Did Paul and the Synoptic Gospels depict Jesus as God?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

This is split from another thread, where I pointed out that the Jews who made up Jesus' earliest followers would be horrified at the idea of Jesus as God in human form, since they simply thought of him as the Jewish Messiah. Like many Jews of the time, they probably conceived of the Messiah as having had a heavenly pre-existence, but the idea that he was God would have been alien to them.

That idea didn't take shape until the Jesus Sect began to drift from its Jewish roots and became more of a Gentile religion. Even then, the idea that Jesus was somehow equal with God took a long time to develop fully and the bitter theological disputes over the nature of the Trinity that racked the Church for six or seven centuries is evidence of how long it took for this concept - now accepted by almost all Christians - to actually take shape. Remnants of earlier forms of Christianity that rejected this idea, such as the Ebionites and other more Jewish forms of Christianity, were declared "heretics" and dwindled as the Divine Jesus forms of Christianity predominated.

Now that the idea that Jesus is God has been dominant within Christianity for over 1900 years, this idea tends to be read back into the earlier books of the New Testament. In fact, if we examine those works in the context of Judaism, passages that seem to support the idea that Jesus was God actually turn out to do nothing of the sort, as we see below:

The New Testament clearly states that Jesus is God. Below are passages from the Gospels, as well as the writings of Paul and Peter:

Matthew 27:41-43

Quote:
In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking Him and saying, "He saved others; He cannot save Himself. He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him. He trusts in God; let God rescue Him now, if He delights in Him; for He said, 'I am the Son of God.'"

The titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" have been examined in their Jewish context by modern scholars, following the groundbreaking work of Judaic expert Geza Vermes. They do not mean "God" or "God in human form". They mean "the Messiah"/"God's annointed" or "someone favoured by God". King David is referred to as the Son of God for example and his descendent, the Messiah, also carries this title. So this passage is depicting the chief priests saying "Let's see if God saves him, because he claimed to be God's Messiah". It is not evidence that the writer thought Jesus was God; in fact it draws a distinction between God and Jesus as Messiah.

Mark 14:61-64

Quote:
Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

See above. The high priest asks him if he is the Messiah and Jesus says yes. He then says that they will see Jesus, as Messiah, sitting in judgement of them at God's right hand, which the priest declares this blasphemy. Nowhere in this exchange does Jesus declare himself God. "Messiah" doesn't not equal "God"

Luke 22:66-71

Quote:
When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying, "If You are the Christ, tell us." But He said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask a question, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God." And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am." Then they said, "What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth."

This is the same story as the one above. Again, Jesus declares himself the Messiah, not God.

John 10:27-38

John is not one of the earlier, Synoptic Gospels. It is later and it represents the beginning of the idea that Jesus is not simply the Messiah but is also in some sense divine. This is a departure from the Jewish conception of the Messiah which we find in the earlier gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. By the time John was written (in the very late First Century or early Second Century) Christianity was moving quite some distance from its Jewish origins and developing many non-Jewish ideas about who and what Jesus was.

Titus 2:11-14

Quote:
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Titus is generally dated to somewhere between 100-150 AD and so, like John, represents a later period in Christological development.

2 Peter 1:1-3

Quote:
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.

2 Peter is also a later work - usually dated to somewhere between 100-160 AD.

Romans 9:3-5

Quote:
For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

That is how many translations render that last sentence, but there is a lot of debate about whether that is actually what it means. As even the (highly conservative) NIV translation notes, it can also be read as "and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised!" or perhaps and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!" Keep in mind that the manuscripts have little to no punctuation and what we read in our modern translations is often guesswork.

Philippians 2:5-11

Quote:
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This is the closest we get to a passage in Paul that seems to indicate Jesus as equal to God, but this one only seems so because of the way it has been translated by Christians. A lot of ink has been spilled over the translation of two key words in this passage, mainly because the translation that gives us the idea of Jesus leaving behind equality with God and becoming man requires some pretty strained interpretations.

Let's look at what Paul actually wrote. To begin with, the Christian translation of the Greek word (h)arpamagos to mean "to be grasped" is highly contrived. The word actually means "seized" and derives from a noun meaning "plunder, booty taken in war, loot seized by force". So the sense is not "to be grasped" at all, but "to be seized", "to be stolen", "to be taken by force". And that changes the meaning of the whole passage. Paul is not saying "Jesus didn't choose to retain his equality with God but chose to obediently become man". Rather, he is saying "Jesus didn't try to seize equality with God but chose obedience to God instead". The whole passage is about obedience and Paul uses Jesus' obedience and subservience to God as his example, with an implied contrast with another heavenly being who did try to seize equality with God - Satan.

The whole passage, therefore, emphasises that Jesus is not equal to God at all but is obediently subsurvient to him. The word translated here as "nature" is another piece of creative Christian translation. The Greeks had a fairly precise vocabularly when it came to these kinds of concepts and if Paul had meant "nature, intrinsic being" he would have used a more precise word like phusis. If, on the other hand, he had meant "outward appearance, physical shape" he would have used a word like eikon. But instead the word he uses is morphe.

Much ink has been spilled by Christian translators and commentators not only on what this word might mean in this context but on how it can mean "nature". And they've spilled a lot of ink on that point precisely because it is very difficult to make morphe mean anything of the sort. After pages of discussion in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the Greek Language the editor has to conclude that is a very imprecise word and cannot
be forced into any kind of defined metaphysical interpretation. We simply don't know what Paul means by morphe.

But we do know what (h)arpamagos means - it means "seized, taken by force" and NOT "retained, held onto, grasped". So this passage does not mean Jesus was equal with God, quite the opposite.

And that means that the only texts you've presented that actually do indicate Jesus as God or equal to God are ones from the very end of the First Century or early Second Century. In other words, in precisely the late texts that we would expect to see this stage of the evolution of Christian ideas about Jesus. We don't see any such indications in the earlier texts; ie in Paul's epistles and the synoptic gospels.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I will copy my post from the other thread as I didn't see this one when I posted.


You may not agree with Christianity, but Christians have always considered Jesus as God.

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God." -John 20:28

"Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." -Romans 9:5.

"and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." -1 Timothy 3:16

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; " -Titus 2:13

"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:" -2 Peter 1:1

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am [the name of God from Exodus]." -John 8:58

Need I post more? Jesus also forgives sins, raises the dead, heals the sick, and does miracles by his own power. The Jews several times accused him of blasphemy for forgiving sins. There are many hundreds of passages of scripture that call Jesus God either directly or indirectly. I tried to choose a handful of the clearest passages, but there are many, many more. Plus, even the Jewish scriptures call the soon-coming Christ God.

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." -Isaiah 9:6. There are man more examples of this as well.



Plus names like Son of God and things clearly imply divinity, which the Jews of that day understood.

And all of the early Church writers immediately after the Apostles call Jesus God directly. I have their works in my bookshelf, and I'm sure you can find them online as well. These were both Gentiles and Jews. I really don't see how you can make up this absurd idea that Christians didn't think Jesus was God until somebody just made it up.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

You may not agree with Christianity, but Christians have always considered Jesus as God.

Then why are none of your quotes from the earliest strata of Christian texts, only from the latest ones? Why nothing from the texts that are generally recognised as genuine works by Paul or from the synoptic gospels?

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God." -John 20:28

That's a late text.

"Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." -Romans 9:5.

I've answered this one above - that's simply some creative punctuation.

"and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." -1 Timothy 3:16

Another late work - generally dated to 100-150 AD.

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; " -Titus 2:13

Another late work - also dated to 100-150 AD.

"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:" -2 Peter 1:1

Another late work - dated to 100-160 AD

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am [the name of God from Exodus]." -John 8:58

Again, a late text.

Need I post more?

Yes, actually, you do. The title of the thread is "Did Paul and the Synoptic Gospels depict Jesus as God?" You've cited nothing other than non-Pauline, pseudoepigraphical and non-synoptic material. In other words, nothing but late material.

Jesus also forgives sins, raises the dead, heals the sick, and does miracles by his own power.

As was expected of the Messiah. These things don't make him God. There were also other Jewish 'hasid of the time who healed, did miracles and forgave sins.

The Jews several times accused him of blasphemy for forgiving sins.

Actually, they are depicted as doing so once - in the story of the healing of the paralytic. The scribes etc object to him saying he would heal the man by forgiving his sins on the grounds that only God could do this. Jesus replies "I'll show you that the Son of Man (ie the Messiah) can forgive sins" and heals the man. He's showing them that they are wrong and that the Messiah can also forgive sins, not just God. He's not claiming to be God here, he's claiming to be the Messiah.

There are many hundreds of passages of scripture that call Jesus God either directly or indirectly.

Then why can't you find any from Paul and from the synoptics? Why are all the passages which really do this late ones? Why? Because it took some time for this conception of Jesus as God to evolve.

I tried to choose a handful of the clearest passages, but there are many, many more.

Let's see them then.

Plus, even the Jewish scriptures call the soon-coming Christ God.

The soon-coming Messiah. Different thing.

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." -Isaiah 9:6. There are man more examples of this as well.

Funny then how Jews, then and now, didn't interpret this passage that way. Why do you think that is?

Plus names like Son of God and things clearly imply divinity, which the Jews of that day understood.

Ummm, sorry, but they do not "clearly" imply anything of the sort. And all the evidence indicates that Jews of that day didn't interpret them that way at all - otherwise King David would also be divine. You don't seem to have a good grasp of the relevant evidence here.

And all of the early Church writers immediately after the Apostles call Jesus God directly. I have their works in my bookshelf, and I'm sure you can find them online as well.

Yes, the idea that he was God had begun to develop by the very late First Century and this gathered pace in the Second Century. Though it took hundreds of years of conflict and debate to work out the details. What we don't see is any sign of this idea in the earliest Christian texts - in the genuine epistles of Paul and the synoptic gospels. And that's because this idea had not yet evolved at that stage.

I really don't see how you can make up this absurd idea that Christians didn't think Jesus was God until somebody just made it up.

No-one said they "just made it up". Religious ideas evolve and change. They do so today and they did so then.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Then why are none of your quotes from the earliest strata of Christian texts, only from the latest ones? Why nothing from the texts that are generally recognised as genuine works by Paul or from the synoptic gospels?

So you are going to pick and choose what you think are "earliest," and discard the rest? That is not very responsible of you. I would like to know by what method you discard the works that disagree with your fancy and keep the rest.

That's a late text.

John is a later text, but no later than the first century. And he was with Jesus himself, so I should not regard the "lateness" of the text as showing changes in the religion, but rather shows its continuity of doctrine across the years with the same people who were there in the beginning.

I've answered this one above - that's simply some creative punctuation.

No its not. That is what it says, plain and simple. You can take any English sentence and try to wiggle out of its meaning by translating it into another language, but you cannot avoid such a clear reference as this without throwing out any common sense or literary decency (which few today have).

Another late work - generally dated to 100-150 AD.

Timothy is hardly a late work, being written no later than the late 60's or early 70's by the man who basically converted the whole gentile world single-handedly (an overstatement I know, but Paul was very influential). And this is yet again another clear, unarguable reference to Jesus being fully divine.

Another late work - also dated to 100-150 AD.

Likewise, Titus was written about the same time as 1st and 2nd Timothy. And its again another clear, point-blank reference to Jesus being God.

Another late work - dated to 100-160 AD

Likewise 2nd Peter was written around the 60's. I would like to see who these people are who date a work over a hundred years after the author has died

Yes, actually, you do. The title of the thread is "Did Paul and the Synoptic Gospels depict Jesus as God?" You've cited nothing other than non-Pauline, pseudoepigraphical and non-synoptic material. In other words, nothing but late material.

Umm, you do realize that 1st & 2nd Timothy, Titus, and Romans were written by Paul, right? And I would consider Peter just as much of an authority on the matter, as he walked with Jesus personally.

As was expected of the Messiah. These things don't make him God. There were also other Jewish 'hasid of the time who healed, did miracles and forgave sins.

Show me some references to these men, especially those who forgave sins

Actually, they are depicted as doing so once - in the story of the healing of the paralytic. The scribes etc object to him saying he would heal the man by forgiving his sins on the grounds that only God could do this. Jesus replies "I'll show you that the Son of Man (ie the Messiah) can forgive sins" and heals the man. He's showing them that they are wrong and that the Messiah can also forgive sins, not just God. He's not claiming to be God here, he's claiming to be the Messiah.

I am afraid I will have to disagree with your interpretation. Only God can forgive sins, as any orthodox Jew or Christian will affirm.

Then why can't you find any from Paul and from the synoptics? Why are all the passages which really do this late ones? Why? Because it took some time for this conception of Jesus as God to evolve.

Hmm, because I did from Paul, and the synoptics reference it all the time, espcially by calling him the Son of God and telling of his virgin birth, life, and resurrection etc. The whole book screams Jesus is God (the Son of God, not to be confused with God the Father or the Holy Spirit).

Let's see them then.

I think you can find them easily enough online, but I can link some articles if you want me to. Its just a hassle to post huge lists of verses on here.

Funny then how Jews, then and now, didn't interpret this passage that way. Why do you think that is?

Because the Jews are as blind as the Supreme Court justices who read the Constitution? I can't help it if the passage says point-blank that the Messiah/Christ will be the Almighty God and Everlasting Father yet the Jews reject their own scriptures.

Ummm, sorry, but they do not "clearly" imply anything of the sort. And all the evidence indicates that Jews of that day didn't interpret them that way at all - otherwise King David would also be divine. You don't seem to have a good grasp of the relevant evidence here.

I would argue that they do, and the weight of history--both of tradition and historical writings--are on my side. Thus, I would expect you to show some proof contradicting the received position showing that "all the evidence indicates that the Jews didn't interpret them that way at all."

Yes, the idea that he was God had begun to develop by the very late First Century and this gathered pace in the Second Century. Though it took hundreds of years of conflict and debate to work out the details. What we don't see is any sign of this idea in the earliest Christian texts - in the genuine epistles of Paul and the synoptic gospels. And that's because this idea had not yet evolved at that stage.

This is nonsense. Do you know how serious it would be for a Jew to claim that a mortal man was God without substantial reason, and especially in such great numbers as they did? This sort of thing doesn't just "evolve." Judaism had been monotheistic for thousands of years and wasn't about to just start "evolving" by adding deities that suited their fancies. The belief that Jesus was the divine Son of God stands from the very earliest writings that we have all the way to the present. You can read all the old letters and councils, and they all affirm the same truth, That there is one God, the Father Almighty the maker of heaven and earth, and Jesus the Christ his only begotten Son, by whom and through whom all things were made and all things consist. I would like to see some evidence of this "evolving" of the Christian religion's fundamental doctrine about Christ before you throw this accusation around so lightly. What they said in the 1st century was the same as what they said in the 2nd and 3rd. Show some evidence if you think otherwise.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

So you are going to pick and choose what you think are "earliest," and discard the rest? That is not very responsible of you. I would like to know by what method you discard the works that disagree with your fancy and keep the rest.

I'm not choosing and discarding anything. I'm working from the accepted scholarly consensus on which works are genuine Pauline texts and which are pseudepigraphical ones written later in his name. And it just so happens that the later ones are where you find the references to Jesus being God whereas the genuinely early ones contain no such thing. This should be telling you something about how and when that idea evolved.

John is a later text, but no later than the first century.

John has an accepted date range of 90-120 AD. You can read a summary of the reasoning behind that dating here. Argue with the scholarship if you want, but I think I'll stick with a consensus of over 200 years of study on the matter.

And he was with Jesus himself, so I should not regard the "lateness" of the text as showing changes in the religion, but rather shows its continuity of doctrine across the years with the same people who were there in the beginning.

That would be fine if "he" wrote the gospel in question. But we know it was written by others. How do we know? Read the Gospel of John's final chapter - it tells us so.

I've answered this one above - that's simply some creative punctuation.

No its not. That is what it says, plain and simple. You can take any English sentence and try to wiggle out of its meaning by translating it into another language, but you cannot avoid such a clear reference as this without throwing out any common sense or literary decency (which few today have).

Romans wasn't written in English, it was written in Koine Greek. And the manuscripts of the text don't have any punctuation (the older manuscripts didn't even have spaces between words) - those are editorial guesses. Finally, even the most conservative modern translations (like the NIV) acknowledge this and note that Romans 9:5 can be read several ways.

Timothy is hardly a late work, being written no later than the late 60's or early 70's by the man who basically converted the whole gentile world single-handedly (an overstatement I know, but Paul was very influential). And this is yet again another clear, unarguable reference to Jesus being fully divine.

If you want to believe what's convenient for your argument and ignore a couple of centuries of scholarship on the matter, sure. But unfortunately there are only seven Pauline epistles which are fully accepted as authentic:

1. Romans
2. Philippians
3. Galatians
4. Philemon
5. First Corinthians
6. Second Corinthians
7. First Thessalonians

They are all considered to have been written sometime in the period between 50-60 AD. There are four which are generally considered to be pseudepigraphical, non-Pauline works on linguistic, stylistic and internal content grounds:

1. First Timothy
2. Second Timothy
3. Titus
4. Ephesians

Ephesians is thought to date from 80-100 AD and the others from 100-150 AD. Opinion is divided about the authenticity of Colossians and Second Thessalonians.

Likewise, Titus was written about the same time as 1st and 2nd Timothy. And its again another clear, point-blank reference to Jesus being God.

Both of which are non-Pauline and Second Century.

Likewise 2nd Peter was written around the 60's. I would like to see who these people are who date a work over a hundred years after the author has died

Peter didn't write that letter - see a summary of the scholarship on the matter here.

Umm, you do realize that 1st & 2nd Timothy, Titus, and Romans were written by Paul, right?

Umm, no I realise that the scholarship indicates they weren't.

And I would consider Peter just as much of an authority on the matter, as he walked with Jesus personally.

The person who wrote 1Peter, however, did not.

Show me some references to these men, especially those who forgave sins

The connection between sin and sickness was an accepted one in the Judaism of Jesus' time and we have other evidence that the idea that the forgiveness of sin could heal. One of the Dead Sea Scroll texts, the "Prayer of Nabonidus", is one example, referring to the prophet Daniel:

"I was afflicted with an evil ulcer for seven years ... and a gazer pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from among the children of Judah and he said 'Recount this in writing to glorify and exalt the name of the most high God."

I am afraid I will have to disagree with your interpretation. Only God can forgive sins, as any orthodox Jew or Christian will affirm.

That's what the scribes say, but Jesus disagrees with them and says that he will heal the paralytic "to show you that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins". If he was showing them he was God he would be agreeing with them. But he disagrees and goes on to prove him wrong.

Hmm, because I did from Paul,

Nope. None of your texts were from any of the accepted Pauline epistles apart from Romans, and that one is simply an artefact of modern Christian editing and punctuation.

and the synoptics reference it all the time, espcially by calling him the Son of God

"Son of God" doesn't mean God. You can't just assume that it does and then use that assumption to support the conclusion that maintains your assumption in the first place.

and telling of his virgin birth, life, and resurrection etc

All of which fits with him being the Messiah, but none of which requires him to be God. Just God's (literal) right hand man.

The whole book screams Jesus is God (the Son of God, not to be confused with God the Father or the Holy Spirit).

Only because you are reading 1900 years of Christian ideas into it.

I think you can find them easily enough online, but I can link some articles if you want me to. Its just a hassle to post huge lists of verses on here.

Since you've failed to post even one verse that supports the idea that Paul and the Synoptic Gospels depict Jesus as God so far, now might be a good time to go to the "hassle" of doing so.

Because the Jews are as blind as the Supreme Court justices who read the Constitution?

Yes, those silly old Jews. After all, what would they know about their own scriptures?

I can't help it if the passage says point-blank that the Messiah/Christ will be the Almighty God and Everlasting Father yet the Jews reject their own scriptures.

They understand their scriptures just fine. The passage in question is about the Jewish king Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz. And the phrase "the mighty God" is a traditional Semitic title for a king. It's figurative - a bit like saying he's "a lion" or "a light to his people". That doesn't mean the king is actually a big cat or a lamp-post.

I would argue that they do, and the weight of history--both of tradition and historical writings--are on my side. Thus, I would expect you to show some proof contradicting the received position showing that "all the evidence indicates that the Jews didn't interpret them that way at all."

"The Bible mentions three types of sons of God: (a) heavenly or angelic beings, (b) Israelites or the people of Israel as such and (c) kings of Israel."
(Vermes, Jesus the Jew, p. 194)

Over the next 20 pages of analysis, Vermes goes over Old Testament, Dead Sea Scroll and other Jewish material to show that the concept of the "Son of God" developed into a title for the Messiah thanks to a conflation of meanings (a) and (c).

This is nonsense. Do you know how serious it would be for a Jew to claim that a mortal man was God without substantial reason, and especially in such great numbers as they did?

Yes. Which is why this concept didn't develop until Christianity began to be adopted by more and more non-Jews, who were used to the concept of god-men and "sons of gods". The Jewish communities of early Christians resisted this, as we see in the remnants of those communities like the Ebionites, who simply saw Jesus as the Messiah, not as God.

This sort of thing doesn't just "evolve."

Yes, it does. Look at Mormonism. Look at the Jehovah's Witnesses. New religions evolve out of old ones all the time.

Judaism had been monotheistic for thousands of years and wasn't about to just start "evolving" by adding deities that suited their fancies.

Which is why this evolution happened amongst non-Jews. See above.

The belief that Jesus was the divine Son of God stands from the very earliest writings that we have all the way to the present.

The "very earliest writings" are Paul and the Synoptic Gospels. You've yet to produce a single piece of evidence from them that Jesus was regarded as anything other than the Messiah.

You can read all the old letters and councils, and they all affirm the same truth, That there is one God, the Father Almighty the maker of heaven and earth, and Jesus the Christ his only begotten Son, by whom and through whom all things were made and all things consist.

Because they came later.

I would like to see some evidence of this "evolving" of the Christian religion's fundamental doctrine about Christ before you throw this accusation around so lightly. What they said in the 1st century was the same as what they said in the 2nd and 3rd. Show some evidence if you think otherwise.

You've been given it. What you need to do is come up with some evidence that he was considered God from Romans, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, First Thessalonians or the Synoptics. So far you've failed to do so. And that's because this idea simply doesn't appear in that earliest strata of textual evidence. Because it hadn't evolved yet.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I'm not choosing and discarding anything. I'm working from the accepted scholarly consensus on which works are genuine Pauline texts and which are pseudepigraphical ones written later in his name. And it just so happens that the later ones are where you find the references to Jesus being God whereas the genuinely early ones contain no such thing. This should be telling you something about how and when that idea evolved.

These men don't know anymore than you or I about which ones are legit and which ones aren't. Just because they have a lot of letters after their names doesn't make them right. They are just picking and choosing the ones they like and discarding the rest, so that they can claim Christianity changed or is false or what-not.

John has an accepted date range of 90-120 AD. You can read a summary of the reasoning behind that dating here. Argue with the scholarship if you want, but I think I'll stick with a consensus of over 200 years of study on the matter.

Thats a silly site and doesn't prove anything other than advance their anti-Christian agenda. Their reasons are silly and not even worth debate, honestly. I can read the actual book and find out the truth, not what some half-brained "scholars" claim. John couldn't have been written much later than the 90's, else John would be dead by then. And I think I will stick with the consensus of 1,800 years of scholarship on this issue and say John wrote it

That would be fine if "he" wrote the gospel in question. But we know it was written by others. How do we know? Read the Gospel of John's final chapter - it tells us so.

What? If you are being serious, the Gospel says that John wrote it.

"Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

Romans wasn't written in English, it was written in Koine Greek. And the manuscripts of the text don't have any punctuation (the older manuscripts didn't even have spaces between words) - those are editorial guesses. Finally, even the most conservative modern translations (like the NIV) acknowledge this and note that Romans 9:5 can be read several ways.

First, the passage read like this without pronunciation: Whose are the fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Amen. I don't see how that offers any other interpertation by simply removing the commas. You are simply trying to wiggle out of a clear reference to Jesus as divine to suit your views.

Secondly, the NIV is a garbage traslation and you shouldn't even mention the name in a serious Bible question. Its hardly a "conservative" version, and is full of translational errors from cover to cover, as well as using corrupt Greek documents for the New Testament.

There are four which are generally considered to be pseudepigraphical, non-Pauline works on linguistic, stylistic and internal content grounds:

1. First Timothy
2. Second Timothy
3. Titus
4. Ephesians

Ephesians is thought to date from 80-100 AD and the others from 100-150 AD. Opinion is divided about the authenticity of Colossians and Second Thessalonians.

Both of which are non-Pauline and Second Century.

Peter didn't write that letter - see a summary of the scholarship on the matter here.

Umm, no I realise that the scholarship indicates they weren't.

The person who wrote 1Peter, however, did not.

I'm sorry, but this is a load of garbage, to be frank. Paul wrote the epistles that bear his name, as did Peter. There were a lot of fake epistles in the 1st and 2nd century, and people knew which ones were real and which were not. I don't need some stupid 20th century "scholar" to tell me otherwise when I can see clearly for myself that they were written by the same man, as well as the testimony of the Church for almost 2,000 years on this matter.

These guys are hardly legitimate scholars, but that is a different debate, and deserves its own thread. But if you won't accept that half the Bible is real, I don't see how you expect to have a debate. You conveniently throw out the references to Jesus as God, and claim that the secondary references don't really mean that. So this isn't much of a debate, honestly.

The connection between sin and sickness was an accepted one in the Judaism of Jesus' time and we have other evidence that the idea that the forgiveness of sin could heal. One of the Dead Sea Scroll texts, the "Prayer of Nabonidus", is one example, referring to the prophet Daniel:

"I was afflicted with an evil ulcer for seven years ... and a gazer pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from among the children of Judah and he said 'Recount this in writing to glorify and exalt the name of the most high God."

That is not from Jesus' day, so I'm still waiting on those names.

Secondly, if you read the whole part it says : "I, Nabonidus, was afflicted with an evil ulcer for seven years, and far from men I was driven, until I prayed to the most high God. And an exorcist pardoned my sins."

The context clearly shows that he means that after he prayed, the exorcist (I guess supposed to be Daniel in this case?) came and told him that his sins were forgiven, not that the man actually forgave his sins. But this is inconsequential, as this is not part of the Biblical canon anyways.

That's what the scribes say, but Jesus disagrees with them and says that he will heal the paralytic "to show you that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins". If he was showing them he was God he would be agreeing with them. But he disagrees and goes on to prove him wrong.

No, he says that he will forgive the man, then the scribes think "who can forgive sins but God?" But to show that he truly does have the authority to forgive sins, he heals his physical ailment, demonstrating that he is indeed the Son of Man, who is also the Son of God, the savior of the world. So there is nothing wrong with my interpretation. Jesus is not disagreeing with them that he is divine; the Jews didn't understand that Jesus was divine, yet not the Father. Thus, they thought it blasphemy if the Son (of God, who is divine) forgave sins, when Jesus clearly shows them that he has the authority to do so by healing the fellow.

"Son of God" doesn't mean God. You can't just assume that it does and then use that assumption to support the conclusion that maintains your assumption in the first place.

If I am a son of a man, what am I (assuming I am not adopted)? I am a man. What is the Son of God, but God? They are not the same "person" (if you understand me), but are of the same essence, just as men beget men, so God begets divinity. That is not an assumption; that is common sense, and you will have to prove your assumption that it does not mean that.

All of which fits with him being the Messiah, but none of which requires him to be God. Just God's (literal) right hand man.

If there was no divinity in the birth of Jesus, there would have been no need for the virgin birth, nor could he have redeemed fallen mankind and rose from the dead by his own power. As the Scripture says: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." -John 10:17-18.

Only because you are reading 1900 years of Christian ideas into it.

And you are reading 200 years of atheist ideas into it.

Yes, those silly old Jews. After all, what would they know about their own scriptures?

The Jews have a lot of silly ideas all throughout their beliefs of the Torah, so I this shouldn't be surprising, honestly. Just because people are blind doesn't mean the sun isn't there. But enough Jews must have believed the passage to convert in such large numbers to the true Judaism, Christianity, in the 1st century.

"The Bible mentions three types of sons of God: (a) heavenly or angelic beings, (b) Israelites or the people of Israel as such and (c) kings of Israel."
(Vermes, Jesus the Jew, p. 194)

Those are true, as the angels and people of God were made by him (indeed, all men were, but some loose the dignity of their title through wickedness), so they can be said to be "sons of God," but not the Son of God, which is what title Jesus claims.

Yes. Which is why this concept didn't develop until Christianity began to be adopted by more and more non-Jews, who were used to the concept of god-men and "sons of gods". The Jewish communities of early Christians resisted this, as we see in the remnants of those communities like the Ebionites, who simply saw Jesus as the Messiah, not as God.

Most Christians were Jews into the late 1st century and probably still the 2nd century. The apostles where Jews, as were many of their followers. They took their religion (seperately, I might add) from India to Ibera, from Gaul to Ethiopia, all teaching the same thing. Read Acts to see some of the contention the Jews and Gentiles had, such as the issue of following the ceremonial law and such. But Christology factors nowhere into it.

The Ebionites were a small group heretics, just like the Arians (who were Gentiles, I might add) who abandoned the orthodox faith, and are hardly a good example of what Christians believed. I really don't see how you can argue that the whole Christian Church, including thousands of Jews all across the world, and especially at Jerusalem, slowly adopted Jesus as God less than a hundred years after he died. This is quite frankly, silly. Maybe if you said by the 300's, but there is even less evidence to support that, so you are probably wise in not doing so

Yes, it does. Look at Mormonism. Look at the Jehovah's Witnesses. New religions evolve out of old ones all the time.

These religions were dreamed up and started in the 19th century, they didn't slowly "evolve" at all.

[Ummon]

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I AM," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" (Mark 14:61-63)

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I AM," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" (Mark 14:61-63)

This is discussed in the first post of this thread.

[Ummon]

I am is a rather interesting first part of the sentence. An isolated verbal form, in Hebrew (if we are to compare the greek text with hebrew) Ehyeh (original אהיה in greek 'ειμί). Which is also, one of the three names of God given to Moses. It is also very interesting, that the description goes on with "at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven".

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I am is a rather interesting first part of the sentence. An isolated verbal form, in Hebrew (if we are to compare the greek text with hebrew) Ehyeh. Which is also, one of the three names of God given to moses.

Er, yes. So anytime Jesus is depicted as using the first person of the verb "to be", he's clearly claiming to be God. Good luck with that "interesting" interpretation.

It is also very interesting, that the description goes on with "at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven".

As was expected of the Messiah. And the idea that the Messiah is sitting at God's right hand makes rather more sense than God sitting at ... ummm ... his own right hand. Somehow. Perhaps he's a skilled contortionist.

[Ummon]

If the use is isolated, of course this may arise as a question. Given also that, in John, the repetition of I am is one of the topoi used to assert Jesus' divinity.

Besides, in Ezekiel's vision of the throne of God, you don't see God, but four angels/pillars of fire. It is unfortunate that given God is unrepresentable, representing Him may give rise to paradoxes.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

If the use is isolated, of course this may arise as a question.

It isn't "isolated" here - look at the context:

Q. "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
A. "I am."

Your interpretation is fanciful and contrived.

Given also that, in John, the repetition of I am is one of the topoi used to assert Jesus' divinity.

The usage in John is totally different. "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58)

Besides, in Ezekiel's vision of the throne of God, you don't see God, but four angels/pillars of fire. It is unfortunate that given God is unrepresentable, representing Him may give rise to paradoxes.

The writer of Revelation didn't seem to have a problem. The fact remains that the passage you are trying to hang this contorted argument from depicts Jesus talking about two figures: "the Mighty One" and "the Son of Man" and he only identifies himself with the latter. Any idea that he is somehow both makes zero sense and is simply projecting a Christian idea onto the text.

Not to be off-topic but you guys may now. I remember seeing a group before 3rd century that believed Jesus to be a simply a prophet. Did this group have a name?

The Ebionites. They remained devout Jews, regarded Jesus as the Messiah and not as God and their leaders claimed descent from Jesus' brother James and his cousin Simeon. They seem to be a remnant of the original Jesus Sect that didn't go off on the Gentile, non-Jewish tangent that elevated Jesus to the status of God and are more evidence that this was an idea that evolved and was not original to Jesus' first followers.

[PointOfViewGun]

Not to be off-topic but you guys may now. I remember seeing a group before 3rd century that believed Jesus to be a simply a prophet. Did this group have a name?

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

Every human is the Son of God. What's your point, ThiudareiksGunthigg?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Every human is the Son of God. What's your point, ThiudareiksGunthigg?

*Pats the tiny little troll on the head* That's nice sonny, but the grown-ups are trying to have a conversation. Run along and play with your silly little polls now like a good lad.

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

*Pats the tiny little troll on the head* That's nice sonny, but the grown-ups are trying to have a conversation. Run along and play with your silly little polls now like a good lad.

Ah, so condescending, I feel honoured, that I was called a troll by someone who is trolling theists and religious people in each and every of his EMM threads.

Ontopic: are you saying we, as humans, creations of God are isolated from God? If not, how can you claim Jesus wasn't God's son? You are the son of God, too even though your inability to grasp basic truths hinders you from recognizing this fact.

[Burnum]

You're ThiudareiksGunthigg, the early Christians didn't believe in the Trinity or that Jesus(pbuh) was God.

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. Mark 10.18

[PointOfViewGun]

You're ThiudareiksGunthigg, the early Christians didn't believe in the Trinity or that Jesus(pbuh) was God.

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. Mark 10.18

Just want to add what happened before Jesus said that:

Jesus came upon the hill facing the crowd. He looked down and started spreading the word of God.
The crowd looked upon him in complete astonishment. They were shocked.
One of them raised a hand and take the word himself and said: "Man! You're good!"
Then Jesus continued and asked the man: "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."

[Ummon]

You're ThiudareiksGunthigg, the early Christians didn't believe in the Trinity or that Jesus(pbuh) was God.

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. Mark 10.18

That is not correct either. No one is good except God. This doesn't mean that Jesus is not part of God, merely that Jesus doesn't advocate to himself the nature of root, which is not his own.

[Orko]

Every human is the Son of God. What's your point, ThiudareiksGunthigg?

Just call him 'Thiu'