When was Jesus first considered to be God?

[polonius]

Many misunderstand the term "son of God" to mean Jesus. But actually, "son of God" was a common expression in the Old Testament which did not mean divinity.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In the Old Testament

The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship.

Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero, a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc.

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

So when was it claimed that Jesus was actually divine?

[onewithhim]

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 20 by onewithhim]

"...don't you think that if he thought Jesus was God Almighty he would have said as much? But he didn't say that. He said what everyone thought about Jesus and what Jesus claimed to be: THE SON of God. It is very clear."

Very clear indeed. When his foes wanted to stone him for "claiming to be God" or "claiming to be God's equal", Jesus corrects their misunderstanding.
He tells them that they themselves call the ancient judges "gods", so he reprimands them for condemning him for making the much more modest claim of merely being God's son.

In John, Jesus explicitly excludes himself from the Godhead in 17:3, where he says, "You [Father] are the only true God". Not Zeus. Not Apollo. Not Jesus. God the Father alone.

Jesus also says that he is only a man who has heard God's word and obeys it -and that he can do nothing of his own will, but only by the Father's command. Finally, at the resurrection, he tells Mary that he will be ascending to "my God" and to "your God". Thus identifying himself as a man, who along with Mary, has the same God.

And in any case, God does not ascend to God, hear God's word, obey God's word and exist utterly depedent on God.

God dependent and obedient to Himself? The notion that the Johannine Jesus was claiming to be God is replete with such absurdities.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 22 by steveb1]

I too must admit the "Trinity doctrine" is full of holes. Once I decided to examine my religion, I realized we are misled for the most part. I believe in the Father, son and holy spirit, I don't believe they are the same persona anymore.

[bjs]

That's pretty contorted of Jewish society, I would say. They were mistaken. Jesus did not claim to be God. The Jews were accusing him of that, but they were wrong.

So you think that I have contorted Jewish society and that the Jews, who were a part of that society, were wrong with they thought Jesus was claiming to be God.

You are claiming to know first century Jewish culture better than first century Jews. This is immensely unlikely. A far more likely and less convoluted explanation is that in first century Jewish culture claiming to be the son of God was claiming to be equal to God.

According the gospels that is what the first century Jews actually thought.

[2timothy316]

[polonius]

That's pretty contorted of Jewish society, I would say. They were mistaken. Jesus did not claim to be God. The Jews were accusing him of that, but they were wrong.

So you think that I have contorted Jewish society and that the Jews, who were a part of that society, were wrong with they thought Jesus was claiming to be God.

You are claiming to know first century Jewish culture better than first century Jews. This is immensely unlikely. A far more likely and less convoluted explanation is that in first century Jewish culture claiming to be the son of God was claiming to be equal to God.

According the gospels that is what the first century Jews actually thought.

QUESTION: Where in Matthew,Mark,or Luke, do you find Jesus claiming to be God?

But Jesus does admit that "The Father is greater than I." Hence Jesus in not coequal with God.

[marco]

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

But this is not a Greco Roman pantheon. The lines in Hebrew thinking between God and man are far more distinct.

No affirmatation from Jesus lips that he was God either. And regarding the denial, why refute something that was widely (or uinversally) assumed and considered a "given" by first century Jews in Palestine? Namely, that humans are not gods.

There would have been no need for a refutation before the doctrine of Jesus Divnity was formulated later, by the Church.

"Son of God" does not mean "God". Especially in New Testament times and before.

[marco]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

No affirmatation from Jesus lips that he was God either. And regarding the denial, why refute something that was widely (or uinversally) assumed and considered a "given" by first century Jews in Palestine? Namely, that humans are not gods.

There would have been no need for a refutation before the doctrine of Jesus Divnity was formulated later, by the Church.

"Son of God" does not mean "God". Especially in New Testament times and before.

The dominant culture, that of Rome, was deifying the top people. Talk of coming on the clouds, like Mercury, is confusing but then who witnessed him saying this precisely? I believe he was deified simply to grant him status and this created a problem for monotheism. Ergo Trinitas.

His position as a divinity probably gave power to the emerging Church though that power was many times multiplied when it had the weight of Rome behind it; then later the Spanish and British Empires spread the Good News. Were Jesus simply Billy Graham I doubt if we'd have such strong Christianity today.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

No affirmatation from Jesus lips that he was God either. And regarding the denial, why refute something that was widely (or uinversally) assumed and considered a "given" by first century Jews in Palestine? Namely, that humans are not gods.

There would have been no need for a refutation before the doctrine of Jesus Divnity was formulated later, by the Church.

"Son of God" does not mean "God". Especially in New Testament times and before.

The dominant culture, that of Rome, was deifying the top people. Talk of coming on the clouds, like Mercury, is confusing but then who witnessed him saying this precisely? I believe he was deified simply to grant him status and this created a problem for monotheism. Ergo Trinitas.

His position as a divinity probably gave power to the emerging Church though that power was many times multiplied when it had the weight of Rome behind it; then later the Spanish and British Empires spread the Good News. Were Jesus simply Billy Graham I doubt if we'd have such strong Christianity today.

Points well taken. I often forget that by this time Jewish culture was contaminated by Roman culture, and no doubt was already expriencing the compromise of subtle Paganism. This seems to have happened even before Paul' spread his watered down version of ethical monotheism to the Mediterranean masses.