Was Jesus made divine by humans?

A recent discussion that I had was interesting, where the question arose as to whether Jesus is/was "God" or he was made divine by Paul or by the Council of Nicea formed under Constantine. This has been a huge debate among many for years.  Jesus said , "During this very night, all of you will reject me, as the Scriptures say, 'I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.' (Mat 26:31) and this was to his own disciples. So, doubting Him, was something that even Jesus said would happen.The question is, whether the hypothesis presented is true. Was Jesus made divine by humans, did He claim to be divine, and then finally WAS He divine.

Needless to say, this is not something that can be diligently considered in one article, so I am going to try to approach this in several different articles. As such, I encourage you to follow them. This particular article will center on whether His disciples or Paul made Him Divine, or was it the Council of Nicea under Constantine that made Jesus divine.

The Council of Nicea in 321, arose partially because of what was known of as the Arian

controversy. Arius was a "presbyter" in Alexandria, who because of disputes over the words "begotten," "born" "created," "essence," "substance," nature," and "person" began to postulate that The Father alone was divine and since Jesus was "born" of a human mother he could not be divine or God.  The majority of the council argued against this, stating that the scriptures clearly stated Jesus' divinity therefore Arius' argument was rejected. The Council therefore adapted a "tenet" that Jesus was the "true Son of God" ergo divine, therefore as with Php.2:7-10 He was God. It was not the Council that made Him God, but they were simply agreeing with what was already in the scripture of that day (300's A.D.) and putting down an argument they considered to be in controversy to that. 

This brings us to another consideration in this, what were the scriptures between the first and third centuries?  It is a foregone conclusion, that the Old Testament as we have it in our own bibles today, was in existence even in the time of Jesus, and was quoted by Jesus and his Disciples in the New Testament. There were even Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek versions of the Old Testament that existed and were quoted within the time frame of the first century. But what about the New Testament (33 A.D.-100 A.D.)?  There has been much controversy over this as well, as well as many spurious books that came up in the latter first century through fourth centuries. All making their claim for a position to be recognized as "true" scripture. So, this section will deal with how do we establish the books of the New Testament and the second part of this shall be do they proclaim Jesus as God or divine.

What is called by scholars as the "canon" of the New Testament, are the 26 books or letters

that we have assembled in our bibles today. This was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of the Year 692, although it was universally accepted in the mid 300's to be the most accurate records of Jesus and his apostles. The "original" letters written by the apostles (gospels and letters) have not been authenticated of found. What we do have though are copies written by fellow Christians so that they could be circulated among the numerous churches of the day. The latest substantial find was in 2008, when 47 new manuscripts were discovered in Albania; at least seventeen of these were unknown to Western scholars. In 1937 a manuscript containing the majority of the letters written by Paul were discovered and are on display at housed in part at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland. While the earliest manuscript is dated to 175 A.D., it is interesting that Polycarp (69-156 AD) quoted from 2 Thessalonians, Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, Acts of the Apostles, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Epistle to the Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, 3 John. Paul is said to have  penned the letter to the Philippians in 62 A.D. which is only 29 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, and Polycarp is quoting this in the mid First Century. What is the point of all of this tracking and dating?  It shows that the text of Php.2:7-10 existed in the form that we have it without change or alteration. So it wasn't the Nicean Council that was proclaiming Jesus as God, they were quoting Paul who penned it in 62 A.D.

Now we come to another argument raised, that it was Paul that made Jesus "divine" and that before Paul neither Jesus or his apostles taught such. That - we shall examine in the next article. 

Jim

It's History - It's Scripture! God Talks!!

In ancient Greece the Olympic Games were held in the July of the first year of each

Mark Antony

Olympiad, which was a 4 year period that ran from July to June of each succeeding year. These were magnificent events of the day, just as they are in our modern times.  The 202nd Olympiad ran from July AD 29 to June AD 33 with each year of an Olympiad beginning on the 1st of July. July so renamed from the Roman term Quintilis by Mark Antony to honor Julius Caesar, who had reformed the Roman calendar in 46 B.C. to what became known as the Julian calendar. This is neat history, but why the significance in consideration of spiritual matters?

The resurrected Jesus in Acts 1, instructs his disciples not to leave Jerusalem – that they will be given power from the Holy Spirit by His authority. As previous in their history of walking with the Lord, they did not understand, wondering if Jesus was talking about something political. Yet, they obeyed the voice of their Lord. The Passover ended, the Jewish celebration of Pentecost, 50 days after the Passover Feast had begun. Jerusalem was full of worshipers from all over the known world of the day. The Bible records the events during this celebration in Acts 2. The sound of a great rushing wind, something like flames hovering about the disciples. Just as strange, the disciples began to speak, but not in their native Aramaic or Hebrew, but in languages of other nations that they had not learned. They were understood by countless foreign visitors to the city.  Hecklers shouted: “They’re all drunk!”  This is now when the now Apostle Peter stands in the confusion and speaks his famous sermon of which is recorded and we are all familiar. Peter argues from the words of the prophet Joel recorded in 835 BC (Joel 2; Acts 2).  Peter asserts that Joel’s prophesy has been fulfilled and that his listeners know it—that they have seen the signs themselves. This is the same argument the apostle Paul made in Rom.10:17, 18 and this would have no persuasive force unless Paul’s and Peter’s audiences knew that these things had occurred.  Both men assumed that everybody knew about the signs. Of particular interest for us: Joel said there would be astronomical signs. What were they? Peter states, “The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood…”

• The gospels record that the sun was darkened on the day of the crucifixion, beginning at noon and going until 3pm (Mk.15:33).
• The non-Biblical Roman sources confirm this. Phlegon Trallianus records in his history, Olympiades .. "In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, [AD 32–33] a failure of the Sun took place greater than any previously known, and night came on at the sixth hour of the day [noon], so that stars actually appeared in the sky; and a great earthquake took place in Bithynia and overthrew the greater part of Niceaea,” — TRALLIANUS, OLYMPIADES
• Another historian, Philipon (with Origen), confirms the historicity of Phlegon's statement by writing, "And about this darkness - Phlegon recalls it in the Olympiads...Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Christ, and no other (eclipse), it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times ...and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar."
• Julius Africanus, a Christian historian (160-240 A.D.) records, “On the whole world
  
  there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”

What do you think the odds are, that 

1. in the 800’s BC a man would speak of a day in which the Lord of all man would come, and its harbinger would be an eclipse and blood moon? 
2. That a Greek freed-man during the reign of Roman Emperor Hadrian writing of the Olympiads, would arbitrarily record of an eclipse in the same year as the gospels and Peter record in Acts, at the same time of the crucifixion, resurrection of the Lord and the events of Acts 2? 
3. Or, that a historian some 100 years after the fact, would reference the event correcting another man’s writing of it and call it an eclipse without reason for occurring?

This was obviously not a simple astronomical event. It is history – it is scripture. Think God is trying to tell us something?

Jim

So what's to lose?

Whether you believe or not, Paul (the former persecutor Saul of Tarsus [1]) wrote an amazing truth, "1 Cor 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Now, for the sake of the next few moments, please do not take that statement personally and quit reading. What he states is simple. To those who do not believe - the Bible, belief in the Bible, in the Christ and salvation that is offered is foolishness. This fact has been so for sometime. Even in the first century when Paul presented this to the magistrates of the day, he was told, "Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind (Acts 26:24)." Yet, to those who do believe, the gospel is the power of God to salvation.

This then brings up an interesting and age long question, "Should I believe?" Nothing compels me to believe, I have the right to choose whether I do or I don't. So, why should I believe? Belief is interesting, because if I choose to believe something, then it means that I have accepted it as factual and something to be adhered to. Even the choice NOT to believe, is believing NOT to accept something. All of these are based upon what I consider to be factual, plausible, and genuine to sustain that decision. I can believe the sky is green but that does not make it so. We believe it is blue, gray, black, or whatever color it is because the evidence of what we see tells us what is required to make that determination. When a scientist makes a claim, or a mathematician makes a claim, we ask for something because we don't just take their word for it. We ask for the evidence to sustain their conclusion.

Now, the question arises, why should I believe the story of Jesus, the resurrection and what that means? Good question. Because if this was just some wild hair loonie running around, we would dismiss the claims as the ludicrous ravings of a mad man. The problem though arises, that the events of Jesus are recorded in written form so they can be examined, and they are not things that were done in secret - they were done in the open. If just one or two had accepted, then Christianity would have disappeared like so many of the so called messianic movements of the first century. Yet, the Bible and what it presents to us is different. It has lasted for now over 2000 years. It is one thing, when the events are obscure, but, Jesus was a real person [2].

This now brings up an interesting paradox, where we have a historical person, viewed and reported on by multiple sources as claiming the same thing and verifying things that the Bible itself records. That tells us, that these things were not some "secret that came out," or "hidden revelation making itself known." Archaeology itself verifies the existence of the times and types of events that the Bible records. God Himself through Isaiah the prophet stated, "Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there. And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit. Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the way you should go (Isa.48:16,17)." Jesus even said of Himself, to Annas [3] the High Priest, one of the historical figures that history and archaeology records, "I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said (Jn.18:20,21)."

John also writes, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (Jn.20:30,31)." This is the purpose of the Bible. These things are written so that you can examine it for yourself and determine if you wish to believe what it says and records. Paul, appearing before Herod Agrippa and Porcius Festus (again two historical figures) in Acts 26:26,27 repeats the above stating, "For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe."

These were things done in the open, that even political figures some 15-20 years later knew about and had to weigh the evidence of what was stated, the same as we do. Someone might state, "Yes, and they didn't believe it either did they?" Well..that is correct. Not all of them did. Why? Because they judged the information foolish and brushed it off or dismissed it altogether. They just did not know that they would become part of the history of the story itself, verifying its authenticity.

Now, what about you? You don't have to believe...no one is making you believe. But - have you really considered the evidence, and the consequences of your choice if the things that the Bible says are true? Paul states it well in 1 Cor.15:12-17 "Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins."

So if its not true, you have nothing to lose. But if it IS true, then to not believe, you have everything to lose.

Jim

_________________________________________________________________

[1] Acts 7:58; 8:1; 13:9

[2] The first-century individuals mentioned in the gospel narratives, Pilate, Tiberius, Herod, Agrippa, Felix and others all existed. The Roman Historian Tacitus considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentions superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian, refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” In Antiquities 18:3 he states, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a later second-century Greek writer states that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Even the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus, and in fact we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annas