How did a Jewish Rabbi (Jesus Christ) end up to be "son" of God?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Picture, Dec 28, 2006.

  1. Picture Banned Banned

    Messages:
    37
    At what point did the early/later Christians decided that he was not human?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    In the fictional accounts of jesus, he is human. Just divinely endowed (according to the local harlots).

    I think it was the roman empire of the first few centuries CE that firmly decreed that the jesus character was the 'son' of god.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Except he was never a Rabbi.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346

    *************
    M*W: Somewhere between 325 AD and 400 AD. The 'story' of Jesus had him crucified, died and risen, as divine, but Jesus wasn't believed to be divine until the early church fathers declared him to be divine between the years shown above.
     
  8. Iasion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    348
    Greetings,

    Pardon?

    Paul certainly saw Jesus as divine in mid 1st century.

    The Gospel of John describes Jesus as divine in late 1st C, G.Matthew and G.Luke arguably too.

    The Gnostics saw Jesus as some sort of divine entity in 2nd century - many describing him as a "phantasm" or spirit being, many others denying he ever came to earth in the flesh.

    Many early Church fathers describe Jesus as divine in the early years without any mention of a historial life - e.g. 1 John, Naassene fragment, Hermas, to Diognetus, Ptolemy...

    Jesus STARTED as a divine spiritual entity - but only LATER was seen as a historical figure.


    Iasion
     
  9. nds1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    614
    Constantine 1 made Christianity legal in 313 with the Edict of Milan. Then, in 325 AD, The Council of Nicaea was held "to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same or merely of similar substance as God the Father."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
     
  10. Picture Banned Banned

    Messages:
    37
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I must agree with Iason here: the earliest accounts of Jesus - the Bible, in other words - do indeed strongly suggest his divine nature.
     
  12. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The earliest Christian writings are those of Paul, followed by the gospel of Mark...both of which describe Jesus as divine in some sense. Its definitely not a later theological development.

    What does the word 'Son' mean anyway. Does God have DNA?

    Is God male? What determines God's maleness?
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Devine, but not exclusively devine. Only in the sense that everyone is, and some don't recognize it.
     
  14. broadandbeaver 'Now I am become Death Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Those "books" that seemed to make Jesus devine where the ones incorporated in this thing we know as the bible about the time of the Council of Nicaea. After having made Jesus devine, the books that showed Jesus as a mere mortal were supressed.

    Was he devine? No. Was he a mere man? Yes and no. While he was a man born or woman, he was a messenger of the Most High.
     
  15. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The council of Nicea was not formed to agree upon an official canon of texts for inclusion into a bible. The evolution of what we call the new testament is something that continued for a few hundred years beyond the time of Constantine.

    Even in 1947 there was some controversy about how the last few verses of Mark in the new standard edition would be identified...verses which are now widely thought to be a much later interpolation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2006
  16. Alva Urbanus et instructus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    163

    Very interesting. Would you happen to have any texts on this?
     
  17. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Which ones?
     
  19. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: I do, actually, but I will have to provide a bibliography for you after a few days as I will be out of town.
     
  20. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: Dan Brown's book is not a credible document. The research he did was not original. He copied from others who did their homework on the subject.
     
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Ah yes - Baighent and Lincoln and their lot. Those silly buggers were exposed on the BBC about 2 years ago. The "Ordre de Sion" was essentially a winetasting club.
     
  22. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: I was thinking more along the lines of Laurence Gardner, Ian Campbell, David Wood, Clive Prince, et al. I would be interested to learn more about their "exposure."
     
  23. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    But isn't their stuff essentially more of the same? The old bloodline thingy?
     

Share This Page