The Divinity of Christ

The Divinity of Christ

by Gabriel

I. Undeniable Biblical Evidence

This section is devoted to proving to non-Christians that the divinity of Christ was evident historically, scientifically, and logically. However, there are those (such as many Muslims) that would dare to say that the Bible itself does not institute Christ as God. And so I will begin by briefly showing the undeniable Biblical Evidence for Christ's Divinity.

First of all, let us examine the fact that on several occasions in His lifetime, Christ allowed people to worship Him freely. In Matthew 2:11, we find that the wise men worshipped Jesus. They did not honor Him nor venerate Him-- they worshipped Him. In Matthew 8:2, we find that Christ allowed a leper to worship Him. In Matthew 14:33, Christ allows people to worship Him as well as give Him the divine title of Son of God (which will be discussed later.) In Matthew 28:9, the disciples drop to the knees and worship Christ, with no opposition from Him. In John 9:38, we see that a sinner confesses his belief in Christ and then worships Him, again, with no opposition from Jesus. Perhaps the most explicit instance of worship is that of Thomas, found in John 21:28. Thomas believed Christ to be "My Lord and My God!" (Gk., Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou--lit., "The Lord of me and the God of me!") He proclaimed this, and yet Christ did not oppose it. The men and woman living during the time of Christ's life knew very well that only God was to be worshipped. They worshipped Christ for one reason-- He was God.

Let us secondly examine Christ's claims to be God. Now of course, Christ doesn't just come out and say "I am the almighty God." That would do two things: get Him killed on the spot; and make Him look like a lunatic. And yet Christ, in His infinite wisdom, explicitly declared His divinity in a more subtle way. He sees it fit to make Himself equal with God by claiming things only true about God. For instance, we are told in the Old Testament that: " ... the seventh day is the Sabbath of YHWH your God ... For in six days YHWH made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them: therefore YHWH blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." EXODUS 20:10-11. And we find that Christ Himself claimed to be "Lord of the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:8). Christ is clearly exalting Himself to the status of "YHWH your God." And even more astonishing claim is that of John 10:30, where He specifically declares that 'He and His Father [God] are One'. The classic "I AM" text is always very useful as well. In John 8:58, Christ declared to the Pharisees: "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." Here Christ was claiming eternal existence. He was claiming to be God Himself. The words "I AM" are used in Exodus 3:14 clearly to indicate Jehovah, a title used to indicate God the Father. The Pharisees understood that Christ was claiming divinity, and immediately picked up stones to kill Him (John 8:59). In John 5:18, after Christ testifies to a unity with the Father (v. 17), the Pharisees wish to kill Christ because He was "making Himself equal to God." Christ again claims unity with God the Father in John 14:11, where Christ says, "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me..." Another clear picture of Christ's divinity is found in Mark 2:7, where, after Christ had forgiven the sins of a paralytic, some scribes challenge Him by saying, "Why does this Man speak that way? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Christ responds with the claim that He has authority to forgive sins (v. 10), eliminating the scribes' doubt about Christ's claims to divinity.

The most significant claim of Christ's divinity, however, is that He claims that Salvation itself is found through Him. He claimed that "Nor does the Father judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to His Son." (John 5:22). On numerous occasions, Christ tells us that He, and He alone, is the way to Salvation (e.g. "I am the way, the Truth, and the Life.") and that belief in HIM is necessary to attain eternal life (John 3:36). Throughout His life, Christ personally forgives the sins of others, something done only by God. In at least one instance, Christ assures a man of salvation, an act divine in itself.

Furthermore, the New Testament writers (we will focus mainly on Paul, Jude, and John) unanimously agreed that Christ was on a Divine level with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Matthew records Christ's words in Matthew 28:19, which commands us to baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", an obvious Trinitarian testimony. The unity of Christ with God the Father and the Holy Spirit is also testified by Paul, who writes: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you" (2 Cor 13:14). A very explicit claim to Christ's divinity is Paul's words in Romans 9:5, which read, "...according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God." Virtually every attempt to undermine the statement of Christ's divinity Paul is making in Romans 9:5 end up becoming ridiculous and totally unacceptable. Paul again writes of Christ's divinity: "...Christ Jesus, who, being in the very form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God." The writer of Hebrews, probably Jude, also attests to Christ's divinity. "But to the Son He [God] says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom.'" Again, a blatant testimony of Christ's Divinity. Also significant are passages which apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus. This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: 'I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12). This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, 'Fear not, I am the First and the Last'" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: 'The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life'" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12-13). This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title "the Alpha and the Omega," which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8). John, the writer of Revelation, obviously believed that Christ was Yahweh. James calls our Lord Jesus Christ, "the Lord of Glory," (James 2:1) creating a mind picture of Christ's Godliness (although not proving His divinity). The belief in Christ's divinity was not doubted by the New Testament writers.

Hundreds of verses could be cited to prove the Divinity of Christ. However, this particular section is not intended to prove Christ's Divinity Biblically, and so I will stop the Biblical discussion here. One thing is for certain: If a person denies that the Bible exalts Christ to the level of God, that person is obviously desperately grasping at straws, deceiving himself, and not reading the Bible as it was meant to be read. All attempts at disproving Christ's Divinity Biblically have failed pitifully.

II. The Pagan Sources

In the pagan world, we find few definite sources for the historical Truth of Christ's Life and divinity. This is to be expected, as there are a number of reasons why the pagans writ so little about Jesus:

The field of the Gospel history was remote Galilee, very far from any largely pagan area;
the Jews were noted as a superstitious race, if we believe Horace [a pagan] (Credat Judoeus Apella, I, Sat., v, 100);
the God of the Jews was unknown and unintelligible to most pagans of that period;
the Jews in whose midst Christianity had taken its origin were dispersed among, and hated by, all the pagan nations;
the Christian religion itself was often confounded with one of the many sects that had sprung up in Judaism, and which could not excite the interest of the pagan spectator.

We need not delay over a writing entitled the "Acts of Pilate", which must have existed in the second century (Justin, "Apol"., I, 35), and must have been used in the pagan schools to warn boys against the belief of Christians (Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", I, ix; IX, v) (the Acts of Pilate were probably forgeries); nor need we inquire into the question whether there existed any authentic census tables of Quirinius (almost definitely, there did not).

1. Tacitus

While an extreme amount of so-called pagan testimonies of Christ's life were forgeries or were heavily modified early on by Christians, we can rest assured that the testimony of Tacitus (AD 54-119) is authentic. Tacitus'' testimony reinforces many vital elements of Christ's life portrayed in the Gospels. He states that the Founder of the Christian religion, a "deadly superstition" in the eyes of the Romans, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius; that His religion, though suppressed for a time, broke forth again not only throughout Judea where it had originated, but even in Rome, the conflux of all the streams of wickedness and shamelessness. The exact text is below:

The author of the denomination was Christ[us] who had been executed in Tiberius time by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. The pestilent superstition, checked for a while, burst out again, not only throughout Judea...but throughout the city of Rome also... [Tacitus, Annals, XV 44]

Astonishingly, these statements are quite similar to those of the Gospels. According to the Gospels, Christ WAS put to death by Pontious Pilate. We also see that Tacitus writes about how the Christian religion sprung up even in Rome, an interesting correlation to Peter and Paul's visits to Rome later in their lives. Tacitus goes on to state that Nero had diverted from himself the suspicion of the burning of Rome by charging the Christians with the crime; that these latter were not guilty of arson, though they deserved their fate on account of their universal misanthropy. Tacitus, moreover, describes some of the horrible torments to which Nero subjected the Christians (Ann., XV, xliv). This testimony is relevant to Christianity because it shows from a Roman perspective how quickly the Church grew (something attested to in the book of Acts), and how many sufferings it went through under Roman and Jewish rule (also attested to Biblically). Tacitus viewed Christianity as an abject Jewish sect, and in this way groups the Christians with the Jews. Overall, in his writings, Tacitus greatly reinforces the historical accuracy of the Gospels, and does portray the power of Jesus Christ in the Jewish society. He also alludes to His huge amount of followers and the geographical dispersion of the Christians. From the testimony of Tacitus, we see many things which may be used to support the significance, if not the divinity, of Christ.

2. Suetonius

A second Roman writer who can be considered authentic, and who shows his knowledge of Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (AD 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) (Clau., 25), which is an expected testimony of a historical pagan such as himself. Suetonius, like Tacitus, writes about Nero's horrible treatment of the Christians (Nero, 16). However, Suetonius does not understand that the Jewish troubles with Christ came about because of the messianic character of Jesus Christ. While Suetonius does not indicate Christ's divinity or any act that would reinforce it, he does show that the Gospels can be trusted historically on at least a few accounts.

3. Pliny the Younger

| Of great importance is the letter of Pliny the Younger to the emperor Trajan (about A.D. 61-115), in which the Governor of Bithynia consults his imperial majesty as to how to deal with the Christians living within his jurisdiction. On the one hand, their lives were confessedly innocent; no crime could be proved against them excepting their Christian belief, which appeared to the Roman as an extravagant and perverse superstition. On the other hand, the Christians could not be shaken in their allegiance to Christ, Whom they celebrated as their God in their early morning meetings (Ep., X, 97, 98). Christianity here appears no longer as a religion of criminals, as it does in the texts of Tacitus and Suetonius; Pliny acknowledges the high moral principles of the Christians, admires their constancy in the Faith (pervicacia et inflexibilis obstinatio), which he appears to trace back to their worship of Christ (carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere). | An excerpt from the letter is below:

...it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery, or adultery, not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and meet again to take food... [Pliny, Epistle 97]

Special attention should be made to the phrase: "Christ as a god." This is a fairly blatant testimony that the early Christians believed in the Divinity of Christ. It is also interesting to compare this excerpt with Acts 20:7-11, a biblical account of an early Christian Sunday celebration.

Although several attempts have been made to disprove the validity of the testimony of Pliny the Younger, all are based upon prejudice, ignorance, or embarrassment, and have fallen apart historically. In Pliny's letter, we find a definite reinforcement of the Christian religion, and the importance and Spiritual superiority of Jesus Christ and devotedness of His followers. We also find the vital fact that early Christians worshipped "Christ as a god", an important element in proving the Divinity of Christ.

4. Lucian

One interesting writer is Lucian, a second century pagan, who despised Christ and the Christians, as well as scoffed at the pagan gods. Of significance in his writings are the fact that Christ died on the cross, as testified by Tacitus, the love that the Christians had for one another, as testified by Pliny the Younger, and most importantly, Lucian writes about Christ's miracles ("Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pereg"). Lucian also testifies that the early Christians worshipped Christ as a Divine God when he stated "to throw over the gods of the Greeks and to adore Him fastened to a cross." Lucian's writings, although very small, affirm the writings of Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, and again testify to a few vital elements of the Christian religion. Like the other pagan writers, although his writings cannot be used to blatantly prove the divinity of Christ, they can be used to historically defend His "divine" deeds, such as His miracles.

5. Other Pagan Writers

There are also alleged allusions to Christ in Numenius (Origen, "Contra Cels", IV, 51), to His parables in Galerius, to the earthquake at the Crucifixion in Phlegon ( Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 14). Before the end of the second century, the logos alethes of Celsus, as quoted by Origen (Contra Cels., passim), testifies that at that time the facts related in the Gospels were generally accepted as historically true.
--------

However scant the pagan sources of Christ's life are, they at least bear the testimony to the following aspects of Christ's life:

-- His existence
-- His miracles
-- His parables
-- His claim to Divine worship
-- His death on the cross as a crucifixion by Pontious Pilate
-- The striking characteristics of His religion

The above do not prove that Christ was God. However, they do two important things: 1) they offer great testimony as to the historical accuracy of the New Testament, and 2) they offer a historical reinforcement as to signs that can be used to contribute to the claim of Christ's divinity (i.e. His wise parables, extraordinary miracles, claim to divine worship, and crucifixion), which will be important later.

III. The Jewish Sources

The Jewish sources of the historical Jesus are perhaps more accurate than those of the pagans and Romans. This is mainly due to the fact that the Jews were more familiar with Christ's life and claims, as were they much closer to Him and His followers geographically. On the other hand, however, the Jews were required by the Jewish authorities to write nothing good of Jesus Christ. And so a silence as to the miracles, resurrection, and other such divine acts in early Christian history is to be expected of Jewish writers. Often, early Jewish writers would explain the miracles of Christ as "sorcery" (as seen in the Talmud) and they would explain the resurrection by stating that Christ's body was stolen from the tomb, or that Christ had really staged His death.

1. The Talmud

Another Jewish source, the Talmud, makes several historical references to Jesus. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the Talmud is "the collection of ancient Rabbinical writings consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara, constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism." Although not explicitly referred to by name, later rabbis identify the person as Jesus. These references to Jesus are neither sympathetic to Him nor to His Church. Also these writings were preserved through the centuries by Jews, so Christians cannot be accused of tampering with the text. The Talmud makes note of Jesus' miracles. No attempt is made to deny them, but it ascribes them to magical arts from Egypt. Also His crucifixion is dated as "on the eve of the Feast of the Passover" in agreement with the Gospel (Luke 22:1ff; John 19:31ff). Similar again to the Gospel (Matt. 27:51), the Talmud records the earthquake and the tearing in two of the Temple curtain during the time of Jesus' death. Josephus in his book, The Jewish War, also confirmed these events. The Talmud offers historical proof for Jesus' miracles, His authority in Jewish society, and the validity of the crucifixion account of the New Testament including the tearing of the curtain. Furthermore, we can be certain that no Christian interpolations have been snuck into the Talmud.

2. Philo

Of rather little significance, but still valid, is the account of Philo. Philo was a Jewish philosopher of social significance, and died after 40 AD. He is mainly important for the light he throws on certain modes of thought and phraseology found again in some of the Apostles. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, iv) indeed preserves a legend that Philo had met St. Peter in Rome during his mission to the Emperor Caius; moreover, that in his work on the contemplative life he describes the life of the Christian Church in Alexandria founded by St. Mark, rather than that of the Essenes and Therapeutae. Although it is doubted that Philo knew much about Christ at all, several scholars have used the writings of Philo to illuminate theological conceptions found in the writings of the Christians, and to explain debates and conflicts witnessed in the New Testament (cf. e.g., Borgen, Philo, CRINT:286ff; Sandmel, Philo ,ANRW 21.1:36ff.) All considered, Philo is not an important figure in the issue of the Divinity of Christ, but he simply goes to show how certain Jews were in fierce debate with Christians early in Church history.

3. Flavius Josephus

Flavius Josephus was the earliest writer to refer to Christ, and was probably the most important Jewish writer that alludes to Christ. He was born A.D. 37, he was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died in Rome A.D. 94. Among his most important works were Antiquities and The Jewish Wars . In his antiquities, we find three passages that confirm the inspiration of the New Testament. Two of them are in dispute by no serious scholar. In the one he reports the murder of "John called Baptist" by Herod (Ant., XVIII, v, 2), describing also John's character and work, as also recorded in the Gospels. In the other (Ant., XX, ix, 1) he disapproves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananus against "James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ." The mere fact that Flavius Josephus refers to Christ as "Jesus, who was called Christ" tells us that at least some people during his time (almost definitely the Christians) realized that Christ was divine, the fulfiller of the prophecies of the Old Testament, and alone it bears an important significance. Flavius was a well-educated historian and must have been well acquainted too with the doctrine and the history of Jesus Christ. One would expect a man, who records such insignificant events like the execution of James, to surely mention something about the the great Jesus, "who was called Christ" Himself! Antiquities XVIII, iii, 3, seems at first to satisfy this expectation:

About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man); for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy, and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.

The above passage historically proves the miracles, wisdom, huge amount of followers, crucifixion, resurrection, and even the divinity itself of Jesus Christ. And yet, this man is a Jew? Too good to be true? Perhaps. It is recognized by scholars today that the above passage cannot be entirely authentic. First of all, it is extremely improbable that a person would say that Jesus is Christ and still believe that He was not Christ (as is with Judaism). Second of all, if Josephus had written such a passage so praiseful of Christ, even attesting to His divinity, the Jewish authorities would have either excommunicated him and burnt his writings, or would have burnt his writings and executed him! For these reasons, before 1995, there had mainly been two prominent beliefs about the above passage: 1) it is wholly spurious. 2) it is somewhat authentic, but includes Christian interpolations. There are a few things that need to be said here. Firstly, if the text was a complete forgery, it is strong evidence of Christ's power, because Josephus was not even allowed by the Jews to describe "Jesus, who was called Christ." If Josephus, who wrote thousands of pages of detailed history, did not include the so-called Christ in his writings, this fact alone would add great significance to the historical character of Jesus. Personally, I would go so far as to say that complete silence would lend more proof to Christ's power than would the proposed description.

In the Josephan passage recorded above, there are three parts that make the passage seem at least somewhat spurious. Those parts are the parts in parentheses above. What had always bothered scholars is that these parts are completely within the writing style of Josephus (which will be discussed later). Because of this, the scholars who oppose the validity of the three so-called spurious parts of the passage rely completely on their content and not upon their style. Furthermore, it is recognized by almost all worthy scholars that the early Christians held a very strong and characteristic belief in the resurrection. It would be far too curious if Josephus mentioned nothing about this trade-mark belief. A third thing that greatly troubles those who omit the so-called spurious part is that all of the surviving translations of the Josephan text INCLUDED the third so-called spurious part-- the one about the resurrection.

In light of new evidence, at least the third third part must be considered. The Josephan text's description of Jesus can be summed up in the following words:

[man][more than man][deeds][teacher][Truth][Greek followers][Jewish followers][Christ][condemnation][foremost among us][Pilate][sentence][cross;killed][those who had first loved Him][appeared to them][third day][prophets][foretold this][foretold other marvels][Christians]

In 1995, scholars conducted a search for all of these words in a source other than the Josephan passage using a computer. One astonishing result came up. One source contained 16 of the 20 aforesaid words; a similarity that could not be overlooked. That result was Luke 24:18-27, a commonly cited Emmaus passage. And even more interesting was the fact that the first two parts generally recognized as spurious, are not included in the Emmaus passage! This result was so incredible that it led scholars to form a third, and now very commonly accepted, theory about the Josephan passage. This is that Josephus had actually written the passage as a citation from common Christian belief. He had written the passage as you see it above, but with the words: "Christians reported" or Christians claim" in the front of the passage, and had cited a passage like the Emmaus passage or a similar one to sum up Christian belief.

This new theory makes much more sense than the others for a few reasons: 1) it accounts for the fact that the third possible spurious part was written completely within Josephus' writing style. 2) it would make more sense for Christians to simply delete two or three words in the beginning of the passage (e.g. "Christians claim" or "Christian reported") than to delete over 20 words, complete with imitation of Josephus' style and multiple accidental resemblances to the Emmaus passage. 3) it accounts for the fact that the early Christians undoubtedly believed in the resurrection and that the worthy historian Josephus would definitely have mentioned this. 4) most importantly, it accounts for the astonishing similarities between the Josephan passage and the Emmaus narrative.

To affirm the facts presented by the Emmaus theory, we find that almost all serious scholars recognize that it would be too peculiar for Josephus not to make mention of the resurrection, which was a clear belief of first century Christians. John Meier, author of "A Marginal Jew", tells us: "...while the Testimonium [the one without the three so-called spurious parts] gives a fairly objective, brief account of Jesus' career, nothing is said about the Christians' belief that Jesus rose from the dead - and that, after all, was the central affirmation of faith that held the various Christian groups together during the first century." (p. 67) As mentioned, the Emmaus theory does an excellent job of explaining this problem. And then there is the style problem. The three so-called spurious parts of the Josephan passage fit within Jospehus' writing style. This is also addressed by Mr. Meier: "It must also be admitted that Josephus likewise uses all the words found in the three interpolations. In a few cases, the usage is more Josephan than that of the New Testament." (p. 83)

We find an interesting translation of the Josephan passage by tenth century bishop Agapius. The Emmaus indicates the Agapius text as a whole is likely to have been derived from the original Josephan passage, the one without Christian interpolations.

The Agapius text, in fact, supports the idea that the resurrection statement was in the original accompanied by a statement showing it is merely a report, not a belief of Josephus'. The text states at this point: "They reported that he had appeared to them three days after the crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

The most historically logical and accurate translation of the Josephan passage would be that of the Emmaus theory. We can conclude from this the facts that Jesus had many followers, both Jewish and of other nations, was a wise man and a teacher of men of Truth, was crucified by Pontious Pilate, that His religion lives on even to today, that He was claimed to be the Christ, and, if we choose to accept the most logical and historical text, that the Christians claimed to have seen Him three days after His death, resurrected.

4. Other Important Jewish Writers

The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, mostly by saying that Christ had never actually dies, but had staged a deception of His death, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre.
---------

The Jewish sources, although mainly more hostile to Christ than those of the pagans, tell us much more about His life. From the Jewish sources, we can gather these facts:

--Christ existed
--Christ did miracles
--Christ was a wise teacher
--Christ stayed at the temple at the age of twelve
--Christ called disciples
--Christ claimed to be God
--Christ was betrayed by Judas
--Christ was crucified by Pontious Pilate
--Christ's disciples claimed that Christ had risen three days after His death
--The Jews offered several theories to throw doubt on the so-called resurrection
--Christ's religion, Christianity, lived on even to today

The above gives us the essential elements to begin our discussion of Christ's divinity. We see proof for the four most important things to be used in the discussion of Christ's divinity: 1) Christ did miracles, which may have been called sorcery or simply "astonishing acts" by His opposers (Talmud, Josephus, Celsus). 2) Christ claimed to be God. (Celsus, Josephus, Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) 3) Christ was crucified under Pontious Pilate (Talmud, Josephus, Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii) . 4) It was reported by the Christians, alhough condemned by the Jews, that Christ rose from the dead three days after His resurrection (Josephus, Celsus, Toldoth).

The Question:
Christ claimed to divine, and had quite a few things (miracles, fulfillment of propheies, so-called resurrection) to back up His claim. So, once and for all, was Christ divine?

Disecernment of Divinity

The confusion comes in when, after stating the historical evidence, we must begin to decide whether or not Christ was divine. For our purposes, we will attempt to define Christ not as the Christian God, but as a deity. What constitutes a deity? A deity has power over all of Creation. A deity can operate outside of nature as he or she wills. Therefore, we will focus on proving that Christ could, and did, exalt Himself over the bounds of nature on several occasions. And most importantly, and central to our argument, we will attempt to prove that Christ conquered even the most powerful aspect of life-- death itself.

V. Christ's Miracles as a Sign of Divinity

Many of the pagan or Jewish historical sources that mention Christ also attribute sorcery, "astonishing deeds", or superstitous magic to Him. These are all basically slanderous words for what Christians call "miracles." The Bible tells us that Christ did quite a lot of miracles. Among these miracles were curing the sick, forgiving sins, making the blind see, the deaf hear, the dumb speak, expelling demons from various people, calming storms, walking on water, turning water to wine, and even raising the dead to life. Notice something about these miracles: they were all meant for the good of humanity in one way or the other. None of the miracles that Christ did were "evil" or "Satanic." This is the first reason why it is doubtful to attribute the power of Christ to Satan or the demons or evil powers or hell.

We must also realize, of course, that we cannot accept the early Jewish explanation of the miracles, sorcery, merely because it is a historical source. The Jews, at that time, were hostile to the Christians, and would go to some reasonable extremes to undermine Christ's miracles. We cannot say that Christ's miracles were sorcery or simply astonishing deeds simply because the non-believers said so-- we must also investigate the Christian side of historical miracles.

Some have accused me of my using Christian historical sources because they are too partial to Christianity. But considering the pagan sources are partial to paganism, and the Jewish to Judaism, this is a ridiculous claim. Furthermore, the Christian sources (especicially the book of Acts and the letters of Paul), have shown to be far more accurate than most of the other, non-Christian sources. We will, for the most part, focus on three of Christ's miracles: the water turned to wine (John 2:1-12), Christ's walk on the water (Matthew 14:22-33), and the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:38-44).

1. Miracles in General

The Church has always taught that a miracle can be defined as an act or event that is above, contrary to, and/or outside nature. Furthermore, a miracle falls under the grasp of the senses, either in the work itself (e.g. raising the dead to life) or in its effects (e.g., the gifts of infused knowledge with the Apostles). In like manner the justification of a soul in itself is miraculous, but is not a miracle properly so called, unless it takes place in a sensible manner, as, e.g., in the case of St. Paul.

Several errors and heresies have arisen concerning miracles. One such error, and perhaps the most common, is that of the teaching of Hume. Hume taught that by nature's mere definition, a miracle could not occur. He would argue that while we know many of the laws of nature, we do not know them all; and according to him, a miracle is simply a natural event that follows a law we do not yet know. Therefore, to us the act or event may seem outside of nature, but nature, by its definition, allows for that "miracle" to occur within its bounds. The problem with Hume's argument is that it does not take into account the intervention of a Spiritual realm. It only accounts for the physical realm, and the doctrine of Divine intervention is non-existent. For these reasons, Hume's theory has been rejected by the Church.

Prof. Bousset of Gottingen expanded upon the basics of Hume's theory, and taught that the so-called miracles wrought by Christ were performed by natural mental powers of a superior kind. This false doctrine is taught even amongst the most skilled Christian historical apologists today. For instance, E. G. Sanders, in his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, claims "More or less all the healings are explicable as psyhcosomatic cures or victories of mind over matter. Instances of illness that are 'hysterical' or psyhcosomatic are well known and documented. This explanation, if applied to miracles in the gospels, covers excorcism and the healings of the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the paralyzed, and possibly the woman with the haemmorrhage." Sanders goes even further, daring to say, "Group psychology has often been used to explain the feeding miracles. Actually, everyone had brought food but was afraid to take it out for the fear of having to share it." It is obvious that Sanders suggests multiple, natural, explanations for the many miracles of Jesus Christ, in order to make the miracles look a bit more believable. Often, however, these "natural" explantions turn out to be far more unbelievable than the non-natural, classical, orthodox explanation for miracles. And in its wisdom, the Church has rejected these "natural", undrermining explanations of Christ's miracles as unacceptable and false.

Another popular myth about miracles is that they are not fully historical. There have been a great deal of scholars, even members of the Church that have at least suggested that certain miracles of Christ recorded in the Gospels are merely made up by the author and not actually historical (a true, but sad example is that of the Catholic priest John Meier, in his book, A Marginal Jew.) However, given the testimony of the Gospels, the Church recognizes that all of Christ's miracles were historical events, with no "made up" stories by the authors of the Gospel. It must be remembered that the authors of the Gospels were not merely Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-- the Holy Spirit wrote all of the Gospels. This is NOT to say, of course, that the miracles had no symbolic meaning. While many or all of the miracles may have had a deep symbolic meaning, it must be recognized that the miracles were still actual, real, and historical events. Along these lines, there are many scholars who also teach that while some of the miracles may have been historical events, the authors probably exaggerated or used too vivid of an imaginations when writing, thus resulting in a somewhat deceiving account of the true miracles. This too has been rejected by the Church. On this topic, the Catholic Encyclopedia states: "This teaching is in reality a denial of testimony. The miracles of Christ must be taken as a whole... On the ground of evidence there is no reason to make a distinction among them or to interpret them so that they become other than they are. The real reason is prejudgment on false philosophical grounds with a view to get rid of the supernatural element."

And so, when we discuss miracles, we must understand that what makes them so important is that they are above, outside of, or contrary to nature, and that they are actual, real historical events. Attempts at scientifically explaining the Gospel accounts of the miracles, while still maintaining the infallibility of the Bible, are hopeless.

While we have attained testimony from early pagans and Jews that Christ did some form of miracles, the only sources we can draw the details of these miracles from are Christian ones. In the following discussions concerning miracles, the Bible or any Christian document is being used as a historical source-- I am not yet suggesting that the Bible is the infallible Word of God (that comes later).

2. Christ Turns Water to Wine (John 2:1-12)

John describes a miracle of great importance in his Gospel (chapter 2, 1-12). The miracle takes place at a wedding ceremony, at which Jesus, His mother Mary, and His disciples were present. Soon after their arrival, the hosts of the wedding had run out of wine. Christ commanded the servants at the wedding to fill 6 large waterpots, which were empty at the time, with water. The servants did so. Jesus then commanded them to draw some from the waterpots, and bring it to the host. Miraculously, the water had turned to wine, and the wedding ceremony continued in good spirits. The only explanation is that Christ ventured outside any rule of matter or substance and changed the water in the waterpots to wine. One might attempt to explain the miracle scientifically by saying that there was already a small amount of wine present in the bottom of the waterpots, and that the addition of water made a simple, diluted wine. But this is both ridiculous and inconsistent when one considers the historical use of waterpots (they are strictly for water). The importance of the account of this miracle is in verse 11, where we see the true reason that Christ did such a miracle. The text reads: "This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed Him." The purpose of Christ's first miracle, the transforming of water to wine, was to manifest His own glory. By manifesting this glory, which is above the realms of nature, He showed and presented His Godly powers and status in a way in which many (at least John) understood His Divine purpose.

3. Christ Walks on the Water (Matthew 14:22-33, Cf. Mark 6:45-52, John 6:15-21)

Matthew, in his Gospel, describes a miracle of monumental theological importance. Mark and John also see it fitting to include the miracle in their Gospels, but none tell it in as much detail as does Matthew. After feeding the five thousand, Christ told His disciples to go ahead of Him, across the sea in the boat. They did so. In the meantime, Christ traveled to a mountain and prayed until evening. When evening had come, the disciples' boat was in the middle of the sea, and the waves and wind were against them. Christ walked on the water and went to where the disciples' boat was. At first, the disciples where scared and thought that Jesus was a ghost. But Jesus made Himself known, and reassured the disciples that it was Him. Peter asked Christ if He would allow him to walk on the water with Him. Jesus agreed, and Peter came down out of the boat and began to walk toward Christ, on the surface of the water. But he soon became afraid and doubtful, and began to sink into the water. Christ reached over and helped Peter up. They returned to the boat, and on Christ's return, the wind ceased. There have been attempts at explaining this miracle from a scientific perspective, often by saying that Christ merely appeared as though He was walking on water, but was really walking on submerged rocks. The testimony of Matthew, however, does not allow for this to be the case. Matthew writes that "Jesus went out to them, walking on the sea." Matthew does not say that "it seemed as though Christ was walking on the sea." He does not simply write that the disciples saw Him walking on the sea-- rather, he specifically writes that Christ was "walking on the sea." This miracle is a clear example of Christ's power over earthly things, and shows a definite event that occured without the consent of nature. The power of Christ as Divine is presented unmistakeably in this miracle account, and we see that the disciples understood Christ's Divinity in verse 33. Verse 33 reads: "Then those who were in the boat came and worshipped Him, saying, 'Truly You are the Son of God.'" Christ's walking on water was enough to eearn Him worship as the very Son of God. Again, we see that Christ's miracle is a definite sign of His divinity, and that it was undoubtedly recognized as so.

4. Christ Raises Lazarus from the Dead (John 11:38-44)

The Beloved apostle John records a vital miracle in His Gospel: the rasing of Lazarus from the dead. In the account, we find that Jesus comes to the tomb of Lazarus, a now deceased friend of Christ's, and commanded His followers to roll away the stone at the entrance of the tomb. Martha, the sister of Lazarus, warns Christ that Lazarus has been dead for 4 days, and that there would be a great stench. Nonetheless, Christ does not change His mind, and His followers roll away the stone. Christ then offers a quick prayer to the Father, and calls into the tomb, "Lazarus, come forth!" The once-dead Lazarus came out, now alive, still wrapped in his grave clothes. There have been no persistent attempts to explain this miracle scientifically. John describes Lazarus as DEAD, and therefore it is ignorant to assume that Lazarus was really alive in the tomb. Moreover, Martha testifies that Lazarus had been dead and in the tomb for 4 days; very few people can survive being in a tomb with no food or water for four days. Indeed, the miracle can be explained only by admitting Christ's power over death itself. We see explicitly in this miracle that it is not nature that governs Christ, but Christ that governs nature. Christ has shown His life-giving, Divine power of resurrection, and we need to acknowledge Christ's status as God.

In light of the many miracles which Christ performed, three of which are discussed above, we can see a few of the clear manifestations and signs of Christ's Divinity: the miracles. He has shown that He governs nature--and that nature includes our very lives.

VI. Christ's Resurrection: The Defeat of Death Itself, and the Key to Christ's Divinity

During His life and ministry, Christ had conquered numerous aspects of nature: He had healed, performed excorcisms, forgiven sins, risen people from the dead, walked on water, and much more. All of these things are significant signs of Christ's Divinity. But could Christ conquer nature even in death? Did He have the power to live as He willed? In all former resurrections, the miracle of the raising was administered by another person. But could Christ rise again without the help of a prophet or other human? In all fomer resurrections, the raised were restored to an earthly, temporal body. Could Christ raise again with a glorified body? Is Christ the supreme ordinator and ruler over nature? The resurrection of Jesus Christ would certainly prove this true.

The Testimony of the Early Christians

In the early Church, the belief in Christ's resurrection was what held the Church together. The belief in the resurrection was essential to Christian doctrine, and this belief was a type of trademark, or indentifying characteristic, of the early Christians. During the apostles' time on Earth, the Resurrection was solemnly taught in the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul.

The Gospels confirm that Christ, three days after His death, had risen from the dead. Matthew records the words of the angel to the women at the empty tomb in Matthew 28:5-7: "But the angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.'" One can imagine just how surprised the women may have been to see that Christ was Risen; miraculously gone from the tomb, the gargantuan entrance stone mysteriously rolled away. Mark, writing in a completely different place than Matthew, again confirms the Resurrection in his Gospel, the angel proclaiming: "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is Risen!" (16:6) The physician Luke, writing from a totally different place, life, and perspective than either Matthew or Mark, again confirms the Resurrection, His words of the angel practically the same: "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen!" As if 3 out of 4 was not good enough, the apostle John himself affirms the resurrection again, not only writing of the angel's words, but describing the Risen Christ's appearance to Mary Magdelene. (20:11-18). Even Paul, in his letters, writes of the Resurrection-- "...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:3) Peter, in his epistles, also writes of Christ's resurrection (1 Peter 3:21-22). The book of Acts gives clear fealty to the doctrine of the resurrection as it states: "He, forseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses." (2:31-32) The testimony of the New Testament is undeniably in favor of the Resurrection.

The Apostles' Creed, of which the original form has been dated back to the very hands of the apostles, gives testimony to the resurrection of Christ as it reads: "I believe in Jesus Christ... who suffered under Pontious Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried, and on the third day He rose again..." No matter where you look, you will see that the early Christians understood the resurrection and taught it as a necessity of the Faith.

In the earliest post-Biblical times, we see Christian statements that proclaim the Church Fathers' unbreakable faith in the Resurrection. Clement of Rome, for instance, in year 96 AD, taught, "God made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruits by raising Him from the Dead." Ignatius, in the year 105 AD, testifies: "For I know that after His resurrection also, He was still posessed of the Flesh. And I believe that He is so now." Tertullian, in the year 197, continues in the Faith, declaring, "You will also allow that it was in the flesh that Christ was raised from the dead. For the very same body that fell in death, and which lay in the Sepulcher, did rise again." The Church Fathers kept the doctrine of the resurrection as a Sacred belief, and continued to teach it down through the ages. Origen, in the year 248, clarifies the theological uniqueness of Christ's resurrection: "His resurrection was more miraculous than that of the others in this one respect: The others had been risen by the prophets Elijah and Elisha. However, He was raised by none of the prophets, but by His Father in Heaven." Cyprian resounds his account of the resurrection in the year 250: "On the third day, He freely rose again from the dead. He appeared to His disciples as He had been... However, He tarries for forty days, so that they might be instructed by Him in the precepts of life and so they might learn what they were to teach. Then, in a cloud spread around Him, He was lifted up into Heaven--so that as a conqueror, He may bring man to the Father. For Christ loved man, He became man, and He shielded man from death." The teaching of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ abides with Christians even today...

The Proof for the Resurrection

Almost every non-Christian scholar or philosopher will attempt to declare that the resurrection of JEsus Christ never actually took place-- it was a myth. They claim that the Bible's stories of Christ's resurrection are myth, not history. There are at least FOUR REASONS why the mythological interpretation fails.

1) Comparative literature demonstrates that myth takes a number of generations to develop. There are no parallels in other literature of myth developing and being believed in the presence of eye-witnesses and within the short timeframe in which the New Testament was formed.

Historical research is on the side of an immediate belief in Jesus' resurrection. The Apostles' creed mentioned beforehand includes the Resurrection (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-9) and has been dated by many scholars to within 3 to 7 years of Christ's death and resurrection.This implies prior public belief. Scholars agree that the first letters by Paul appeared within 25 years or less of Jesus ministry, and the four Gospels within 21 (and probably no later than 65 years, although this is questionable in the case of the Gospel of John). The preaching of the apostles always centered on the Resurrection. In a very short period of time, devout Jews throughout the Roman Empire who had formerly faithfully worshiped God on the seventh day of each week, converted to Christianity and began meeting on the first day, in celebration of Christ's resurrection. In this way, we see that in reality, it is nearly impossible that the resurrection, which was a belief of almost every early Christian, as shown above, was a myth-- statistically, there must have been some Truth to the resurrection.

2) Many of these eyewitnesses to Christ's public ministry were hostile toward the Jesus the Gospels describe (Matthew 12:22f). These opponents had both motives and means to correct falsehoods about Him had the first disciples attempted them.Yet their opportunity did not produce a serious correction. The logical conclusion is that the ressurection was not a myth made up by the apostles or early Christians, but something that had actually happened and that they firmly believed in.

3) The Gospels don't resemble either Greek myth or Jewish legend.In contrast to those, the Gospels understate and lack embellishment, yet contain details counterproductive to the invention of legendary heroes. For example, the following six factors in John chapter 20 are at odds with the tendency of legendary material:

With great restraint, no attempt is made to describe the resurrection itself.
Mary neither initially recognized the risen Jesus (the "hero") (John 20:14).
nor even considered that there was anything special about Him (John 20:16).
Indeed, even by the end of the day, the disciples (the secondary "heroes") were still in hiding "for fear of the Jews" (John 20:19).
And, were the Gospels the free creation of paternalistic bias, as feminists charge, it is incredible the writers would have chosen women to be the first witnesses of the risen Jesus. The testimony of women didn't even count legally.
Yet, it was their courage the morning after the Resurrection that put the men's contrasting cowardice to shame.

4) Jews were the poorest of candidates for inventing a mythical Christ. No other culture has so opposed mythically confusing deity with humanity, as did the Jewish.

The Teaching of the Church

The teaching of the Church on the Resurrection is simple. It follows exactly what was taught by the early Christians. Below, in italics, are statements taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Directly under the Catechismal statements are comments or clarifications relative to the topic at hand.

1. "The mystery of Christ's resurrection is a real event, with manifestations that were historically verified, as the New Testament bears witness."
This defines the actual historical fact of the resurrection that is necessary for an orthodox belief.

2. "The first element we encounter in the framework of the Easter events is the empty tomb. In itself it is not a direct proof of Resurrection; the absence of Christ's body from the tomb could be explained otherwise. Nonetheless the empty tomb was still an essential sign for all. Its discovery by the disciples was the first step toward recognizing the very fact of the Resurrection."
The above actually gives an indirect proof for the resurrection that I had not formerly mentioned. An astonishing amount of the early Christians also make mention of an empty sepulcher, in which Christ's body had supposedly lain. Certain records and inscriptions are still existent that seem to incline that the sepulcher was indeed empty three days after the death of Christ.

3. "The disciple "whom Jesus loved" affirmed that when he entered the empty tomb and discovered "the linen cloths lying there", "he saw and believed". This suggests that he realized from the empty tomb's condition that the absence of Jesus' body could not have been of human doing and that Jesus had not simply returned to earthly life as had been the case with Lazarus."
Here, the Church states one of the most important aspects of Christ's Resurrection-- its difference and superiority to that of other Biblical figures.

4. "Given all these testimonies, Christ's Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it as an historical fact. It is clear from the facts that the disciples' faith was drastically put to the test by their master's Passion and death on the cross, which he had foretold."
Here, the Church reaffirms its statements and makes the Truth stand out boldly. The Church's statment here is a blatent warning against error.

VII. The Verdict

The Evidence has been stated:

The Bible undeniably proves the Divinity of Christ from a Christian perspective.
Historical pagan records verify Christ's existence, parables, miracles, crucifixion, claim to divine worship, and various aspects of His religion.
Historical Jewish records verify Christ's existence, wisdom, stay at the temple as a child, miracles, large amount of followers, crucifixion under Pontious Pilate, the Christians' belief in the resurrection, and various aspects of Christ's religion.
The miracles attributed to Christ are alluded to by pagan and Jewish records, and according to our only historical sources that describe the miracles, they are completely outside of nature and cannot be explained scientifically. This is a clear sign of a Divine power.
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a doctrine held by almosy every early Christian. It was consistently taught to this very day, by the Church. It was a doctrine held immediately after the event of the Resurrection itself.
Contemporary research shows that a myth could not develop in the amount of time that the doctrine of the resurrection became prominent. Furthermore, the writings of the early Christians concerning the Resurrection were written completely out of mythical style. These facts contribute to the truth and actuality of the Resurrection.
It is almost definitely a historical fact that the Resurrection of Christ actually occurred. Christ's resurrection clearly presented His power and government over all realms of nature, thereby showing His status as a deity.
Christ, as a deity who has power over all aspects of nature, including us, rules over our very lives.

If we wish to take the logical stand on the issue of the divinity of Christ, only one verdict can be met.

On the account of Divinity, we the jury declare that Jesus Christ is guilty as charged!