Was Jesus declared divine posthumously?

i was considering this last night. maybe jesus never declared the he was divine. maybe it was all a conspiracy by a few of his followers to gain some power in the religious or political power structure. aside from the bible (which was written well after the death of jesus) we have no documents relating to jesus referring to himself as divine.

could it have been a conspiracy?

discuss!!!!

Do we have documents of Jesus before the bible, period?
Check this thread out, it might have something for you.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Mod Edit: Fixed Link.

[edit on 14/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]

I do not have any direct links and that kinda destroys my entire argument (espically here on ATS) but when Jesus awa alive there he drew quite a following and it upset many people. Most noteably the Roman Empire. We have letters from this time, from the romans, that speak of "this Jesus the alleged Messiah."

ANd besides the fact ath if you believe in the Old Test. Thats Jesus fufills the prophecies of the Prophets perfectly for what they said the messiah would do...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...... maybe jesus never declared the he was divine. ...

your right,
the person we are taught was the person Jesus
never said he was divine, even in the secretive meetings with
the inner circle of disciples, he only said he was "son of man"

if you can abide the 'angels' & shepherds at the manger-birth scene, where a group of 'angels' sang praise to 'Hosannah in the Highest',
or sang out the descriptive name 'Emmanuel'
(a scene described/proclaimed way later, after the Bethleham? nativity )

that was the initial stamp-of-approval and acclaimation that the
flesh-&-blood baby who was born... was a real Deity
(according to believers and organized churchdom)....

although prior to that natal event, lore & legend has it that
an Angel(s) told MotherMary that she would indeed conceive
a G-d sent child.

but did Jesus understand that he was 'the' son, or else 'a' son of the Israel tribal G-d..??
...i reckon he thought so,
but didn't make the commitment to wear the Messiah 'mantle' until he went out to the allegorical/physical desert
and had a head-to-head confrontation with the demon that sways mankind and the world in general.

a pretty well fashioned story, imo
~you do know, the whole idea is circular~

He was declared divine in 325 A.D. at the first Council of Nicaea when the Creed was first developed. Originally the Council of Nicaea was convened to combat heresies that were developing and to merge all Christians into one form of Catholicism by standardizing belief as laid out in the Creed.

www.newadvent.org...

in short, yes he was,

the divinity of christ wasn't established until the ''council of nicea'' in 325 AD. it was a close vote.

that doesn't mean he wasn't devine, i'm just answering the question, i hope it helps in your christian bashing, personally, i don't think that the date at which it was accepted that christ was devine has any bearing on his divinity but there's no point in not telling you.

nobody here cares to argue this one, is it because of lazyiness?
exhaustion?
or maybe it's because i've found the biggest chink in the armor of the world's most powerful religion?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
nobody here cares to argue this one, is it because of lazyiness?
exhaustion?

Perhaps...

Some of those who insist Jesus was God have just had some really good exercise for their rote arguments in a recent ATS or BTS thread.

Some have to need no argue this point--knowing that there is no argument.

Some just have no interest or concern in the subject at all.

or maybe it's because i've found the biggest chink in the armor of the world's most powerful religion?

I wouldn't get all that worked up about it; it has been found before and argued to exhaustion, many times over.

And the issue remains deadlocked, in a sense, because it is one of those everlasting standoffs that result from the situation of 'just enough bait to get a nibble' yet 'not enough to catch a fish' on either side. Mainly, IMHO, because of too much shoddy and assumptive scholastic disregard for what the bible actually says, as it is basically the only available supporting reference for either 'side', in this particular arena of contention.

Anyone who can read, who has an idea of what 'cross-reference' means and isn't afraid to crack open a dictionary and concordance, can easily investigate and discover, for themselves, the answer to the title question of this thread.

I sometimes wonder, in all seriousness, if such questions are really seeking a straight-up resolution, in either direction--because it seems to me that if they were, most people would use the usual tried-and-true methods of seeking answers: collection of information, compilation and comparison of said collection, followed by analytical thought processes which employ the use of logic, reason, and deduction. A few do go this route, however I have found that such a response is all but totally ignored.

It's far more readily answered with opinions and firmly grasped beliefs in sweaty palms that are often presented under the heading of 'biblical authority' or 'absolute truth' and sometimes inflate to the point of name-calling, vein-bursting, and a tad bit more narrowing of an already constricted perspective.

'Shake hands and come out fighting, gentlemen.' :shk:

The only true impact this issue has, in all actuality, is the detrimental effect it has upon all of us, by distracting and militarizing something that really is of no significance at all, especially when one seeks to prove it (or disprove it) at the expense of peace and goodwill with his neighbors--in essence making 'being right' more important that 'being righteous.'

Who cares who Jesus was if His words aren't even heard?

'Love your neighbor' is an infinitely wise admonishment no matter who says it--whether it be a man, God, or even a talking parrot with a name like 'Diablo' or 'Satan.'

I forgot something:

Whether or not Jesus was the promised Messiah has absolutely nothing to do with the question of Was He made God posthumously?

Messiah means anointed, nothing more or less.

maybe it's because i've found the biggest chink in the armor of the world's most powerful religion?

LOL if nothing else you are funny-please don't take that as an insult if you are being completely serious with no room for humor. I'm not familiar enough with you to know your personality as "the biggest Christian basher" or whatever was said, but I had to laugh at your bravado myself

...you don't really think *this* is the biggest chink in the Christian religeon? Questioning Jesus Christ's divinity by a timeline of when it was established by the people of the world? Or "His" church?

...or by his humble-and wise-refusal to state in no uncertain terms he was the divine son of God...that he was God made man?...well he did often enough...in many ways

His divinity must be a matter of faith, but it is also a matter of fact, as for a matter of record...well...thats just a demonstraton for the record isn't it? ...but as everything in faith-it's only accepted by believers for believers.

However no fact, demonstration, claim, nomenclature or title has ever converted a non believer into a believer in any religeon anyway, so facts along with such acts like establishing divinity FTR are entirely inconsequential IMHO.

They educate and give room for musing which are precursory to conversion through belief and faith and spiritual experience...

however the act and consideration of establishing His divinity, did not prove His divinity any more than the lack of it, prior to that, denied it.

His divinity is/was from the begining based on that He was prophsied of, He fullfilled prophecies, and He performed miracles...and died for NOT denying who He was...and was seen by many witnesses as living after His crucifiction marking him as an immortal that left an empty guarded tomb

I'd say long before it was established by followers after his death, first, his divinity was established unofficially when He acknowledged He was who was prophsied of, and referred to himself as the son of God...for instance as was recorded in the Bible

Holy Bible (KJV) John 8:54

"54": Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

Holy Bible (KJV) John 10:25

"25": Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

lets just suppose Jesus was one of the first consiracy theorists...and first reasons for major conspiracies-first real threat to the system of controling the mases of people...

and trying to enlighten them to think outside the box...open their eyes to what they were being force fed by the governments and organized religeous leaders and society they were living in...

..and challenging them to live and think differently...and promising them freedom from the bondage of their worldly life and herd-thinking to have a personal relationship with God outside of religeon

yes, thats right, that was His mission-to help them break free of the religious oppression and government control to know they belonged to a higher family, an ultimate authority, and they could commune directly with God...and undeerstand what it all meant

He knew there'd be a huge conspiracy against him, it was part of the reality of how the plan would play out...governements and religeons always want to play a part as some kind of intercessor for the people with God, and dictate to them what God wants them to do...

So he knew at every turn they'd be watching him, trying to trick him up...and they did try

tryied to prove him wrong somehow in his teachings or actions...or mere words

He knew *they* would turn the people against him, and try to mock him and his followers in attempts to discredit him as anyone special, or God-become-man, or God's son, or a prophet...or anyone other than a lunatic to be laughed at...

...and they did, the conspiracies against him were all based on "if He is God...or the son of God, or divine in any way...then why doesn't he prove it...where is the proof? If He is God, then why does he break God's laws and heal people on the Sabbath? AHa! No son of God would break the Sabbath!" etc...

The conspiracists were trying to appeal to both the MINDS of the people to be logical and reject him for lack of hard proof..and then to their emotions...mocking him as a lunatic and looser and mocking his followers to where no one who was "anyone" in society wanted to be seen as a fool and follow Him.

It's funny...this conspiracy still exists STRONGLY today in the EXACT same manner as it did then... and I see so many are part of it...unknowingly part of one of the biggest conspiarcies EVER.

...and all just because he was a threat to the system

as they knew the threat that people might believe in him...and turn away from their controling systems and break free to think and believe for themselves...and thus stop being controled by the local governments and religeous leaders...and they were right... (for awhile, the "church" that established itself as an institution in his name after the martyring of the apostles brought the people back under controling bondage of unrighteous dominion pretty much)

BUt back to Jesus-He knew He'd soon stir up the pharisees and the likes and be crucified...He knew His lot and purpose in life according to the divine plan he helped conceive of, and he knew they were out to get him...

so he bided his time so as not to give them too much reason to quickly to crucify Him so He could prepare his apostles, and give them the keys they needed to teach the people in His absence

...but never denied who He was, or denied his divinity and even claimed it and proclaimed it outright to those that would understand

... but even still His divinity was established before that, before the world was...and claimed when He was...

it has nothing to do when it was "officially" established as divinity by man-thats just silly. If that is what YOU would hold as credible, then you are saying if it had been officially proclaimed and documented much sooner, then it would lend more credibility to you somehow? Why is that?

Well, thanks for the subject, I've enjoyed pondering it from different sides and hope you all realize He was one of the first conspiracy theorists, whether you believe Him divine or not...

[edit on 14-12-2005 by think2much]

Jesus states that he is the son of god no? Therefore he is saying he is divine no? Along with the whole raising people from the dead bit right?

Originally posted by St Udio
... he only said he was "son of man"

Jesus did say he was God : "I and My Father are one" John 10 : 50
And many other places in the Bible.

but all that declaration is written in the bible, and jesus did NOT write the bible. its always seemed just a little fishy to me that the only source claiming jesus' divinity is the bible.

Originally posted by Sparkie the Wondersnail
He was declared divine in 325 A.D. at the first Council of Nicaea when the Creed was first developed.

He won the election of the council members. The majority felt he was God manifested and divinity itself. In short he (through the eyes of Nicaea council) was a god that achieved godhood through democracy.

Now for what i think:

Was Jesus declared divine posthumously?

Yes, by those who saw him crucified, those who saw him die. He did die. And, after he was dead (he rose) and was declared divine after he had died, by at least one person.

its always seemed just a little fishy to me that the only source claiming jesus' divinity is the bible.

Well there are more sources-the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has a book called the Book of Mormon which is subtitled "Another Testiment of Jesus Christ" and is based on the ancient civilizations of the Americas BC and how they had come from the East and had the laws of Moses, jewish traditions etc and gives an account of how the resurrected Christ appeared to those ancient inhabitants in central America to fullfill prophecy -they were his "other sheep" he claimed to have and need to visit and spend time with before he ascended unto the Father (explains where he was when not with his apostles and not having reutnred to his father yet...he wasn't in limbo he was in America! lol)

Interesting enough it kind of explains why there were the mayan temples and art that dipicted stories from the old testiment of the BIble-like the flood etc...and everyone goes how interesting that they have similar stories in their religions-both jewish and pagain beliefs...with those of the Eastern judeo-Christian and pagans....

and yes, it is intersting but certainly not mind boggling if they indeed came from the Jerrusalem area and brought those beliefs with them accross the world...it just makes sense...the stories aren't similar they are the SAME

anyway-The Book of Mormon...another testament of Jesus Christ also is another source claiming his divinity as the son of God-co-creator of the world etc.

As for the Bible...it's silly to think why aren't there other accounts beside it?

I mean , the whole Bible was a COMPILATION based upon the desire to gather EVERYTHING ever written, and all accounts of Jesus's life and works that exist and compile it into one book!!!

...so of course there aren't other writings....they searched high and low to include them into what is known now as The Holy Bible. And you want for more? Fine, then you'll have to go accross to the ancient Americas and read their account and testimant in the book of Mormon...but I don't even know if you've bothered to read the Bible yet, so maybe start there...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
its always seemed just a little fishy to me that the only source claiming jesus' divinity is the bible.

ummmmmmm.....?

The books declaring his divinity were put into a collection called "the bible". The books saying its a suppersition weren't. I think josephus refers to his as being the messiah, but, of course, isn't in the bible.

He was declared divine in 325 A.D. at the first Council of Nicaea when the Creed was first developed.

The council didn't declare him divine, or at least the idea that he was divine long preceded the council.

to merge all Christians into one form of Catholicism by standardizing belief as laid out in the Creed.

The council had noting to do with the non-existant catholic church.

here are some excellent threads that clarify some of the misconeptions of the council
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And here is a discussion from a good resource website
www.tertullian.org...

Here is an excellent place to begin understanding what Josephus did/didn't/may have written about Jesus:

Did Josephus Refer to Jesus?

To really understand what scholars are thinking, you need to follow the links to the other authors and scholars and read their commentary as well.

Clearly, there are many questions and they are important because Josephus is one of the few historians actually alive during this important time for whom we have most of his works - though the authenticity is clearly challenged by some.

Generally speaking, Josephus did not declare the divinity of Jesus - he reported that there were people who believed in it. A very big difference!

Originally posted by Mizar
We have letters from this time, from the romans, that speak of "this Jesus the alleged Messiah."

The earliest non-christian writings about Jesus come from decades after the fact. The details Josephus wrote about Jesus are significantly less than the details he wrote of others crucified by Rome. I would say this indicates he knew little about Jesus but still thought it noteworthy to mention him. Such would be the case if his information came from rumour.

Josephus proves that Christianity really is at least as old as the first century, but it proves nothing in regard to establishing the historicity of the man Jesus, since what he wrote is not inconsistent with a mythical Jesus.

Originally posted by Mizar
ANd besides the fact ath if you believe in the Old Test. Thats Jesus fufills the prophecies of the Prophets perfectly for what they said the messiah would do...

No he doesn't. But even if he did, it means nothing at all unless he actually existed. Don't you suppose you or I are capable of inventing a fictional character that fulfills unverifiable prophecies? It's pretty telling that he didn't fulfill any verifiable prophecies.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by Sparkie the Wondersnail
He was declared divine in 325 A.D. at the first Council of Nicaea when the Creed was first developed.

He won the election of the council members. The majority felt he was God manifested and divinity itself. In short he (through the eyes of Nicaea council) was a god that achieved godhood through democracy.

Unfortunately the idea that the divinity of Christ was decided at Nicaea is a crude falsification, as is the idea that it was voted on.

In antiquity, most of the heresies denied that he was truly human, rather than denying his divinity. Different times manifest different errors, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Mizar
We have letters from this time, from the romans, that speak of "this Jesus the alleged Messiah."

I think this has got a bit confused in transmission. It sounds like a memory of the mention by Josephus in Antiquities 20 of James, "brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." Christ is also mentioned by Pliny the Younger, saying the Christians offered worship 'to Christ as a god.' And of course Tacitus in Annals 16 also refers to him as crucified under Pontius Pilate.

The final other source of confusion is the *fictional*Archko volume, which contains letters of various officials. However this was written in 1884 by a presbyterian minister in Missouri, and has been taken for fact by the unwary ever since.

The earliest non-christian writings about Jesus come from decades after the fact.

This is correct, although some people suppose this is in some way significant of some point, or use this as an excuse to discard testimony. History tends to be written after the event, particularly in antiquity. Sources such as Tacitus are the main sources used for the reign of Tiberius in general by scholars, although a contemporary history exists.

The details Josephus wrote about Jesus are significantly less than the details he wrote of others crucified by Rome. I would say this indicates he knew little about Jesus but still thought it noteworthy to mention him.

I agree that Josephus knew (and cared) little about Jesus. It would be interesting, however, to see how many details he gives of others.

Such would be the case if his information came from rumour.

A speculation by someone 2000 years later is not a good basis to ignore a statement by someone living in the same century.

Josephus proves that Christianity really is at least as old as the first century, but it proves nothing in regard to establishing the historicity of the man Jesus, since what he wrote is not inconsistent with a mythical Jesus.

The statements of Josephus are not consistent with a mythical Jesus, except by finding reasons to ignore them or add to them. The 'mythical Jesus' enthusiasts seem all to be cranks, and the arguments such as this favoured by them explain why. When one discovers that the MJ was invented by people who sought to attack Christianity and that the argument has obvious polemical use; when one discovers that all who advance it likewise share a barely concealed animosity of Christians; when one discovers that no serious scholar holds such a position, one cannot avoid reaching the conclusion that the argument is bogus and unworthy of serious discussion. If one likewise is generally familiar with the data in the historical record on which our knowledge of antiquity is based, and then observes the obscurantism endemically used by the MJ enthusiasts, it again breeds the conviction that we are dealing with a religious belief, not an intellectual position; and a religious belief with all the negative features of one, and none of the positive ones.

All the best,

Roger Pearse