:11-13,16 – …the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received…the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God…which the Holy Ghost teacheth…For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Cor 10:5-6,9 – …with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted…Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

I can’t see references to Paul believing that Christ was God in these verses.

Something I also want to add is that IMO, just because the names of “God”, “Jesus” and “Spirit” (or “Holy Spirit”), doesnt mean he believed they are a Trinity of divine Persons and of the same substance.

Maybe 1 Corinthians 10:4 points to Paul’s high Christological belief.