I too, am a Christian and we should doubt most doctrine and things man made. The early church and church today has done much to harm its own image and the concept of a Triune God is a difficult one. The teachings of Jesus are important regardless of a belief in a divinity and are a "best practices" manual. The mission is God passionately seeking a relationship with his children, the church exist because of "missio dei" God's mission. God's existence is not found in a church, it is found in a relationship with the Lord, a relationship that I am sure of and I treasure. Agnostics and atheists would argue that I am dilusional, unless they invite Jesus in to their own hearts they will never know.

Hi Shelly,

First of all, I wanted to say that you brought up good questions and it is very critical to know Jesus' self-understanding of who He is as well as His followers understanding of who He is.

I. Defining terms:

1. "Early Christian": Is commonly known as the Christianity of the roughly three centuries (1st, 2nd, 3rd, early 4th) between the Crucifixion of Jesus (30-33) and the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

2. A. Jesus' Titles of Deity:

a. YHWH (Yahweh): (Exodus 3:14) Basically means "He who is," or "I am who I

am," and declares the divine self-existence" (Unger's Bible

Dictionary 409).

b. Son of God: A term used exclusively and absolute sense.

1. "His disciples and His enemies understand from their Jewish background that the real

import of the term "Son of God" was Deity. One hundred

and four times, Christ refers Himself to God as "Father"

or "the Father" (Evidence that Demands A Verdict Vol. 1,

101).

c. Son of Man: Jesus used this title in three distinctive ways:

1. Concerning His earthly ministry.

2. When foretelling His passion.

3. In His teaching regarding His coming again.

Jesus clearly believed Himself to be the fulfillment of the Old

Testament prophecies of the Messiah. In referring to

Himself He continually used the title "The Son of Man" from

Daniel's vision" (Daniel 7:13, 14).

(Evidence that Demands A Verdict Vol. 1, 102)

d. Abba, Father: "Nobody before Him in all history of Israel had addressed

God by this word...to be sure, Jews were accustomed to

praying to God as Father: but the word they used was

Abhinu, a form of address which was essentially an appeal

to God for Mercy and forgiveness. There is no appeal to God

for mercy in Jesus' mode of address, Abba. It is the familiar

word of closest intimacy. That is why He differentiated

between His own relationship with God as Father that of

other people" (Evidence that Demands A Verdict Vol.1, 102)

A. Questions/Points:

1. "Actually, early Christians never even spoke of the divinity of Christ, they

only followed his teachings"

2. "Why wasn't he considered to be divine by those who followed him while he

walked the Earth?"

3. "His divinity was declared centuries after the crucifixion when Rome,

basically, became the center of Christianity"

Introduction

Because you used the term "Early Christians" I can only assume you are referring to said definition of the term provided. In point 1, (based on said definition of term), you made the claim that in all periods (1st, 2nd, 3rd, early 4th) Christ's dual nature was not acknowledged, specifically His Divine Nature. In point 2, you made a question in regards to why His disciples (since you clearly stated that it was in reference to those who were "while He walked on earth"), considered Him to be divine. Finally, point 3, you made the claim that when Rome became "the center of Christianity", it was than that Christ's Divine Nature was acknowledged.

Rebuttals

1. Jesus' followers (in reference to point 2: "...those who followed Him while He

walked on earth ") did indeed believed His claim to Deity. Thomas, one of the

twelve apostles acknowledged Him as "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28.

Notice, that those who were with Thomas heard him say that directly to

Jesus (the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the disciples). None of them

rebuked him and most of all, neither did Jesus. Jesus received Thomas'

worship which can only be given to God. Secondly, the apostle John, the

writer of the this Gospel, states his purpose for writing, "But these were written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing ye might have life through His name" (John 20:31). Thirdly, the writer of Acts states that the community of believers (first century/apostolic period) "...continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine" which would include Jesus' dual nature (fully God and fully human).

2. Since the term "Early Christian" covers 1st, 2nd, 3rd, early 4th between the Crucifixion of Jesus (30-33) and the First Council of Nicaea in 325, than we need to read what the representatives said from each period right?

I. Anti-Nicene Fathers:

a. Apostolic Fathers: Traditionally used to designate the collection of the

earliest extant Christian writings outside the New Testament ( The

Apostolic Fathers 2nd ed. pg. 1)

-These were people that either were disciples of the twelve

apostles or disciples of those who had direct contact with the

apostles. These documents are primary resource for the study

of early Christianity. It is evidence that the early church

indeed "...steadfastly continued in the apostle's doctrines"

which includes the Deity of Christ.

a. Clement: "The majestic scepter of God, our Lord

Christ Jesus"

"Let us fear the Lord Jesus Christ"

"Jesus Christ, whom be the glory and majesty,

might and honor to Him, both now and forever and

ever"

b. Ignatius: "Jesus Christ our God"

"There is only one physician, who is both

flesh and spirit , born and unborn, God in

man, first subject to suffering and then

beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord"

c. Polycarp: "Our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and

gave him glory and a throne at his right

hand to whom all things in heaven and on

earth were subjected, whom every

breathing creature serves, who is coming

as Judge of the living and the dead"

b. Fathers of the Second Century.

1. Irenaeus: explained in Against Heresies (4.10) how Christ was often seen by Moses and that it was Christ who spoke from the burning bush. lrenaeus continued elaborating on Christ's relationship to God the Father: "For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom freely and spontaneously, He mode all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let us make man after our image and likeness.

2. Tertullian: Adv. Praxean 27 states that there are two natures, one human and one divine, which are joined in the one person Jesus Christ.

3. Clement of Alexandria: Exhortation to the Heathen, 1: “This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) ad of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man--that Author of all blessings to us. . . . This is the New Song, the manifestation of the Word that was in the beginning, and before the beginning.”

4. Novatian:

"The rule of truth demands that, first of all, we believe in God the Father and Almighty Lord, that is, the most perfect Maker of all things. . .' The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the Father, also in the Son of God, CHRIST JESUS, our Lord God, but the Son of God.... Moreover, the order of reason and the authority of faith, in due consideration of the words and Scriptures of the Lord ', admonishes us, after this, to believe also in the Holy Ghost, promised of old to the Church, but granted in the appointed and fitting time.”

This was written in 235 AD and this was just 100 yrs. before the council of Nicaea!

5. Hippolytus: “1. Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? 2. Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? 3. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and in the resurrection of the flesh?”

c. Fathers of the Third and Early Fourth Century:

1. Athanasius: "He always was and is God and Son"

"He who is eternally God,...also became man for our

sake"

2. Alexander of Alexandria: In reference to Jesus he said this, "His

highest and essential divinity" and that He was, "an exact and

identical image of the Father"

3. Eusebius of Caesarea: "The Son of God bears no resemblence to

originated creatures but...is alike in every way only to the Father

who has begotten Him and that He is not from any other hypostasis

and substance but from the Father"

Hence, from the very first Church leaders directly after the time of the Apostles up to the Council of Nicaea (and it was not in Rome, it was in Constantinople) in the 4th century and beyond, had consistently believed and taught that Jesus is God.

Conclusion

It is only logical with given so many evidences and testimonies, Church leaders were only declaring what was already declared by Jesus Christ and the apostles in Scripture, that Jesus was God. Therefore, it is theologically and historically inaccurate to believe that Christians never spoke of the divinity of Christ and that it was declared in Rome after somany centuries.

Ever heard of the Shroud of Turin or the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is an entire vault of ancient artifacts.

Are you stuuupidd????

That means about 4.5billion people on this planet is from the antichrist. Way to go all powerful Christian God...

but now i am confused. because you are saying that because i belieave that jesus did exist in the flesh that i am a spirit of god.but i dont belaive that "god" exists, so where does that put me?

I support you alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the way!! :)

Though I do not know that person and I have no reason to do this, I would like to apologize on his/her behalf. Jesus Christ was about loving thy neighbor and turning the other cheek. He didn't scream at the Pharisees that they would burn in a lake of fire whenever they questioned him or his teachings. He spoke with wisdom and eloquence.

"I dare you to think"! That was a good one.

For those on here wanting to judge or condemn people for questioning the existence or the divinity of Christ, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Even Mother Theresa struggled with her faith, she admitted that in an interview before her death. If you have never questioned your faith, then you really don't have faith. What you have is called brainwashing.

you can see dog shit too, but you dont neccecarily want to see it smell it or walk on it or eat off it and if god did exist i bet hed ,like most ,would be the first to say " I didnt do it"

No.

This is how the earth was created link

You believe a magical daddy in the sky created everthing, but there is no proof of that.

I mean, what you say makes no more sense than if I said a mystical giant unicorn created the earth. That theory is backed up by just as much evidence as yours is.

1. Yes it does. The son of god is supposed to be divine, the christian faith believes him to be divine, and it certainly was not that person's last name even if he did exist.

2. You have proof of gravity and the sun. There's no proof of Jesus Christ.

3. Yes, there is evidence. There are multiple historical documents recording their existence. On the other hand, the only place Jesus Christ is found is the new testament, meanwhile no other historical documents contain any such person. On top of that, there is something to be gained by the religious to pretend that that person existed and to continue to insist upon his existence, while there is nothing to be gained by simply making up those other people.

4. All predictions only came true if you believe Jesus Christ was a messiah. Other than that exactly 0 predictions came true. And since even if that person ever existed, he certainly was not the son of god, then exactly 0 predictions came true. another thing to be noted, none, zero, zip, zilch of any of the new testament was written until at least 500 years after that person supposedly existed. And even these documents from 500 years after his existence, as you pointed out, have been translated and mistranslated and lost etc, many times. I mean, the religious are already trying to rewrite who the founders of this country were only a couple hundred years ago. What makes you think the religious would not have changed so much more about the guy from whom they derive their world influence?

I most certainly should not start a church. I'm against all religions, I think they do more harm than good, and they contribute significantly to the dumbing down of societies as a whole, as demonstrated by basically this entire debate.