When Jesus Became God

[steveb]

It has recently been claimed on this forum that the book When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstein is a reliable and unbiased account of the Christological controversies that led up to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. The book is, however, neither reliable nor unbiased. Here are some excerpts from a review by a historian &#40;Tim Vivian&#41; published in the Anglican Theological Review in 2001:<blockquote><font color="0000ff">Rubenstein is a good storyteller-and what a story he has to tell! Intrigues, plots, banishments, riots, murders. The Arian crisis, both for its longevity and its melodrama, puts modern-day soap operas to shame. But good storytelling is not enough to make good history. Rubenstein&#39;s footnoting of sources is, for a popular work, generally good, but when it is spotty it raises serious concerns. When at the beginning of the crisis Bishop Alexander of Alexandria summoned Arius to the episcopal residence, Arius, Rubenstein says, &#34;stood like a gaunt shadow before Alexander&#34; &#40;p. 56&#41;. Rubenstein cites no source for this striking image-and then immediately admits, &#34;No record of this interview remains, but we can easily imagine. . . .&#34;

If a novelist were to write about Arius&#39;s gaunt shadow, readers could applaud his or her imagination. But When Jesus Became God is not a novel. When genres get confused, not only do we not know when to applaud, we aren&#39;t even sure what it is we are-or aren&#39;t-applauding. Uncertainty then merges into doubt which, ironically, becomes the willing suspension of belief. For example, Rubenstein later says that a Church council was held in 318 to address Arius&#39;s statements and that &#34;the anti-Arians drew up a creed-a Confession of Orthodoxy-which was laid before Arius and his supporters with a demand that they sign it&#34; &#40;p. 57&#41;. The author doesn&#39;t footnote this event, so the question naturally arises: Has this scene, like Arius&#39; gaunt shadow, been &#34;easily imagined&#34;?

This may seem like carping from historians &#40;like the present reviewer&#41; who want to stake out their territory, post &#34;TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT&#34; signs, and set the hounds lose on any non-historians like Rubenstein who dare to invade the sacred groves of academe. But serious problems can arise when non-historians write popular history. The problematic historiography outlined above becomes a prelude to more serious historical and theological problems. An expert in conflict resolution, Rubenstein has a &#40;mostly unstated&#41; desire, admirable in itself, to see reconciliation between Jews and Christians. This is much easier to bring about if Jesus is, well, Arian. If the &#34;real Christians&#34;-the disciples and first evangelists-saw Jesus as a great rabbi but not as God, then rapprochement between Christians and Jews becomes infinitely easier. Rubenstein believes that Christians who accepted the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of a &#34;triune God, distributed over three persons, no longer shared Jehovah with their Jewish forebears&#34; &#40;p. 209&#41;. &#34;This is the point,&#34; he says, &#34;at which Christianity breaks decisively with its parent faith and with other forms of monotheism&#34; &#40;p. 210&#41;.</font></blockquote>[Review continued in posting below...]

[steveb]

[Review continued from above posting:]<blockquote><font color="0000ff">If, however, one wants to argue historically that Jesus &#34;became&#34; God, then one has to look at the writings of the first century, not the fourth. There is plenty of evidence in the New Testament that Christians in the first century already believed that Jesus was in some sense God &#40;Phil. 2:5-11, Col. 1:11-20, John 1:1, John 17:11, Matt. 11:25-27&#41;. The decisive break between Judaism and Christianity that Rubenstein places in the fourth century actually took place three centuries earlier &#40;see especially James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways&#41;. Rubenstein&#39;s laudable desire to bridge the differences between Judaism and Christianity leads, however inadvertently, to tendentious history, which then produces misleading theology, in this case an idealized view of Arianiam over against Nicene Christianity. For Rubenstein, Arianism &#34;represented a radical impulse in Christianity: the drive to infuse worldly existence with the spirit of Christ&#34; &#40;p. 218&#41;. Nicene Christianity, by contrast, because of its &#34;majestic Christ incorporated into the Godhead,&#34; had-has-a &#34;pessimistic view of human nature&#34; &#40;p. 224&#41;. These conclusions then prompt Rubenstein to suggest that because of Emperor Theodosius&#39;s Nicene-Constantinopolitan settlement, &#34;a long wave of religious violence followed&#34; automatically against the Jews &#40;p. 226&#41;. On this reading, the Council of Constantinople held in 381 becomes the precursor of Kristallnacht.

As I first read When Jesus Became God, I was impressed with the author&#39;s forthrightness and admired his respect for both his subject and his audience. That respect and admiration has not changed. If I now have serious reservations about a well-intentioned and personable book, it&#39;s because the stakes-historical, theological-are so high. It&#39;s just not enough to produce a good read. With its occasionally shaky historical method and especially because of its misplaced ecumenical agenda, When Jesus Became God may unintentionally mislead a lot of readers with both its history and its theology, not because Jesus is &#40;or is not&#41; God, but because of bad history beguilingly offered.</font></blockquote>

[schmuel]

<font color="0000ff">Hi Steve, I agree that Rubenstein&#39;s book is dubious .. the author studied Nicaea some, but apparently Rubenstein really has no background in either the New Testament or the early pre-Nicaen church writings, giving him a very poor lens for discussing Nicaea.

In fact I meant to post similarly as you did, using other materials, since we discussed this on my home email forum for awhile. Perhaps I can do some more on this tonight after work.

There are books that are very interesting, such as God Crucified by Richard Bauckham and The Making of a Tradition by Mark Mattison, as well as a few other books, that give a far more scholarly picture of issues like the Deity of Messiah, the early church beliefs, the formation of the Trinitarian doctrine.

Whether you are Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian Rubenstein is at best a mediocre source. In fact, the Biblical Unitarians who embraced his book &#40;eg. Anthony Buzzard and company&#41; I believe really only deep-six their own credibility with the embrace.

&#40;As does anybody who seriously floats the attack on Matthew 28:19&#41;.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

</font>

[steveb]

Thanks for the info, Steven. I happen to already have read God Crucified by Bauckham and I agree that it&#39;s a good book - a serious work of theology and not a biased popularization by someone with an agenda like Rubenstein. I will look for the one by Mattison that you mention - I hadn&#39;t heard of it before.

[granite]

schmuel: The charges against 1 John 5:7 are more serious than those against Mat. 28:19, which is a yet more significant KJV proof-text for trinitarian dogma.

easel: Rubinstein&#39;s work is neither embellished nor beguiling, simply an effort to set forth points about church history in an engaging way which need more consideration by all professed monotheists. His agenda is noble, in contrast to that of Constantine, who had both political and religious motivations for exonerating Athanasius.

[schmuel]

<font color="0000ff">Hi Folks,

Greeting, Granite. Definitely the Johannine Comma is a worthy textual discussion, in contrast to Matthew 28:19 where the opposition to the text is simply unbelief, inconsistency, agenda or confusion.

Personally I became fully persuaded that the Comma is scripture, the word of God, after I studied the various evidences, external and internal. Quite fascinating to see the usage by Cyprian, Jerome I believe indicated that the verse was being omitted by some, and it was referenced by Priscillian &#40;executed largely for non-Trinitarianism&#41; and others in the early church &#40;including Eugenias at the Council of Carthage&#41;.

Discussing modern &#39;proof-texts&#39; often can miss completely how a verse was understood and used in the early church days. It is very possible that the nascent Trinitarianism of the 3rd and 4th century found the Comma &#34;and these three are one&#34; very discomfiting. About 200 years ago John Jones &#40;Ben David&#41; discussed this in depth, and personally I am always looking for good articles that don&#39;t wrest ideas out of context for modern agendas &#40;such as the currently popular Christian orthodox Trinitarian apologetic machinations&#41;.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic</font>

[chad14]

Jesus is god , has always been god and will forever be god

[turtle]

steveb Your question might be moer suited to ask when did Jesus become flesh, was He always flesh, as Psalms of David points out. Psalms 2 and 110:1. Was Jesus always flesh, Not human flesh, t incorruptible flesh yes. God's word can not be destroyed. Man tried to destory God's word, but it still existed during the three days the human flesh died. Why for even the three days were prophesied about by Christ, He would died and rise on the third day. Part of prophesy or the Spirit going forth.

[theadmin]

Just wanted to get the word out... I have started a new forum that you all might be interested in... please come check it out! Join in! I really would love to see it take off...

http://factnet.org/vbforum/forumdisplay.php?1361-New-Forum!-Cult-News-Stories... Capt Frank...

[easeltine]

For anyone who would like good reference books on Christian History the following site is pretty good:

http://www.thechristians.ca/order-the-books

Volume 1 is worth getting just by itself. There are many good quotes from early Christians, and the illustrations are very nice. Nobody likes hardbound reference books anymore, they just want to read paperback novels and throw away. These books are good for your coffee table!

[easeltine]

1 John 5:7b - This verse is found in the Latin Vulgate, and included in Textus Receptus, (the final edition of Erasmus, and Stephens 1550).
Erasmus included this verse in his final edition due to it being in a copy of the Latin Vulgate that pre-dated the Greek text he was using.
St. Jerome including it shows that the verse was in an older Greek Manuscript that pre-dates the Alexandrian texts.
Not only this, vs. 6 says it is the Spirit that testifies, vs. 9 says the Father testifies - In Hebrew 1 the Father calls the Son, GOD.
These newer Translations admit that the verse is included in some older manuscripts.

The verse fits in the context of 1 John 5, and there are legitimate reasons to believe that the verse is the inerrant Word of God.

These are the reasons I believe in the verse. "And this is the testimony: God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life." That includes what the Father testifies about the Son in Hebrews 1, calling the Son God.

So, if Isaiah 44:6 is correct, and there are three Persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, the only logical conclusion that one can come up with is the Doctrine of the Trinity.

[turtle]

I have not read the books you refer to easeltine, but the subject interested me to a point. Here is why. We see Jesus becoming God at His resurrection, yet He was fully God when He dead, yet He was in the flesh. Flesh being mortal, until the resurrection. Kind of like the burning bush immortal not burning up but no doubt that bush still does not exist where Moses seen it. However Christ became immortal, not through words, He actually rose from that grave, despite what some believe in finding a tomb in Jerusalem. Here is the thing. Either Jesus was who He claimed or He was flesh and bones. If He who He claimed, then resurrection is real. Of course I believe in the resurrection. However even in Matthew some doubted that seen it. That is a normal effect of a living truth. It like the shock of 911 it happened, yet some had to go see for themselves to believe. Truth who could blame them.


Here is the point I am making Jesus is called the Son of God because of the mortality of the flesh while walking this earth, Yet He fully God by His Spirit, yet we never obtain the status of God but we through Christ resurrection obtain status of immortality.

[easeltine]

Turtle,

These Scriptures come to me about your post:

"Who being in the form of God, throught it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil. 2

[turtle]

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
(16) 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.

Job 27:3 KJV
(3) All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;


John 4:24 KJV
(24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


Flesh of Christ was never God, until the point of immortal at the resurrection. The Spirit of God, Spirit meaning breath is in all of us, but The Holy Spirit is more then just breath. There is human life God gives to every man and their is spiritual life for eternity that is given by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was more then just man, more then just having Spirit of God in his body as we all have in the since of breath. Remember Adam was placed in Garden, was not in the garden when he was made, Woman was made in eden. Adam was made of the earth, He had breath, life in him/ immortality in garden. State we will have in heaven, however Jesus is more then having the Spirit of God in the since of eternal life prior to the annointing of God. After all He was the Word of God. The Word meaning more then just the word that spoke let their be light. Though it be God's word too, it does not have life giving power/spiritual life ability. Christ had spiritual life ability before and even in the flesh. Any that would believe would have life eternal would not perish. Christ in human form represents the Word of God mainfested in a visiible form,.Just like Jehovah immortal is present in a physical form for us to see God the Father in. However both Jesus and Jehovah same is Spirit. Proof the ascension with Samson mother and Father. Samson parents visited by wonderful same name as Christ. Is the Image of God that Samson folks seen Jesus? OR Jehovah. Adam and eve walked and talked to Jehovah. Moses talked to Jehovah, Abraham talked to Jehovah. Job talked to the Spirit of God never seen God in immortal flesh, but David seen God Father and Son in immortal flesh.

When one understands the immoral flesh of God came in a form of a human in destructable flesh, and died, makes Christ equal to them, but to know that Word was represented in destructible flesh, changes the view of the fact God not destructible. Word of God is everlasting. Only two people in the Old Testament were given immortality without tasting death. Though death was promised to ever soul, yet that word was broken for us. There will be those that will not taste death and those that will not, death meaning loosing of breath of God given to every man, and also Spiritual death, or spiritual life. Spiritual death is spent in the eternal lake of fire forever and ever. Yet spiritual life spends it in the New Jerusalem. New Jerusalem is built not with human hands but with the Word of God being the Chief Cornerstone which is Christ Jesus. Yet there is only one God, God is Spirit. Yet we see Him in both Father and Son, just like we see the Word in Jehovah and the Holy Spirit. The Father in the Holy Spirit giving life as well as in the Word. For the Word that gives life is the Father, meaning without these three interchangeable parts God would not be three in One. In fact by themselves they are still God, but seen in three parts.

Question is can you believe in Three parts without believing in the oneness of God? Not really, but if three parts as seen not equal I guess you then could say yes. Is Christ in the flesh equal to God while on the earth though corruptible? Yet of course with the resurrection the body was changed to incorruption. I think that is why some believe Christ to be like Elijah, or Enoch. It also why when I say Christ is my brother by adoption it is so, but He is not my brother by what by the fact His Spirit was God before He was born. Our Spirit was created in the likeness of God. created for immortality, but with the opposition of where to spend immortality. New Jerusalem or hell.

[turtle]

Isaiah 9:6 KJV
(6) 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.

Colossians 2:8-9 KJV
(8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
(9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

[easeltine]

Turtle,

Also, the Scriptures you brought up in Revelation 4 and 5 showing that the Lamb is in the middle of the throne where He, God the Father, sits are very interesting.
In these Chapters, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all on the Throne of Heaven.

In a theologically defined way from The Athanasian Creed:

"The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods, but One God."

"Neither confounding the Persons, not dividing the Substance."

Turtle, your post on #15 is a well done.

[turtle]

Easeltine, after 1000 post do you think anyone would remember what post 15 said.

However easeltine, there something more that can be said the Spirit is around the throne. We are born of Spirit, yet our Spirit is not God. Yet we stand around the throne, with indwelling of His Spirit. Jesus and Jehovah Spirit is The Holy Spirit. Does Jesus and Jehovah have the ability to act seperately of each other, yes, but they are always in agreement by the Spirit. We can not see the Spirit without a veil of some kind. God is Spirit. Well we ever see God's Spirit without a veil, the answer is no, but no one could stand in the presents of Mighty God without the veil. yet His Spirit in us is without a veil to our hearts.

If one's view is Bible our view will not change, however our mind wrestles sometimes against the Spirit of God as well as against our own heart. That is humanity. the one things we can not get rid of in ourselves not even when we become incorruptible, we are still human. What then will the New Jerusalem be like, will our ability to know right from wrong be gone, or our desire completely be gone so we will not sin or is it possible we could still eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Temptation will no longer be in the New Jerusalem. Our old knowledge wiped away, but we will still have choice. Will we live in a utopia society where no one ever makes a mistake. There is much we do not understand about the otherside of Jordan. However the point is this, society with God is far better place then without God. Hell is a place without God so is the eternal lake of fire. We choose to have society as well as our individual life with God or without God. Either way we get up and breath until God calls our name. God sees the lamb in the Middle of the throne, we know we have a lawyer and without Him there then eternal life is going to be very hot place to live. As believers we have the sweet assurance of faith. Through promises given through out our generation as well as generation past. That should be enough.