did the historical jesus claim to be “very god of very god”?

8/8/2019 Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be Very God of Very God?

1/11

Faith Seeking Understanding

Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be Very God of Very God? Ken McDuff, 2003

The views of a distinguished presbyter

from Alexandria first brought the issue of

Jesus' divinity to the attention of the church.

His name was Arius, and his assertion that

there was [a time] when the Son was not

clearly subordinated the Son to the Father

not in function only, but in essence. When

Emperor Constantine convened the firstecumenical council at Nicaea in 325 A.D., the

bishops concluded instead that Jesus was

very God of very God ... one substance with

the Father. The church has historically

embraced the propositions of the Nicene

formula as being foundational to Christian

thought, but modern critics charge that the

divinity of Jesus is an invention of the fourth

century church. The critics are wrong: the

historical Jesus claimed deity for himself, and

his contemporariesboth friend and foe

acknowledged that claim.

Modern attacks on the deity of Christ can

be traced to the rationalism of the eighteenth

century.1 When the lecture notes of Hermann

Samuel Reimaraus were published in the

1770's, his challenge of the traditional view of

Jesus identity sparked a quest for the real

Jesus. 2 Underlying all such investigation is the

notion that physical reality is all there is; the

supernatural does not exist. The historical-

critical method is viewed, then, as the best

indeed, the onlymeans of arriving at the

truth about who Jesus claimed to be.

The initial quest fizzled for a time when

Rudolf Bultmann asserted that we can now

know almost nothing concerning the life and

personality of Jesus.3 Bultmann regarded the

idea that Jesus was the pre-existent Son of

God who provides salvation for man by his

sacrificial death as a mythical representation

of what he nevertheless considered a valid

and saving truth. Because modern man finds

the myth unbelievable, he contends, it must be

represented in a demythologized form. ANew Quest began when Bultmann's

student, Ernst Kasemann, proposed that Jesus

is not a completely mythologicalbeing, so

some interest in the historical Jesus is

theologically valid. And so the quest to

discover the true identity of Jesus has

resumed, using rationalism as its method and

doubt as its premise.

Postmodern thought is perhaps more

consistent with the irrational faith proposed

by Friedrich Schleiermacher in his defense of

religion against rationalism. Schleiermacher

simply disposed of the need for rational

thought, arguing that religion is a matter of

feeling and experience rather than revealed

truth. According to Schleiermacher, it does not

really matter whether what you believe is

true; all that matters is that you believe it. He

rejected his own German Reformed

upbringing, writing to his father in 1787, I

cannot believe that He, who called himself the

Son of Man, was the true, eternal God.4

Clearly, as Daniel Edward writes, The Christ

of Schleiermacher was a mere man,5 and the

nominal religion of post-Enlightenment

Germany made that country ready for

Schleiermacher's ideas. His influence soon


2/11


spread to the English-speaking world as well:Schleiermacher is correctly viewed as the

chief source of the massive change which has

occurred in the historic Protestant

denominations during the last two hundred

years.6

Undergirded by the "double whammy" of

philosophical naturalism and irrational faith,

it is no surprise that theological liberalism has

rejected the deity of Jesus. The creeds of the

church are viewed as incomprehensible to themodern mind, and only the "essence of

Christianity" is deemed necessary. In the

various "Lives of Jesus" written by liberal

theologians during the nineteenth century,

Jesus is presented as nothing but a great

teacher and model for humanity. A similar

viewpoint is held today. John Hicks and

several British colleagues published a

controversial book in 1977 entitled The Myth of

God Incarnate. That the historical Jesus did

not present himself as God incarnate is

accepted by all [theologians], they argue.

Jesus did not teach the doctrine of the

trinity the later conception of him as God

incarnate, the Second Person of the Holy

Trinity living a human life is a mythological or

poetic way of expressing his significance for

us.7

Modern critics admit the uniqueness of

Jesus: he was a man of wisdom, a great moral

teacher, a religious genius, a social crusader.

But they stop far short of acknowledging him

as God in the flesh. He turns out not to be the

Jesus who is worshipped and adored by the

church, but a Jesus stripped of the garments

and grandeur of deity. Are they right? To

answer that question, we will briefly examine

how Jesus viewed himself, what his followersbelieved to be true about him, and what his

enemies acknowledged as well.

Jesus' Claim to Deity

The logical place to begin is to ask, Did

Jesus think of himself as God? That he did is

demonstrated by examining his words and

actions. Yet, because the critics question the

historical reliability of much in the gospels,

this may not be the most convincing line ofargument. Nevertheless, it is important to take

a cursory look at the titles Jesus applies to

himself and the deeds that he performed,

while recognizing the necessity for the

additional arguments that will follow.

Son of Man. While the title that Jesus used

most often of himself, the Son of Man, is

commonly understood to emphasize Jesus

humanity, it is in fact a claim of divine

authority and power. Jesus refers to himself as

the Son of Man in all five gospel sources:

Mark, Q, M, L, and John. These multiple

attestations, along with the fact that the term

was not commonly used of Jesus in the

epistles (the principle of dissimilarity),

provide significant historical evidence that

Jesus actually used this term of himself. The

title is used in reference to his authority to

forgive sin (Mark 2:10), to save the lost (Luke

19:10), and to judge the world (John 5:27).John used the term in contexts that emphasize

his preexistence (John 3:13-14; 6:62) and his

self-existence (John 5:26).

But perhaps the most convincing evidence

that Jesus used this term to appeal to his

identity as deity is found in his encounter

Did the Historical Jesus Claim to be Very God of Very God? 2


3/11


before Caiaphas, the High Priest (Matthew26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65). When demanded to

answer whether he was the Christ, Jesus

replied, I am, and you will see the Son of

Man seated at the right hand of Power, and

coming with the clouds of heaven (Mark

14:62, ESV). His reference is to the words of

the prophet Daniel (Dan. 7:13-14), which

speakof the presentation of the Son of Man

with the glory and dominion of deity. No one

there doubted what Jesus was claiming; thehigh priest immediately tore his clothes and

declared that Jesus had spoken blasphemy.

Son of God.Interestingly, Jesus rarely

used the title Son of God in referring to

himself, yet it is certain that he believed

himself to be the Son of God. In response to

Jesus question to his disciples regarding his

identity, Peter exclaims, You are the Christ,

the Son of the Living God (Matt. 16:16). Jesus

immediately acknowledged the truth ofPeter's testimony. When the Sanhedrin

questioned Jesus, asking Are you the Son of

God? (Luke 22:70), Jesus answered, You say

that I am. Some translators add an

explanatory word: You rightly say that I am.

This seems consistent with the reaction of the

Sanhedrin, who imply that Jesus has

implicated himself by then initiating his

prosecution before Pilate. Others also referred

to Jesus as the Son of God in his hearing,8

andhe never felt the need to correct them. The

voice of God from heaven affirms Jesus

identify as the beloved Son at both his

baptism (Mark 1:11) and his transfiguration

(Mark 9:7).

Critics question the historicity of many of

these passages, but there is good reason to

believe that Jesus understood himself to relateto the Father as the Son. He says in Matthew

11:27 (ESV), "All things have been handed

over to meby my Father, and no one knows

the Son except the Father, and no one knows

the Father except the Son and anyone to

whom the Son chooses to reveal him. William

Lane Craig comments:

There is good evidence to show that this isindeed a genuine word from Jesus: (a) it

comes from the Q source that is shared byMatthew and Luke; (b) the idea of themutual knowledge of Father and Son is aJewish idea, indicating its origin in aSemitic-speaking milieu; (c) early churchtheology did not work out the Father-Sonrelationship, indicating that this verse isnot the later product of Christiantheology; and (d) the verse says the Son isunknowable, which is not true for thepost-Easter Church.9

To what does the title, Son of God,

refer? Several passages indicate that the title

as applied to Jesus refers to him as the eternal,

heavenly Son who is equal to God Himself

(Matt. 11:25-30; John 5:18; 10:33; 1 Cor. 15:28;

Heb. 1:1-8). Wayne Grudem states that these

passages combine to indicate that the title

Son of God when applied to Christ strongly

affirms his deity as the eternal Son in the

Trinity, one equal to God the Father in all his

attributes."10 The intent of the phrase is not

that Jesus was generated from God the Father,but that his nature is identical to the Fathers.

What any father gives to his son is first of all

his nature, his species, his life. The son is

equal to the father in species, in nature.11

I AM. Other than Jesus reference to

Daniel's son of man, perhaps his most



4/11


explicit claim of deity can be found in John8:58: Jesus said to [the Pharisees], Truly,

truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I

AM. Although this account is found only in

the Gospel of John, and is therefore considered

less historically reliable by the critics, it may

be argued that the claim is not of necessity

inauthentic simply because it lacks the typical

marks of authenticity. The pursuit of such a

methodology, writes Craig, threatens to

construct a theoretical and historical Jesuswhich is in fact very unlike the Jesus of history

in which case the whole enterprise becomes

rather pointless.12 That John alone provides

this account does not prove inauthenticity any

more than my single attestation that I wrote

these words proves that I did not.

In this account, Jesus declares himself to

be IAM, the eternally pre-existing God of

the Old Testament who had revealed himself

to Moses in Exodus 3:14. The Jews had

expressed surprise at Jesus' claim that

Abraham had seen him. How could that be,

they taunted, since Jesus was not yet 50 years

old? Jesus responded not by saying that he

pre-dated Abraham, but that he is the Eternal

One. The Jews response would be expected in

the light of Jesus' claim: they attempted to

stone him.

Jesus' actions.Jesus not only referred to

himself with titles that strongly implied deity,but he also acted in ways that indicate he

understood himself to be God. Athanasius, the

secretary to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria,

who had great influence in the formation of

the doctrine accepted at the first council at

Nicaea, appealed to this argument in his On

the Incarnation. He wrote:

As, then, he who desires to see God Whoby nature is invisible and not to be beheld,may yet perceive and know Him throughHis works; so too let him who does notsee Christ with his understanding at leastconsider Him in His bodily works and testwhether theybe of man or God13

It is difficult to conclude that Jesus was

less than God when recognizing that he acted

as one who possessed unique authority. He

forgave sin (Mark 2:5-7; Luke 7:48-49), he

cleansed the temple (Mark 11:27-33), heclaimed that the eternal destiny of people was

determined by their response to him (Matt.

10:32-33; 11:6; Mark 8:34-38). And while the

Old Testament prophets declared, thus says

the Lord, Jesus declared, I say to

you (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). The

behavior of Jesus lends strong support to the

idea that he believed himself to be God, and

most New Testament critics acknowledge that

these accounts reflect what Jesus actually saidand did.

Is this enough evidence to justify the

fourth century affirmation of Jesus' deity?

Many other passages could be reviewed, but

William Lane Craig believes that the identity

of Jesus is evident even in the limited passages

that today's critics14 accept:

The clues sufficient for a highChristological self-understanding of Jesus

are present even in the attenuated twentypercent of Jesus' sayings recognized by themembers of the Jesus Seminar asauthentic.Here is a man who thought ofhimself as the Son of God in a uniquesense, who claimed to act and speak withdivine authority, who held himself to be aworker of miracles, and who believed that



5/11


people's eternal destiny hinged onwhether or not they believed in him. 15

Craig is not alone in this opinion. He cites

several others who draw similar conclusions,

including this statement by Horst Georg

Pohlman:

In summary, one could say that todaythere is virtually a consensus concerningthat wherein the historical in Jesus is to beseen. It consists in the fact that Jesus cameon the scene with an unheard of authority,namely with the authority of God, withthe claim of the authority to stand in God's

place and speak to us and bring us to

salvation. This authority only Godhimself can claim.16

We need not rest the case here, though.

Additional evidence can be found in the

acknowledgement of Jesus identity by his

friends and followers, and by his foes as well.

The Acknowledgement of His Friends

If Jesus claimed to be God, we would

expect that his early followers would give

evidence of that understanding of his identity

and nature. Gary Habermas asks two crucial

questions: What facts did the earliest

Christians report concerning Jesus in the

initial years after his crucifixion? Of what did

the earliest Christology consist before the

composition of the New Testament?17

Attestations by the disciples and otherearly believers as to the unique identity of

Jesus are plentiful in the gospels. After stilling

the storm, for example, the disciples noted

Jesus' unique nature.What sort of man is

this, they asked in astonishment, that even

winds and sea obey him? (Matt. 8:27 ESV).

Others also attested to Jesus miraculousabilities. Uncertain of Jesus' identity, John the

Baptist sent his disciples to question Jesus. In a

statement widely regarded to be authentic,

Jesus instructed John's followers to report what

they had seen: theblind receive their sight and

the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the

deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the

poor have good news preached to

them (Matt. 11:5 ESV). Even among those

early followers who had doubts about Jesus'identity, he came to be regarded as Lord and

God (John 20:28).

But the best historical data comes not from

the gospels, but from the writings of the

Apostle Paul. Habermas argues that the creeds

reiterated by Paul comprise some of the

earliest reports concerning the identity of

Jesus, and that they may be dated to within a

few years of Jesus' death. Habermas

summarizes:

The earliest Christians were confident thatJesus Christ is come in the flesh, asproclaimed in the confession found in 1John 4:2. Seldom was the belief in Jesus'incarnation expressed more clearly than inthe pre-Pauline hymn of Philippians2:6ff., which speaks of both Jesus' humanand divine natures. His humble life onearth is clearly contrasted with hisheavenly position in the form of God andhis later exaltation and worship.18

Because these creeds pre-dated Paul and

were simply passed on by him, it is clear

that these early teachings did not originate

with Paul, but reflected the understanding of

the church in its earliest days. That Paul's

messages was reviewed by the other Apostles

(Gal. 2:1-10) demonstrates that his teaching



6/11


was not contrary to that which the Apostlesbelieved, and it is clear that Paul presents

Jesus as deity:

These early letters already reveal aChristianity, shared by Paul and all theother apostles,that centers on Christ'sdivinity, atonement, and literalresurrection. If his divinity is a myth, ifthe story of the Gospels is a myth, if thehistorical Jesus never claimed divinity,forgave sins, performed miracles, or rose

from the dead, then this myth wasinvented by Jesus' apostles themselves,not by later generations or the earlyChristian community. 19

Of course, Kreeft is not truly suggesting

that Jesus did not claim to be God, but is

emphasizing that the Apostlesthose who

walked and talked with himbelieved that to

be his claim. Craig concurs:

Studies by NT scholars .. . have provedthat within twenty years of the crucifixiona full-blown Christology proclaimingJesus as God incarnate existed. How doesone explain this worship by monotheisticJews of one of their countrymen as Godincarnate, apart from the claims of Jesushimself? .. If Jesus never made any suchclaims, then the belief of the earliestChristians in this regard becomesinexplicable.20

Jesus is Lord (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3)

was perhaps the earliest, most basic

confession of the church. Because of its use in

the Greek Old Testament, the title

Lord (kyrios) would be understood by the

early church to refer to God. There are many

instances in the New Testament where Lord

is used of Christ in what can only be

understood [in] this strong Old Testament

sense, 'the Lord' who is Yahweh or Godhimself.21 There is no doubt, however, that

the ante-Nicene fathers struggled with the

difficulty of explaining the mystery of the

incarnate person of Christ. Not until the

councils of the fourth and fifth centuries was a

sophisticated Christology developed. And yet,

the divinity of Jesus was certainly part of the

thinking of many of the church's earliest

scholars.

Among them, Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107 A.D.) affirmed Jesus as both God and man.

There is only one Physician, he wrote both

carnal and spiritual, born and unborn, God

become man, true life in death; sprung both

from Mary and from God, first subject to

suffering and then incapable of itJesus

Christ Our Lord (emphasis mine).22Like

other early Christian thinkers, however, he

did not speculate as to the relationship of the

two natures. Clement of Rome (c. 35-110 A.D.)

spoke of Jesus as the preexistent Son of God,23

and as the scepter of the majesty of God.24

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.) developed

an early Christology in the second century. In

his understanding of Jesus as the Logos, Justin

believed him to be the "only and absolute Son

of God the Reason of reasons, the

incarnation of the absolute and eternal

reason.25 As such, Justin viewed him as

creator and sustainer of the universe, the

source ofall truth, and a true object of

worship. He failed to understand the

generation of Jesus as an eternal act, however,

and thus falls short of the Nicene affirmations.

Schaff argues, however, that Martyr's whole

theological tendency, in opposition to the

heresies, was evidently towards the orthodox



7/11


system, and had he lived later, he would havesubscribed [to] the Nicene Creed.26

Many other ante-Nicene fathers

recognized Jesus as the God-man as well.

Irenaeus (c. 130-200 A.D.) refers to Jesus as "the

invisible becoming visible .. . the Word being

made man.27 Clement of Alexandria (c.

150-215 A.D.) speaks of Jesus in the terms of

divinity, and Origen (c. 185-254 A.D.) applies

the term homoousios to Jesus, declaring him to

be the same substance as the Father, thoughhe wavers at times on this point.28 Melito of

Sardis, known only from fragments quoted in

the writings of others, was quite clear as to

Jesus identity. Being perfect God and

likewise perfect man, he wrote, He gave

positive indications of His two natures: of His

deity, by miracles during the three years

following after His Baptism; of His humanity,

in the thirty years which came before the

Baptism. He concealed the signs of His

deity, although He was the true God existing

before the ages.29

Although deep speculation regarding the

two natures of Jesus was missing from the

writings of the early church leaders, there is

little doubt that Jesus was viewed as both God

and man. Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan

summarizes the understanding of the young

church: Clearly, it was the message of what

the church believed and taught that God was

an appropriate name for Jesus Christ.30

The Acknowledgement of His Foes

The biblical and historical evidence

indicates clearly that Jesus claimed to be God

and that his followers came to believe that

claim. And yet what is perhaps most notable is

not the claim of Jesus, norcthe commitment ofhis followers, but the reaction of those who

opposed him. The simple question could be

asked, If Jesus never claimed to be God, why

did his opponents so violently reject him

even to the point of death?

Non-Christian historical sources provide

only limited information about Jesus, but they

do establish the reality of Jesus' existence and

the facts that people followed him, that he

healed people, and that Pontius Pilatecondemned him to death.31 Why he was

condemned is addressed often in the gospels.

Many of these passages have already been

referenced, so we will review only briefly here

several similar events:

when Jesus applied to himself the imageryof Daniel's son of man, the high priestreacted with extreme grief and declaredthat Jesus had spoken blasphemy(Matthew 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65),

when Jesus acknowledged the truth of theSanhedrins question whether he was theson of God, the religious leaders tookJesus immediately to Pilate forprosecution (Luke 22:70),

when Jesus healed on the Sabbath, theJews sought his death not only because ofhis violation of Sabbath laws, but becausehe was even calling God his own Father,making himself equal with God (John 5:18,ESV, ephasis mine),

when Jesus declared himself to be theeternal I AM, the Pharisees attempted tostone him (John 8:58), and

when Jesus claimed to be one with theFather, the Jews sought to arrest and stonehim for blasphemy, because you, being aman, make yourself God (John 10:33,ESV).



8/11


Others had claimed to be prophets,speaking the message of God, but without the

severe reaction that Jesus words brought.

Time after time, the religious authorities

correctly understood Jesus claim to divine

authority, but they interpreted his claim as

blaphemous32 and sought his execution.33 The

historicity of these events is supported by the

principle of embarrassment: it would be in the

best interest of the followers of Jesus to not

have reported these accounts if Jesus wassimply a moral teacher.

Not only did the religious leaders of the

day understand Jesus to claim to be God, but

at least one early pagan thinker also

responded to Jesus in ways that implied an

understanding of him as claiming deity.

Origen records the philosopher Celsus

argument that Jesus, if he was God, only

claimed to be human: Either God really

changes his self, as they say, into a mortal

bodyor he himself is not changed, but

makes those who see him think that he is

changed. But in that case he is a deceiver and

a liar.34 His argument assumes that, in fact,

Jesus claimed to be God; Celsus challenged

the assertion that God had come as man but

did not doubt that a claim to deity had been

made.

Conclusion

While we are not able to be exhaustive in

this consideration of Jesus understanding of

His identity, it is clear that there is reason

enough here to understand Jesus to claim

nothing less than deity. We have not examined

many additional passages that might be

considered, nor have we contemplated any of

the philosophical arguments employedthrough the ages to validate Jesus' claims. 3536

Even so, an honest examination of the limited

data presented leads to the conclusion that the

first ecumenical council at Nicaea did not

formulate the idea that God came as a man,

but only began an intentional process of

explaining it.

When we attentively peruse the warm,vigorous, eloquent, and discriminatingly

controversial writings of Athanasius andhis co-laborers, and compare with themthe vague, barren, almost entirely negativeassertions and superficial arguments oftheir opponents, we cannot escape theimpression that, with all their exegeticaland dialectical defect in particulars, theyhave on their side an overwhelmingpreponderance of positive truth, theauthority of holy Scripture, theprofounder speculations of reason, andthe prevailing traditional faith of the early

church.37

The critics would have us believe that

Jesus said and did little of what we

traditionally attribute to himand certainly

did not presume himself to be God! On what

basis do they make this claim? Craig asserts

that the refusal of radical critics to draw the

obvious Christological implications is due

not tothe lack of historical evidence but to

their personal... prejudices.38 Kreeft adds:

All of the historical data we have confirm,rather than deny, refute, or disconfirm,these claims [that the Bible's writers wereeither eyewitnesses to the historical Jesusor recount firsthand observations]. Alldocuments by or about Christians, fromthe beginning, both Christian and anti-Christian, assume that all Christians have



9/11


always literally believed what we todaydefine as Christianity, in other words,what the New Testament teaches.39

We have, then, an accurate historical

record of Jesus' words and deeds, confirmed

by both the confession of his followers and the

accusations of his enemies. The data confirms

the theological assertions offered at Nicaea

and refined at Constantinople 56 years later:

We believein one Lord Jesus Christ

Light of Light, very God of very Godbeingone substance with the Father.40The case

made by Athanasius at Nicaea and

throughout the rest of his life has been an

anchor for the church throughout its history. If

Jesus were not truly God, Athanasius argued,

he could not free us from sin and death. Praise

be to God that we can confidently assert the

deity of our Redeemer and Lord, Jesus Christ.

_____________________

Bibliography

Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Public domainin Christian Classics Ethereal Library.Downloaded at http://ccel.wheaton.edu.

Bultmann, Rudolf.Jesus and the Word. NewYork: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958.

Clement of Rome. The First Epistle of Clement tothe Corinthians. Translated by J.B.Lightfoot. Accordance Bible Software v.

5.3, Oak Tree Software, Inc, 2002.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith.Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1984.

Edward, Daniel. Schleiermacher Interpretedby Himself and the Men of his School,British and Foreign Evangelical Review,

vol. 25. London: Nisbet, 1876.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Habermas, Gary. The Historical Jesus.Joplin,Mo.: College Press Publishing Co., 1996.

Hicks, John. The Myth of God Incarnate.London: SCM, 1977.

Ignatius, To the Ephesians. Translated byJ.B.Lightfoot. Accordance Bible Software v.5.3, Oak Tree Software, Inc, 2002.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies. Cited by John D.

Hannah in Our Legacy: The History ofChristian Doctrine. Colorado Springs:NavPress, 2001.

Kreeft, Peter. "Why I Believe Jesus is the Son ofGod." In Why I Am a Christian. Edited byNorman Geisler and Paul Hoffman.Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Melito of Sardis, The Guide 13. Cited by JohnD. Hannah in Our Legacy: The History ofChristian Doctrine. Colorado Springs:NavPress, 2001.

Murray, lain H. Evangelicalism Divided.Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust,2000.

Origen, Against Celsus. Cited by John D.Hannah in Our Legacy: The History ofChristian Doctrine. Colorado Springs:NavPress, 2001.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: AHistory of the Development of Doctrine,

vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic

Tradition (l00-600). Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1971. Cited in WilliamLane Craig, Reasonable Faith.Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1994.

Rowan, F. (trans.). Life of Schleiermacher, vol. 1.London: Smith, Elder, 1860.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church,vol 2: Ante-Nicene Christianity. Peabody,



10/11


Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002._____ . History of the Christian Church, vol 3:

Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity.

Peabody, Mass.: HendricksonPublishers, 2002.

_____________________

End Notes


1 The following four paragraphs are borrowed froma paper previously published by the authorentitled, One Person, Two Natures: The Meaning

and Coherence of the Hypostatic Union.

2Between 1774 and 1778, the philosopher/poetLessing published a series of essays by Reimarus, arecently deceased Hamburg language professor.

3Rudolf Bultmann,Jesus and the Word (New York:Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), p. 8.

4F. Rowan (trans.) Life ofSchleiermacher, vol. 1(London: Smith, Elder, 1860), p. 46-7.

5Daniel Edward, "Schleiermacher Interpreted byHimself and the Men of his SchooL" British and

Foreign Evangelical Review, vol. 25 (London: Nisbet,1876), p. 610.

6lain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided (Edinburgh:The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), p. 11.

7John Hicks, The Myth of God Incarnate (London:SCM, 1977), p. 3.

8E.g. Martha (John 11:27); the disciples (Matt.14:33); evil spirits (Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41); Nathanael(John 1:49).

9William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton:

Crossway Books, 1984), p. 245-246.10Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1994), p. 547.

11Peter Kreeft, "Why I Believe Jesus is the Son ofGod" in Why I Am a Christian, Norman Geisler andPaul Hoffman, eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), p.224.

12Craig, p. 239.

13

Athanasius, On the Incarnation, chapter viii,paragraph 54.

14The critics in view in the quote that follows arethe scholars who comprise the Jesus Seminar, agroup formed in 1985 to renew the quest of thehistorical Jesus and to report the results of itsresearch. The 200 or so members of the JesusSeminar vote on the authenticity of the words of

Jesus by dropping colored beads in a box. Differentcolors of beads represent various grades ofauthenticity, ranging from red ("Jesus said this orsomething very like it") to black ("This saying wascreated by later tradition"). These scholars have

rejected almost 80% of the recorded sayings of Jesusin the gospel as inauthentic.

15Craig, p. 244, 251-252.

16Horst Georg Pohlman, Abriss der Dogmatick, rev.ed. (Dusseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1966), p. 230,quoted in Craig, p. 252.

17 Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Mo.:College Press Publishing Co., 1996), p. 143.

18Ibid., p. 144-145.

19Kreeft, p. 232.

20Craig, p. 243.

21Grudem, p. 544.

22Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 7.2.

23Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement tothe Corinthians, 36.

24Ibid., 16:2.

25Justin Martyr, cited in Philip Schaff, History of theChristian Church, vol 2: Ante-Nicene Christianity

(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), p.549.

26Ibid, p. 550.

27Irenaeus, Against Heresies IlL16, cited in John D.Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of ChristianDoctrine (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001) p. 114.

28Schaff, p. 551-555.


11/11



29

Melito of Sardis, The Guide 13, cited in Hannah, p.115.

30 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A Historyof the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergenceof the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1971), p. 173, cited inCraig, p. 243.

31Pagan sources: Pliny (Epistles x.96); Tacitus(Annuals xv.44); and Suetonius (Lives xxv.4). Jewishsources: Josephus (Antinquities xviii.3.3); and theTalmud.

32

Blasphemy may be defined as defaming God byattributing His nature, prerogatives, or works toanother.

33Because supernatural events are routinelydisregarded by the critics, accounts in whichdemonic forces acknowledge Jesus' identity (Matt.8:29; Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34, Acts 19:15), which might

be mentioned, do not lend strong support, nor doesangelic attestation (Luke 1:35).

34Origen, Against Celsus 4.18, cited in Hannah, p.113.

35For example, the moral argument asks why thelie of Jesus deity has made people better than anytruth? Athanasius utilized this argument when hewrote, "If He is a man, how is it that one man hasproved stronger than all those whom theythemselves regard as gods, and by His own powerhas shown them to be nothing (On the Incarnation,chapter VIII, paragraph 48).

36 Philosophical arguments are explored in a paperpreviously published by the author entitled, OnePerson, Two Natures: The Meaning and Coherenceof the Hypostatic Union.

37Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol 3: Niceneand Post-Nicene Christianity (Peabody, Mass.:Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), p. 662.

38Craig, p. 253.

39Kreeft, p. 231.

40From the Nicene Creed (381 A.D.)

did the historical jesus claim to be “very god of very god”?

Documents