![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/347\/2025\/10\/PopeLeoXIV-5-8-25.png\")
<\/a>The foremost theological crisis in the history of Christianity occurred in the year 325. It was about the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, arguably the founder of Christianity, who came to be known by his immediate followers as Jesus Christ, but later by the Catholic Church as both God and man.<\/p>\n
In four days, Pope Leo XIV will attend a four-day celebration of the Nicene Creed, drafted in 325 A.D. and thus 1,700 year ago. The pope issued a statement about this in preparation for the gathering. In it he says, \u201cno mortal being can, in fact, defeat death and save us; only God can do so.\u201d The pope seems to mean that Jesus had to God to save us if not to arise from the dead. But the Bible says God is the one who saves people and that he does so on the basis of their faith in Jesus\u2019 atoning death and his resurrection. Also, the Bible teaches that at the end of this age, God will raise all deceased believers from the dead, giving them resurrection bodies like that of Jesus. If Jesus had to be God to arise from the dead, then will that make us Gods? Hardly! But, in my saying all of this, I\u2019ve blogged before that I like this Pope Leo.<\/p>\n
[For example, see my posts, Why Is this Pope Called Leo?<\/a>, \u201cHail to Pope Leo in Calling Christians to Unite<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n During the time of Jesus of Nazareth, especially during his interrogation by the Jewish Sanhedrin (Council), but also for decades thereafter an argument existed between Christians and Jews which persists to this day. It was whether or not Jesus was the divinely promised Messiah whom God would send as the king of Israel. The early disciples of Jesus, who were Jews, claimed that Jesus was that Messiah. The Jews claimed vehemently that he was not and that he was therefore an imposter. Because when the Sanhedrin High Priest Caiaphas asked Jesus, \u201cTell us if you are the Son of the Blessed One,\u201d referring to God, Jesus answered in the affirmative. Caiaphas then charged him blasphemy, thus worthy of death. Yet it was not against Torah for any Jewish man to claim that title. Nevertheless, these Jews then took the accused to Roman Governor Pilate and pressured him to have Jesus crucified, which he did.<\/p>\n The word \u201cchrist\u201d is the English translation of the Greek word christos<\/em>. Since all New Testament documents originally were written in Greek, christos<\/em> appears often in them and applied to Jesus. But christos<\/em> is the Greek rendering of the word mashiach<\/em> in the Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the Old Testament. Mashiach<\/em> means \u201canointed one,\u201d and it is translated \u201cMessiah\u201d in the English language. Mashiach<\/em> and other nouns appear in the Hebrew Bible to refer to a special person whom God would send to be the King of Israel. When Jesus was crucified, Governor Pilate had written in three languages on the headboard attached to Jesus\u2019 cross, \u201c(This is) the King of the Jews\u201d (Mark 15.26; Luke 23.38).<\/p>\n But in the 2nd century A.D., some Christian theologians, later designated as \u201cchurch fathers\u201d who also were writers, began to go beyond the New Testament designation of Jesus as \u201cChrist\u201d or \u201cMessiah\u201d by also claiming he was \u201cGod.\u201d They didn\u2019t mean that Jesus was equal to God in divinity. Nevertheless, they identified Jesus as both man and God, but a lesser God. Origen, the first Christian systematic theologian, actually wrote that Jesus was a \u201csecond God\u201d even though none of the New Testament writings say anything like that.<\/p>\n Now, Jesus had taught that God is \u201cone,\u201d thereby affirming the Jews\u2019 credal statement called \u201cthe Shema.\u201d It reads, \u201cHear, O Israel: The LORD [YHWH<\/em>] our God, the LORD [YHWH<\/em>] is one\u201d (Deuteronomy 6.4 NIV). This statement had set the Israelites of antiquity apart from the surrounding pagan nations that were polytheistic and thus worshipped many \u201cgods\u201d and idols. Jesus\u2019 classic statement about this, which he uttered in his prayer right before is arrest about God the \u201cFather,\u201d is: \u201cThis is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God\u201d (John 17.1, 3). So, Jesus recognized \u201cGod the Father\u201d as \u201cthe only true God.\u201d And Jesus then distinguished himself from God the Father by saying of himself, \u201cand Jesus Christ whom you have sent.\u201d<\/p>\n Search the New Testament sayings of Jesus, recorded in the four gospels, and you will not find any statement by Jesus in which he identifies himself as \u201cGod\u201d or anything like that, such as that he is \u201cdivine\u201d or \u201cdeity.\u201d Thus, the apologist church fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries went beyond anything Jesus had said of himself by identifying him as God. They also cited Jesus\u2019 identification as \u201cthe Son of God\u201d in the New Testament as a further indication that he was this lesser God who was essentially subordinate to God the Father. They also identified Jesus as \u201cthe Logos Son,\u201d thereby drawing from the Gospel of John calling Jesus \u201cthe Word\u201d (Greek logos<\/em>\u00a0in John 1.1).<\/p>\n In the early 4th century, a Catholic \u201cpresbyter\u201d (priest) in Alexandria, Egypt, named Arius was spreading this teaching about Jesus being the Logos Son and that God the Father created this preexistent Logos Son \u201cbefore the creation of the universe. Then Arius deduced from this that \u201cthere was time when the Logos Son was not,\u201d meaning he did not exist.<\/p>\n Alexander was the bishop of that region in Egypt, centered in Alexandria, and he was the third most powerful bishop in the Catholic Church. He strongly opposed Arius\u2019 teaching about Jesus as the preexisting Logos, claiming Jesus as the Logos and Son of God had always been \u201ceternal,\u201d thus never created.<\/p>\n This theological difference spread throughout much of the Roman Empire because by then, Emperor Constantine had made it the foremost religion. That was quite a change since Christians had until then often been persecuted for their faith. The emperor then called for a council of bishops to meet in Nicaea, which is now located near Constantinople, Turkey, to settle this theological difference by producing a credal statement to which all would agree. History says 318 bishops gathered there to discuss this for over a month. They then drafted a document called \u201cthe Nicene Creed.\u201d Emperor Constantine had required that all must sign the creed or be exiled from the empire. Thus, the emperor applied much pressure upon the group to agree.<\/p>\n Even though Arius was not a bishop, the emperor invited him and he attended. But he was not allowed to participate in any of the discussions. Only the bishops could do so. Arius and two of his bishop friends refused to sign the creed and therefore were exiled from the empire. Thus, the Nicene Council and its Nicene Creed were the result of much political pressure which most Christians know little or nothing about.<\/p>\n The emperor had become a Christian in 313, partly because his mother was a devout Christian. And even though he required theological agreement about this issue of Jesus\u2019 identity, Constantine did not care what decision was taken and thus what was in the creed. He just required agreement. An example of this is that two years later, the emperor\u2019s sister, who also was a Christian, convinced her brother the emperor that Arius\u2019 teaching about this was correct and that the Nicene Creed was incorrect.<\/p>\n The critical part of the Nicene Creed was the identification of Jesus as \u201cvery God of very God.\u201d This expression was prominent in the Roman Empire which was quite Hellenistic and thus influenced by earlier Greek philosophy. This expression meant that Jesus was just as much God as God the Father is God, thereby going beyond what the earlier apologists had proclaimed.<\/p>\n Throughout the following centuries, many Christians have regularly cited what they have thought was the Nicene Creed in the Sunday morning church worship services. But it actually has been the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which was created at the next council, in 381, as an adjustment of the Nicene Creed. It deletes the last third of the Nicene Creed, which is a series of condemnations to hell for people who utter sayings taught by Arius. IMO, this portion of the Nicene Creed is quite disgusting, and that obviously is why it was deleted in the next creed.<\/p>\n I wrote a 570-page book about this subject, citing over 400 scholars. The book is entitled The Restitution: Biblical Proof Jesus Is Not God<\/em><\/a>. It has 100 pages about the church history of this subject. The remainder of the book, and thus the large majority of it, addresses in detail the critical biblical texts about whether or not Jesus is God. It has eight scholarly and pastoral endorsements. If you really want to dig into this subject of whether or not the Bible says Jesus is God, this is the book for you to get.<\/p>\n Folks, I was a Trinitarian Christian for 22 years until \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The foremost theological crisis in the history of Christianity occurred in the year 325. It was about the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, arguably the founder of Christianity, who came to be known by his immediate followers as Jesus Christ, but later by the Catholic Church as both God and man. In four days, Pope […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1477,"featured_media":21881,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,545,494],"tags":[8846,146],"class_list":["post-22115","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-christology","category-church-history","category-jesus","tag-is-jesus-god-pope-leo-xiv","tag-nicene-creed"],"yoast_head":"\nWas Jesus of Nazareth the Christ?<\/h2>\n
The Meaning of \u201cChrist\u201d<\/h2>\n
Post-Apostolic Church Fathers Said Jesus Is God<\/h2>\n
Jesus Never Said He Was God<\/h2>\n
Arius and Bishop Alexander Disagree<\/h2>\n
The Nicene Council of 325 A.D.<\/h2>\n
The Nicene Creed<\/h2>\n
<\/a>I Wrote a Book about This<\/h2>\n<\/a>one day in my study room I experienced an enlightenment from God what reading Jesus\u2019 Olivet Discourse in which he said concerning his yet future and literal second coming, \u201cBut about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven nor the Son,\u201d referring to himself, \u201cbut only the Father\u201d (Matthew 24.36; cf. Mark 13.32). I tell about that experience and more in a 100-page book entitled The Gospel Corrupted: When Jesus Was Made God<\/em><\/a>, which is a primer for The Restitution<\/em>.<\/p>\n