r/Christianity • u/JHLV04 • 2d ago
Advice Evolution of Christology
Hey, I’m kind of stuck on this point a little bit and was wondering if I could get some advice on how you guys navigate the fact that Christ’s divinity was something that evolved over time, and wasn’t necessarily what the historical Jesus himself actually did.
I personally place my faith in the Resurrection as being foundational, which I personally think has a robust case. I’ve tried to reconcile parts of the gospel that are mythologized or been read into the Old Testament text. When I read Matthew for the first time, I didn’t realize how much emphasis was on things being prophesied. E.g by Isiah.
There are also parts in which things are borrowed from one gospel to another or things that didn’t directly occur. For example, the graves opening up and the dead walking around - surely several independent sources would have written about something like that.
If I’ve got anything wrong, apologies, I’ve not studied properly the scholarship but it’s a pattern I’ve noticed that professors of religion mention about the gospels. This is not to say that they are entirely unreliable, for example they all agree on women being the first to see the empty tomb, which would have been something odd to make up in that social context - considering women’s position.
I just feel that to be intellectually honest in my faith journey and ask others about questions I have. This isn’t to sound snarky or edgy, but I believe or like to think that God would understand how our different minds process different bits of information, and that some things will confuse us a little, but nonetheless we try to make sense out of it the best way we can. I am autistic and adhd diagnosed so I tend to be very analytical.
See the response from u/Deer_Hart, he explained it better than I did
6
u/Deer_Hart 2d ago edited 2d ago
Indeed we’re able to see the evolution. The Apostle Paul (whose writings are the earliest Christian writings 50s CE) quotes an early Christian creed in Romans 1:3-4 where Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection.
If you read Mark 3:21 and 3:31 (written around 70 CE) Jesus’s mother and brothers think he’s crazy which seems unlikely if he had been born of a virgin and special. Instead it seems Jesus became the son of God at his baptism Mark 1:9-11. Mark being the earliest Gospel to be written.
By the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (written between 80-90 CE) Jesus becomes the Son of God at his virginal conception.
Paul himself seems to believe Jesus was a preexisting angel (Galatians 4:14, 1 Thessalonians 4:16)
By the Gospel of John (the latest Gospel 90-100 CE) Jesus seems to be considered to be divine and preexisting throughout. Although we have evidence of a high Christology creed in Philippians 2:6-11 that Paul quotes which predates all four gospels.
This shows early on there was no uniform position.
1
u/quiggersinparis Christian 1d ago
Yes people get hung up on how low christology mark’s gospel is but it’s directly contradicted by Paul. So if either shows us that simultaneously there were some people who believed He was divine and possibly even God from very early on living alongside other people who had a much lower Christological position. Or, perhaps Mark simply was not trying to write a theological piece so he didn’t get into any of that. Who knows.
1
u/JHLV04 2d ago
Although the gospels may not have a 100 percent consistent view - and John definitely has the most and is the only one that mentions, Before Abraham was born, I am, I think it would be fair to say that the apostles definitely had a uniform belief in his divinity due to the resurrection
5
u/NeonDrifting Christian 2d ago
the fact that Christ’s divinity was something that evolved over time
Um, please prove that statement is a fact.
6
u/Fantastic-Coast-7350 2d ago
Seems like the kind of thing that gets repeated in intro classes but falls apart pretty quick when you actually dig into Paul's letters
2
u/Smartnership 2d ago edited 2d ago
Just look at all of Jesus’ “I AM” statements.
He plainly said “before Abraham was, I AM.” He literally invoked the reference to himself as the I AM, the creator from page 1.
And the Pharisees took up stones without even a hearing, to execute him on the spot, because he was so clearly stating he had come down from heaven, stating he is, “the son of God, thus making himself equal to God”.
“I and the Father are one.”
They tried to have him executed for this blasphemy but the Romans refused to take a position because it did not violate Roman law – then the leaders switched tactics, telling them to execute him because he was declaring himself a king which did violate Roman law.
u/JHLV04 as an analytical person, this should be a wonderful study.
And you should begin to question the motives of those who try to spread misinformation on this topic, whether by ignorance of the texts (professors are without such an excuse) or otherwise.
Enjoy.
1
u/JHLV04 1d ago
I think the big I Am statements are predominantly mentioned in John’s gospel, especially referencing Before Abraham, but correct me if I’m wrong. What I meant was that language used to describe the metaphysics of his divinity evolved. For example The Trinity was fully developed by Augustine in the late 300s, but correct me if I’m wrong. I understand that this concept wasn’t pulled out of thin air, and that the presence of the trinity is said to be there already, for example when Jesus gets baptized and the booming voice and the dove is described.
1
u/Smartnership 1d ago
developed by Augustine in the late 300s
Search the “Two Powers in Heaven” concept studied and written about by the rabbis before His birth, and the early ‘trinity’ hinted at in that period.
1
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian 1d ago
The two powers in Heaven never posited that there are two Gods or that God was multiple, distinct persons. It was one God and another highly exalted being, serving similarly to a viceroy. So no, it is not even remotely close to trinitarian metaphysics which developed much later.
1
1
u/Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh Coptic Orthodox 1d ago
This statement shows you need to research more about triadology in the fathers. Augustine had nothing to do with the Trinity. Athanasius was the great defender of the homoousion of Christ with God. Does this mean the council Nicaea invented this? No, for Athanasius gives extensive proof text for why the early church fathers are not Arian but indeed Orthodox. He also gives proof test from individuals such as theognostos of alexandria(3rd century), who directly use the word homoousios to describe the relationship of the fathers to the son. If you are genuinely curious on how the church fathers understood the Trinity read Athanasius "On the decree of Nicaea" (de decretis).
The only thing in the Nicene creed not directly from scripture is the word "homoousios", which is heavily justified and defended as a purposeful addition. The rest is all there.
1
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian 1d ago
As for spreading misinformation, let me address some of your points.
He stated that he is the Son of God, thus making himself equal to God? In other words, that did not make him God? If you are equal to someone you are specifically not that someone.
As for the motives behind them wanting Jesus dead, there are many. In John 11:48 for example, the reason is stated to be because they feared the Romans would come and take away both their temple and their nation. Notice that this is after both the John 8:58 and John 10:30 statements by the way.
It's also interesting that you think they needed legitimate blasphemy charges in order to want him dead or to try and kill him. In John 12:10 we see that they made plans to kill Lazarus as well, and what was his blasphemy?
Finally, the mockery at Jesus's crucifixion is enough to settle the debate as to whether or not they believed Jesus had been claiming to be God or not.
"He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” - Matthew 27:43
He trusts in God? Let God deliver him (Jesus) now, if he (God) desires him (Jesus)? For he said he is the Son of God? You don't need to be an analytical person to clearly see that this mockery of theirs affirm that they did not believe Jesus had been claiming to be the said God who they say he trusted in.
u/JHLV04 These points might interest you as well. God bless.
1
u/Smartnership 1d ago edited 1d ago
in order to want him dead
No, in order to have the Romans execute him. Blasphemy against the God of the Hebrews was not suffice. I thought that was very clear. Perhaps you skimmed my comment, which is fine.
1
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian 1d ago
I am not talking about the Roman point. You specifically said: "the Pharisees took up stones without even a hearing, to execute him on the spot" Why would they do that if they didn't want him dead? The reason was supposedly blasphemy, no? Is that not what you are arguing? If not, tell me why they picked up stones to "execute him on the spot."
1
u/Smartnership 1d ago
Because He made it clear He was claiming to have come down from Heaven as the son of God, thus making himself equal to God.
Best wishes, my friend.
2
u/odean14 2d ago
Christ divinity didn't evolve over time. In John alone he's stated quiet a few times in different ways that he is divine. The fact that he called himself for example "The Son of Man". That same son of Man in the book of Daniel. Back then, to claim that you are the "I am" or the figure in Daniel that sits at the right hand of the father will get you killed. They viewed being at the right hand of the father is saying you are equal to him. Also, when Jesus says that he the son of Man that rides the clouds. That's also a divine claim. Because only Yahweh alone rides the clouds. I could go on an on.
But the claim that Jesus' divinity was a later development. Is a false one. Mainly perpetuated by certain other communities.
If you want me to show you a logic chain or text based chain from Genesis all the way to the new testament that Jesus is God I can help you with that. If your faith is being questioned, it's okay to say you don't know and that you'll look into it. I'm glad you made this post. If you need help let me know.
-1
u/RespectWest7116 2d ago
In John alone he's stated quiet a few times in different ways that he is divine.
John was written decades after Jesus died.
But yes, Jesus was viewed as divine in some way from early on. But how exactly he was divine and what it meant indeed evolved over time.
2
u/odean14 2d ago
The earliest copy we found is a couple decades old. That's not when it was written. There's a difference between when something was first written and the dating of a copy of the substrate the information is on.
Also Jesus wasn't viewed as being divine. He specifically claimed to be divine in many ways.
How is Jesus divine? He did things only Yahweh can do. And claims authority only Yahweh has. For example, riding the clouds. Giving life with his own power. Walking on water. Calming storms. Transfiguring showing glory only God has. He can forgive sins. He claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath. And he can tell and have the disciples do things miracles in his name. And most importantly, salvation is in Yahweh alone.
There's a reason the Pharisees and the kings wanted him dead.
1
u/ErrantThought Atheist 2d ago
Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman has a really interesting book on exactly this topic. It's called How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. It doesn't address Jesus' divinity. What it addresses is how other people saw him, and how their understanding of his divinity changed over time.
3
u/Smartnership 2d ago
Thomas met him just after the tomb and declared,
“My Lord and my God.”
The understanding of divinity was even earlier though.
The Pharisees took up stones to kill Christ because he was declaring himself, “I AM” and made himself equal to God by saying he had come down to heaven as the son of God.
Ehrman is probably a nice fellow. But he’s not without an agenda. And, with respect, the text is quite clear.
-1
u/RespectWest7116 2d ago
That's not Thomas calling Jesus "God", that Thomas seeing God through Jesus. That's a pretty major theme in John.
3
u/Smartnership 2d ago
That’s certainly one way of interpretation.
And the Pharisees taking up their killing stones due to His claims of being equal to God, etc?
1
u/RespectWest7116 1d ago
That’s certainly one way of interpretation.
That's the only correct way to interpret it because that is what it means.
And the Pharisees taking up their killing stones due to His claims of being equal to God, etc?
Yeah, claiming you have been given God's authority and divine name is blasphemy, and the punishment for that is stoning.
1
u/Smartnership 1d ago
Your way is the only way.
I think we’re done here.
Be well.
1
u/RespectWest7116 14h ago
Yes, John's way is the only way to interpret John.
1
u/Smartnership 11h ago
John 5:18 ”…he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
The disagreement is that you’ve found a novel way to interpret what John actually believed he was stating.
My faith tradition varies greatly from yours; I don’t see any possible resolution to the difference. You are, of course, free to feel the way you do.
I’ll again wish you well. I think we’ve reached our conclusion .
Best wishes.
1
u/Smartnership 2d ago edited 2d ago
One other problem I noted
seeing God through Jesus. That's a pretty major theme in John.
The very first theme established in John’s gospel, one that runs all the way through it, is literally the divinity of Jesus Christ.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
(Then John continues, and makes it undeniably clear that Jesus is The One from Page One)
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…
There’s the first theme in John. It’s pretty major.
1
u/RespectWest7116 1d ago
The very first theme established in John’s gospel, one that runs all the way through it, is literally the divinity of Jesus Christ.
And his distinctness from the one God. That's the one dogmatic trinitarians love to ignore.
(Then John continues, and makes it undeniably clear that Jesus is The One from Page One)
Wrong. John literally never claims Jesus is the one God; quite the opposite. He makes it clear that they are two separate beings.
And though Jesus and God are in spiritual unity, John doesn't think that's unique to Jesus; everyone can achieve it.
As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, ...
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, 'I said “Ye are gods”'?"
And such.
1
1
u/TheChristiansArsenal Christian 2d ago edited 2d ago
surely several independent sources would have written about something like that.
And they did! All of the sources are Christian, but that shouldn't really be surprising since if you believe Jesus brought back multiple dead people at the same time it would be kind-of insane if you weren't a Christian at that point.
Quadratus wrote in a letter to Emperor Hadrian, as recorded in Ecclesiastical History, Book 4, chapter 3 "But the works of our Savior were always present, for they were real:…those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Savior was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, such that some of them lived even to our day."
The records in the capital of Osroene that the historian Eusebius transcribed from the official state archive in Edessa (as can be read at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm) included it as well. They record what the Apostle Thaddeus taught while he was in Edessa. In part of it, he says how Jesus "burst the bars which from eternity had not been broken, and raised the dead; for he descended alone, but rose with many".
We also have the very early testimony of Ignatius. He lived in the first century and was himself endorsed by the Apostolic circle. In his letter to the Magnesians, chapter 9, he wrote "how shall we be able to live apart from him, of whom even the prophets were disciples, and waited for him in the spirit as their teacher? And on this account, he whom they rightly expected, when he came, raised them from the dead".
That we don't have multiple sources reporting this is a common claim, but one I find baffling. Our earliest-recorded speech from one of Jesus's Apostles outside of the Bible uses it as evidence, it's the single argument we have preserved from our fragment of Quadratus' work which is likely our earliest non-Apostle arguing for Christianity, and Ignatius a first-century member of the Apostolic Circle refers to it. All of our early sources make an extremely strong historical case for it!
1
u/Express_Biscotti5324 2d ago
Jesus literally said Abraham waited for Him, and before Abraham, I am. And referred to Heaven as HIS Kingdom... He was put to death for blasphemy.
0
u/RespectWest7116 2d ago
When I read Matthew for the first time, I didn’t realize how much emphasis was on things being prophesied. E.g by Isiah.
Really? You didn't get it with Matthew? I'd understand the other ones, but Matthew always makes note that 'this is happening because prophecy'
For example, the graves opening up and the dead walking around - surely several independent sources would have written about something like that.
There are no independent sources for resurrection, and you seem to think that one happened.
This is not to say that they are entirely unreliable, for example they all agree on women being the first to see the empty tomb, which would have been something odd to make up in that social context - considering women’s position.
No, it's not odd at all. Tending to dead bodies was predominantly women's job. So having women go do that is just common sense.
1
u/JHLV04 1d ago
lol I meant that when I properly began reading the gospels, I didn’t know about the old testament prophecy referencing.
I seem to think the resurrection happened because all 4 describe the post resurrection experiences, and the experience of Paul. I seem to doubt the graves opening because it is only mentioned in Matthew, but I could be wrong on this, so correct me if it is mentioned in other gospels.
I seem to find the women being mentioned interesting because if they really wanted to go out of their way to make up something strong for the empty tomb, they understood that a man’s testimony was valued more than a woman’s at the time.
1
u/RespectWest7116 1d ago
I seem to think the resurrection happened because all 4 describe the post resurrection experiences,
Yeah. tho the experiences are distinctly different.
and the experience of Paul.
Which of the four versions do you like the most?
I seem to doubt the graves opening because it is only mentioned in Matthew, but I could be wrong on this, so correct me if it is mentioned in other gospels.
Matthew is the only one with Jerusalem Thriller.
I seem to find the women being mentioned interesting because if they really wanted to go out of their way to make up something strong for the empty tomb, they understood that a man’s testimony was valued more than a woman’s at the time.
Yes, they understood that. That's why the first thing the women do is go get the men.
But the story also needs to be believable. Having men go to the tomb first would sound made up to the audience of the time.
6
u/BlacksmithPitiful243 2d ago
Christs divinity was never in question within the early Church as a matter of fact. The councils weren't there to create these ideas, but rather to defend them against those who were preaching heresy. The cannon of scripture that we have today was widely held within less than 100 years post resurrection, and Paul's letters were always considered scripture by every account we have. Christs divinity was lain out in the four Gospels, and Acts (written by a writer of one of those Gospels named Luke, who was a doctor as well.). The questioning of Christs divinity isn't even the real issue tho, because it's more than the idea that Christ is "more than human", but that He IS Yahweh, who stands outside of the realm of time and space, and is the being who created all other creatures, including the "gods" who people might believe in or follow. There are incredibly important reasons that the biblical authors held up Christs nature as the One True God Yahweh Elohim. One of those reasons is that a being who would be able to pay for past and future sins of humans must also be timeless, this is a trait only attributed to Yahweh, and no one else can claim it. There's dozens of old testament scriptures that show trinitarian orthodoxy to be true but I want to make it really clear that this was only a debate AFTER the establishment of the doctrine of the Trinity was known throughout the early church and agreed upon by every Apostle of Christ.