At any rate, we cannot follow Schonfield and attempt to divorce Jesus’ message from what the earliest sources indicate concerning him, for in so doing we destroy the basis that is needed to establish that division. Additionally, to assume that Jesus did not consider himself deity while ruling out the Gospels, is to do so on the grounds of the presumed first century Jewish thought, which is a circular argument that presupposes Jesus did not teach anything different. This is the very point to be demonstrated.
2.No evidence for the Roman plot
Second, there is no evidence for any such plot on the part of Christians at Rome, as presumed by Schonfield. Of course, one can argue anything without the
45 Ibid., pp. 50–51.
46 See Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic, chapter 3 for several additional indications of Jesus’ claims to deity. For an argument for the deity of Christ even for those who do not accept the trustworthiness of the New Testament, see Terry L. Miethe and Gary R. Habermas, Why Believe? God Exists!(Joplin: College Press, 1993), chapter 27.
47 Joachim Jeremias, The Central Message of the New Testament(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965), pp. 9–30; Reginald Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology(New York: Scribner’s, 1965), p. 115, for instance.
appropriate support, but others are not obliged to accept it. Similarly, no one is constrained to accept Schonfield’s thesis without the proper evidence.
Since we do not know that Jesus denied deity and especially since there are reasons to assert that he did claim such deity then why would there be a need for Roman Christians to “invent” the message? In other words, we can only begin to contemplate the alteration of Jesus’ words if we know that he did not teach the message of his deity in the first place. But since the point is invalid, as just shown, one cannot leap to the next step of a conspiracy by the Christians at Rome.
3.Paul attests to Jesus’ deity
Third, the Pauline epistles, which even Schonfield accepts as valid texts, attest to the orthodox view of Jesus’ deity. Thus, while Schonfield holds that Paul followed Jesus’ own teachings in rejecting the deity of the Messiah,^48 the writings of Paul which are accepted by Schonfield teach otherwise. This is revealed by even a brief survey. In Romans 1:3–4, Paul gives Jesus the titles “Son,” “Lord” and “Christ.” Although completely ignored by Schonfield in a treatment of this verse,^49 the usage of “Lord,” in particular, indicates Paul’s view of Jesus’ deity. As said Oscar Cullmann in his classic Christology, this term indicates that Paul could give Jesus the title of “God,” since “Lord” itself “clearly expresses Jesus’ deity.”^50
Even stronger is Paul’s statement in Romans 9:5, where Jesus is, in all probability, actually called “God.”^51 Similarly, Paul affirms Christ’s full deity in Colossians 2:9. While Schonfield clearly mistranslates this latter verse,^52 Cullmann, agreeing with virtually all scholars, renders the key phrase as “the whole fullness of deity dwelt bodily” in Jesus Christ.^53 As philologist A.T. Robertson points out, this verse indicates that all the fullness of the very essence of God dwells in Jesus in bodily form.^54 These two references, in particular, reveal Paul’s view of the full deity of Jesus.
Other passages are additionally helpful. Philippians 2:6–11 asserts that Jesus has the form or very nature of God and commends worship of the exalted Jesus. In Colossians 1:15, Paul points out that Jesus is the “image of God” and in 2 Corinthians 12:8, Paul prays to Christ.^55 By these means, then, Paul does teach the deity of Jesus. This is not a doctrine added by unscrupulous Christians from Rome, but a teaching of Jesus himself and of Paul.
