The deep dive explains the case. This track makes you able to wield it — rebuild from memory why the earliest Christians worshipped Jesus, meet the "it developed slowly over centuries" objection, and hold the answer together in a real conversation.
It is one of the most repeated claims in the popular case against Christianity: that Jesus was revered as a great teacher and only slowly, over generations of Hellenistic drift, inflated into a god to be worshipped — the worship of Jesus a late development, not something the first Christians did. The New Testament scholar James Dunn put the historical question as a book title: Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? — and answered, cautiously, that worship was characteristically offered to God through Jesus rather than to Jesus as such. The evidence answers yes — and early, from the earliest layer we can reach.
To feel the force of it you have to see the line clearly. What Jewish monotheism guarded most jealously was not the posture of homage — Israelites bowed before a king as well as before God (1 Chronicles 29:20 uses one verb for both) — but the substance of worship: sacrifice, invocation, prayer, the hymn sung to a god, reserved for the one God alone. In the very books that record it, an angel twice refuses that worship for himself ("Worship God," Revelation 19:10; 22:9). Yet the earliest Christians gave exactly that to Jesus: they prayed to him (the Aramaic Marana tha, "Our Lord, come!", from the first Judean church; Stephen, Acts 7:59; "call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," 1 Corinthians 1:2), sang of him (the Philippians hymn) and, as Pliny reports from outside the church by c. AD 112, to him, and worshipped him where they refused to worship an angel (Revelation 5:13–14; Hebrews 1:6).
And it was early, not a slow climb. Larry Hurtado found that a "binitarian" pattern of devotion emerged "amazingly early," within the first two decades, among Jews who counted worshipping any creature blasphemy; Marana tha is pre-Pauline Aramaic. The development was in the vocabulary the church later coined, not in the worship. Honest scope: this does not by itself prove the worship was warranted — that Jesus is in fact God — which is the separate work of the resurrection and Jesus's own words; nor does it hand us the fourth-century councils' metaphysics. What it establishes is enough to dissolve the "slow development" myth: the worship of Jesus is bedrock, and worship, in a Jew, is a confession about who God is. We hold that this worship is rightly placed — that the one they prayed to is, as Nicaea confessed, true God from true God, one God with the Father and the Spirit, a mystery we confess rather than a formula we have mastered. The one so worshipped is the eternal Son who took a complete human nature to himself without ceasing to be God: fully God and fully man, two natures in one person.
Not more prose — the load-bearing structure, defended bone by bone, then proven from memory. Work top to bottom; the checkpoint at the end asks you to rebuild it with nothing in front of you.
Learn these first — the objections below turn on them, and most weak versions of the argument come from blurring one of them.
What Jewish monotheism reserved for the one God alone was not the posture of homage (Israelites bowed before kings too — 1 Chronicles 29:20 uses one verb for both) but the substance of cultic worship: sacrifice, invocation, prayer, the hymn to a god — guarded jealously; even an angel refuses it ("Worship God," Revelation 19:10; 22:9). The earliest Christians gave exactly that to Jesus: they prayed to him (Marana tha; Stephen; "call upon the name," 1 Corinthians 1:2), sang of him (the Philippians hymn) and, as Pliny reports from outside the church by c. AD 112, to him, and worshipped him where they refused to worship an angel (Revelation 5:13–14; Hebrews 1:6).
And it was early, not a slow climb: Marana tha is pre-Pauline Aramaic from the Jerusalem church of the 30s, and Larry Hurtado dates the "binitarian" devotion "amazingly early," within the first two decades, among strict monotheists. The development was in the vocabulary the church later coined, not in the worship. And the one alternative — that Jesus was a supreme agent (the Jewish shaliach) — breaks at the altar: no agent was ever prayed to, or sung a hymn "as to a god."
Therefore the first Christians worshipped Jesus, and did so from the start — not after centuries of drift. Worship, in a Jew, is a confession about who God is.
This does not by itself prove the worship was warranted — that Jesus is in fact God — which is the separate work of the resurrection evidence and Jesus's own words. Its narrower, firmer point: the worship is early, offered by monotheistic Jews who confessed in the same breath that God is one. Nor does it hand us the fourth-century councils' metaphysics, which the honest case concedes came later, or adjudicate the intra-Christian disputes. We hold that this worship is rightly placed — that the one they prayed to is, as Nicaea confessed, true God from true God, one God with the Father and the Spirit, a mystery we confess rather than a formula we have mastered. The one so worshipped is the eternal Son who took a complete human nature to himself without ceasing to be God: fully God and fully man, two natures in one person.
Why "the worship developed slowly" is the popular skeptic's move.The claim's serious form comes from Bart Ehrman, who rejects the crude "Constantine invented it" story and grants that devotion to Jesus began strikingly early — but presses a subtler point: early reverence is not yet the later dogma; an "exaltation" devotion grew, over time, into full worship of Jesus as God. The reply grants what is true — the church's formal vocabulary really did develop later — and refuses only the inference that the worship itself was a late arrival.
Working only from what the argument has established: what does each piece of evidence rule out, and how far does the inference reach? Reason each line out, then reveal.
Precision check: the line was not the mere posture of homage. It is easy to misplace the line.
1 Chronicles 29:20 uses a single verb of prostration for both the LORD and King David in the same breath. Bowing, kneeling, honouring: these could be offered to prophets, kings, and angels without blasphemy. What Jewish monotheism guarded jealously for God was not the posture of homage but the substance of worship — sacrifice, invocation, prayer. Angels, prophets, and kings could be honoured, but the angels of Second Temple Jewish literature characteristically refuse worship and redirect it to God.
The New Testament itself draws the line in exactly that place. In the book of Revelation, when John falls down to worship the angel who has shown him the vision, the angel recoils — twice: “You must not do that!… Worship God.” (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). Even the highest created messenger refuses the worship due God alone. That refusal is the control case: it tells us precisely what the earliest Christians thought they were — and were not — free to do.
Marana tha is not the homage due a vice-regent; it is an invocation, calling on the risen Lord to come. Stephen dies with a prayer on his lips — “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59) — entrusting his spirit to Jesus exactly as Jesus had entrusted his to the Father (Luke 23:46). And Paul can define the whole church, in a single phrase, as “all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:2), taking up the Scriptures’ own idiom for invoking YHWH by name (Joel 2:32; Romans 10:13).
The hymn Paul quotes in Philippians 2 gives Jesus “the name that is above every name” and applies to him Isaiah’s oath that to YHWH alone “every knee shall bow” (Philippians 2:9–11, quoting Isaiah 45:23).
Reporting to the emperor around AD 112, the pagan governor Pliny records that those he interrogated — some of them former Christians — described meeting before dawn and singing “a hymn to Christ, as to a god” (carmen Christo quasi deo, Pliny, Letters 10.96) — hostile testimony that, by the early second century, worshipping Jesus was already the settled, customary practice of the churches Pliny encountered.
Note: on the disputed force of quasi deo, A. N. Sherwin-White argues quasi here means simply “as,” not “as if.” Pliny’s own date is c. 112; his testimony corroborates the entrenchment of the practice, while the New Testament evidence establishes its earlier origin.
In Revelation the whole created order sings to “him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb” the same blessing and honour and glory, and the elders fall down in worship (Revelation 5:13–14) — in the very book whose angel twice refuses that worship for himself. Hebrews goes further still: God commands the worship — “Let all God’s angels worship him” (Hebrews 1:6) — in words whose Old Testament source directs that worship to the LORD. The Lamb receives what the angel forbids.
Early in the Gospel the devil offers Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if he will “fall down and worship” him, and Jesus refuses with Scripture: “You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve” (Matthew 4:10, quoting Deuteronomy 6:13). Yet the same Gospel ends with the disciples worshipping the risen Jesus — “and when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted” (Matthew 28:17; cf. 14:33) — and Jesus does not refuse it, as the angel of Revelation does. The worship Jesus refused to give the devil, because it belongs to God alone, he received from his disciples, without a word of protest.
Honest limit: the Greek verb here (proskyneō) can by itself mean no more than homage — the very posture that could be offered to a king — so the force of the scene lies not in the word but in the frame Matthew builds around it: the same Gospel that has Jesus refuse Satan’s demand for proskynēsis by quoting “him only shall you serve” closes with the risen Jesus receiving it from his disciples and answering, not with the angel’s refusal, but with a claim to all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). The candour of “some doubted” is worth noting: Matthew is not concealing the difficulty. He is recording worship offered, and worship received.
Your worship texts often just say people “bowed” or “fell down” before Jesus (the Greek proskyneō). But Israelites bowed before kings, too — the same gesture. Posture proves nothing about deity; it is ordinary homage to a superior.
Correct — and the case concedes it in as many words: the posture of homage was never the reserved line (1 Chronicles 29:20 uses one verb of prostration for both the LORD and King David). That is precisely why the load-bearing evidence is not the posture-word at all, but the substance of worship — sacrifice, invocation, prayer: an Aramaic prayer to the risen Jesus, invocation of his name, the hymn sung “to Christ, as to a god,” and the worship an angel refuses. Where the argument leans on Matthew’s proskyneō, the force of the scene lies not in the word but in the frame Matthew builds around it.
Precision check: the claim is about the practice, not the vocabulary. Nor does the premise prove the worship was warranted — that is the separate work of the resurrection and of Jesus’s own words and deeds.
The most explosive evidence is also the earliest. Marana tha is Aramaic — a fossil of devotion in the original language of the Palestinian church, carrying us behind Paul’s Greek to the first Aramaic-speaking believers in Jerusalem in the 30s. Somewhere around the year 55, Paul preserved, untranslated, a prayer his Greek-speaking congregations had received from the first believers in Judea (1 Corinthians 16:22).
Honest limit: the consonants can also be divided maran atha, “our Lord has come,” but the imperative prayer is the standard reading, matched by Revelation 22:20; its origin among early Aramaic-speaking Jewish believers is widely accepted.
The Philippians hymn is widely regarded as pre-Pauline material, older than the letter that carries it (this dating is debated — Gordon Fee argues Paul composed the hymn himself — but the worship of Jesus it expresses stands either way).
The historian Larry Hurtado devoted a major study to exactly this question and concluded that a “binitarian” pattern of devotion — worship offered to Jesus together with God the Father — emerged “amazingly early,” within the first two decades of the movement, among Jews who would have regarded worshipping any creature as blasphemy.
No shaliach in Jewish thought ever received the cultic devotion — the prayer, the invocation, the hymn offered to a god — that the sources give Jesus. Agency conferred authority; it never conferred that adoration. This is exactly why the angel in Revelation, himself God’s messenger and agent, refuses the very worship the Lamb accepts. An agent represents the sender; Jewish piety characteristically did not pray to him or sing him the hymn offered “to a god.”
Honest limit: it is true that in the Hebrew Bible an emissary can bear the sender’s name and authority, and the reading should be met on its merits, not caricatured.
Bart Ehrman rejects the crude “Constantine invented it” story and grants that devotion to Jesus began strikingly early. His subtler claim is that early reverence is not yet the later dogma: that an initial “exaltation” devotion grew, over time and reflection, into the full worship of Jesus as God in the same sense as the Father.
The concession comes first, because part of this is true. The church’s formal vocabulary for what it was doing — the fourth-century language of “one essence” — genuinely did develop later, and no informed Christian need pretend otherwise. But the datum this page rests on is not the vocabulary; it is the practice, and the practice is in the earliest layer we can reach. Marana tha, the Philippians hymn, the pattern Hurtado documents: these are not the top of a slow climb. They are the bedrock. The refinement was in how the church explained the worship of Jesus, never in whether it offered it. With Ehrman, though, the disagreement is not really about dates — he himself finds a pre-existent Christ in material older than Paul’s letters — but about what kind of being the earliest Christians took Jesus to be. Whatever room Judaism had for exalted intermediaries, its angels characteristically refuse worship, as we saw, while the earliest Christians were praying to Jesus and singing hymns about him within the first two decades. That is exactly why Hurtado calls the worship of Jesus a startling “mutation” rather than an unremarkable promotion.
The Jewish principle of agency holds that “a man’s agent is as the man himself.” An ambassador is honoured, obeyed, even received as though he were the king — without being the king. On this reading everything above is the dignity of a supreme agent: Jesus is honoured because the Father appointed him, addressed as the one who perfectly represents God, given a kind of worship as God’s exalted vice-regent. Its most rigorous scholarly form is the New Testament historian James F. McGrath’s.
Agency has a ceiling, and the worship evidence crashes through it (see the support above). Even Dunn, whose survey is the most cautious of the major treatments, grants that the earliest devotion is real and must be reckoned with; the question is whether “agency” can bear its weight, and at the altar it cannot. Dunn, who put the question as a book title — Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? — answered, cautiously, that worship was characteristically offered to God through Jesus rather than to Jesus as such. Nor is Dunn’s “through Jesus” pattern the whole of it: Paul pleads directly with the Lord whose power he calls “the power of Christ” (2 Corinthians 12:8–9), Stephen commits his spirit to him (Acts 7:59), and the church is defined as those who call upon his name (1 Corinthians 1:2). James F. McGrath’s version meets the same limit at the altar: grant that God’s name and functions could be entrusted to a supreme agent, and the worship itself still could not be. So the agency reading does not hold.
Each of these gets its strongest form first, then the reply — and the hardest objection of all is flagged above.
The one that matters most: Ehrman's developmental thesis — he grants the devotion began strikingly early (he rejects the Constantine myth), but denies it amounts to the later dogma: early reverence, he says, is not yet worship of Jesus as God in the full sense. The deep dive answers it at length — take it with you, not just the reply below.
Strongest form
Bart Ehrman rejects the crude "Constantine invented it" story and grants that devotion to Jesus began early. His subtler claim: an initial "exaltation" reverence (God raised the man Jesus to heavenly status) grew, over time and reflection, into the full worship of Jesus as God in the same sense as the Father.
Reply
Concede the true part first: the church's formal vocabulary for what it was doing — the fourth-century language of "one essence" — genuinely developed later. But the datum is not the vocabulary; it is the practice, and the practice is in the earliest layer we can reach. Marana tha is Aramaic, pre-Pauline, from the Jerusalem church of the 30s; the Philippians hymn is pre-Pauline (Fee argues Paul composed it — the worship stands either way); Hurtado dates the binitarian devotion "amazingly early." These are not the top of a slow climb — they are the bedrock. The refinement was in how the church explained the worship of Jesus, never in whether it offered it. With Ehrman, though, the disagreement is not really about dates — he himself finds a pre-existent Christ in material older than Paul's letters — but about what kind of being the earliest Christians took Jesus to be. Whatever room Judaism had for exalted intermediaries, its angels characteristically refuse worship, while the earliest Christians were praying to Jesus and singing hymns about him within the first two decades. That is exactly why Hurtado calls the worship of Jesus a startling "mutation" rather than an unremarkable promotion.
Strongest form
Everyone has heard it: in 325 the emperor Constantine gathered bishops who made Jesus divine — and worthy of worship — by a vote. Before Nicaea he was a revered prophet, not an object of worship.
Reply
It runs aground on the dates. The worship of Jesus is in the earliest sources we possess, centuries before Nicaea: an Aramaic prayer to the risen Jesus from the first Judean church (Marana tha), a pre-Pauline hymn sung of him, and — from a hostile outsider — Pliny's report (c. 112) that Christians sang "a hymn to Christ, as to a god," two centuries before the council. Nicaea did not decide whether to worship Jesus; that was long settled. It excluded Arius, who said the Son was a created being — a debate within a church already worshipping him.
Strongest form
The Jewish principle of agency (the shaliach) holds that "a man's agent is as the man himself." An ambassador is honoured and received as though he were the king, without being the king. On this reading Jesus is God's supreme agent, given honour and even a kind of worship as the perfect representative. Its most rigorous scholarly form is the New Testament historian James F. McGrath's.
Reply
Grant the language of sending; the reading still has a ceiling, and the worship evidence crashes through it. No shaliach in Jewish thought ever received the cultic devotion — the prayer, the invocation, the hymn offered to a god — that the sources give Jesus. Agency conferred authority; it never conferred that adoration. That is exactly why the angel in Revelation, himself God's messenger and agent, refuses the very worship the Lamb accepts. Nor is the "through Jesus" pattern (Dunn) the whole of it: Paul pleads directly with the Lord whose power he calls "the power of Christ" (2 Corinthians 12:8–9), Stephen commits his spirit to him (Acts 7:59), and the church is defined as those who call upon his name (1 Corinthians 1:2). James F. McGrath's version meets the same limit at the altar: grant that God's name and functions could be entrusted to a supreme agent, and the worship itself still could not be. Grant, for the sake of argument, that the framework explains the titles; it still breaks at the altar. So the agency reading does not hold.
Strongest form
Your worship texts often just say people "bowed" or "fell down" before Jesus (the Greek proskyneō). But Israelites bowed before kings, too — the same gesture. Posture proves nothing about deity; it is ordinary homage to a superior.
Reply
Correct — and the case concedes it in as many words: the posture of homage was never the reserved line (1 Chronicles 29:20 uses one verb of prostration for both the LORD and King David). That is precisely why the load-bearing evidence is not the posture-word at all, but the substance of worship — the things that could never be given to a king: an Aramaic prayer to the risen Jesus, invocation of his name, the hymn sung "to Christ, as to a god," and the worship an angel refuses. Where the argument leans on Matthew's proskyneō, its force comes from the frame (Jesus refuses Satan's worship, then receives his disciples' and claims all authority), not the word.
Strongest form
Your strongest worship scenes — the Lamb enthroned in Revelation, the exalted claims of John — come from the latest New Testament writings, decades on. That fits a slow development: the worship crested late.
Reply
The case is built to survive that, because it rests its weight on the earliest material, not the latest. Marana tha is pre-Pauline Aramaic from the Jerusalem church of the 30s — a prayer to the risen Jesus in the original language of the first community. The Philippians hymn is widely regarded as pre-Pauline, older than the letter (Fee argues Paul composed it — the worship stands either way). Paul's undisputed letters (the 50s) already define the church as those who "call upon the name" of Jesus. Revelation and John make the worship vivid; they did not invent it. The highest devotion sits in the earliest stratum, which is the opposite of what a slow-development story predicts.
Strongest form
Suppose the first Christians really did worship Jesus, and early. All that shows is that people believed and worshipped early — and early worship can still be misplaced. You have not shown Jesus is actually God, only that he was adored soon.
Reply
Correct, and the argument says so plainly. It answers a narrower, historical claim — that the worship of Jesus developed slowly over centuries — by showing the devotion is in the earliest layer we can reach. Whether that worship was warranted — whether Jesus is in fact God — is a separate question, argued on separate grounds: the resurrection of Jesus and his own words and deeds, each treated in its own track. What this closes off is only the specific charge that the worship was a late invention. (It is, though, a strong pointer: strict monotheists who would die before bowing to an idol do not lightly start praying to a crucified man.)
Strongest form
In the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) the Son of Man sits on the throne of glory to judge; all who dwell on earth fall down and worship before him (48:5), and the kings of the earth petition him for mercy (62:5, 9).
Reply
Richard Bauckham, who argues for the strict line this page follows, calls it the one exception which proves the rule, and stresses that the figure’s inclusion is partial and equivocal: it lies in the future, at the last judgment, with no share in creating the world (though he is named before creation, 48:3, 6). Many specialists now date the Similitudes to around the turn of the era, though the date is disputed and they are not attested at Qumran. Even taken at full weight, what they describe is end-time homage before God’s appointed judge, from all the earth and joined to praise of the Lord of Spirits, and the pleas of the defeated kings, not a community’s present prayer, invocation and hymn.
The early-and-high-devotion datum is firm. Hurtado devoted a major study to exactly this question and concluded that the pattern of devotion to Jesus together with God the Father emerged “amazingly early,” within the first two decades. Dunn presses the most cautious of the major treatments — he questions how much weight the category “worship” will bear in the earliest texts, and answers that worship was characteristically offered to God through Jesus rather than to Jesus as such — yet grants that the devotion is real and early; his caution is a minority position relative to Hurtado and Bauckham. Even Ehrman rejects the crude “Constantine invented it” story and grants that devotion to Jesus began strikingly early.
A fairness most defenders skip: Several supports are debated, and the case says so. The Philippians hymn is widely regarded as pre-Pauline, but Gordon Fee argues Paul composed it himself — the worship it expresses stands either way. The force of Pliny’s quasi deo is disputed. Matthew’s verb proskyneō can by itself mean no more than homage, so the force of that scene lies in Matthew’s frame, not the word. The church’s formal vocabulary — the fourth-century language of “one essence” — genuinely did develop later. And Bauckham’s “divine identity” framing is influential but genuinely contested: Dunn, and from another angle James F. McGrath, question how sharply that boundary can be drawn, and Hurtado preferred to frame the data as devotional practice.
The bounded verdict: What the evidence establishes is enough to dissolve the “slow development” myth. The first Christians — Jewish monotheists who would die before bowing to an idol — prayed to Jesus, sang of him, called on his name, and worshipped him where they refused to worship even an angel; and they did so from the earliest years of the movement, not after centuries of drift. They held, in one breath, that God is one and that the crucified Jesus was to be worshipped. That is worship, offered at the start — and worship, in a Jew, is a confession about who God is. It does not by itself prove the worship warranted; that case is argued from Scripture and the resurrection. We hold that this worship is rightly placed — that the one they prayed to is, as Nicaea confessed, true God from true God, one God with the Father and the Spirit.
Close the sections above. This is the retrieval that turns reading into knowing — and it is how this argument reaches Bronze · Understand on your shelf. Opening accordions no longer counts; showing you can rebuild the structure does.
Knowledge you can't retrieve under pressure isn't yours yet. These drills make you generate the argument, not recognise it — harder now, on purpose, so it holds in a real conversation.
Scroll the sections away and generate it from memory — recalling is what builds durable memory; re-reading only feels like it does. Pick your level; the bar rises as you go. Scored out of 10, graded for accuracy first. An 8+ at level 2 or 3 is one half of Silver.
Twelve cards drawn from the premises, objections, concessions, and sources above. Answer out loud before you flip — the effort of recall is the whole point; a card you merely recognise hasn't stuck. Each card is graded: type the key idea, flip, mark it. Three correct recalls and a card rests; it comes back on Today when it is due.
Start here: draft your reply, then reveal a model answer to compare. This is the worked example — Drill 4 then makes you do it cold across the whole objection set.
"I get why it looks that way — but the timeline runs the other direction. First, notice where the line was: Jews would bow before a king, so the mere posture of homage was never the issue. What they reserved for God alone was the substance of worship — prayer, invocation, singing a hymn to a god. In the book of Revelation an angel actually refuses to be worshipped: 'Worship God.' Now look at what the first Christians did with Jesus. They prayed to him — there's an Aramaic prayer, Marana tha, 'Our Lord, come!', that goes back to the Jerusalem church in the 30s, before Paul wrote a word. They sang hymns about him — even a hostile Roman governor, Pliny, reports around AD 112 that Christians sang 'a hymn to Christ, as to a god.' And they gave him the worship an angel refuses. The historian Larry Hurtado, who studied this for a living, calls it 'amazingly early' — within the first two decades, among strict monotheists. So the worship isn't a late Greek drift; it's bedrock. Now, I'll concede the honest part: the technical vocabulary — 'one essence,' 'two natures' — did get hammered out later, and whether that worship was actually warranted, whether Jesus really is God, is a further question that turns on the resurrection and his own words. But 'the worship developed slowly over centuries' just doesn't survive the dates."
The other half of Silver. Draft a reply from memory, reveal the certified answer, and rate yourself honestly. Clear all four with a “nailed it” and you can field them in the wild — not just recognise them on the page.
Mastery isn't a feeling — it's three levels, each earned by showing you can do the thing, then proven again over time. Don't trust the warm glow of having read it; prove it cold.
Gold can slip back to Silver if you stop turning up for the spaced reviews — real mastery is perishable, which is why it's worth something. The dashboard brings this one back when it's due.
Rate yourself — then see whether your Explain It Back score backs it up. Felt-confidence and shown-confidence are not the same thing, and the gap is worth knowing before a real conversation.
Everything above rehearsed objections the page showed you. Here is the real test of mastery: an objection we deliberately did not drill. Reason it out cold from what the argument established, then reveal how it actually handles it. An honest “nailed it” is the first half of Gold.
The evidence does reach beyond what the texts say. The earliest Christian copyists wrote a small set of sacred words in a special abbreviated form, and the earliest and most consistent of them are the words for God and Lord and the names Jesus and Christ — a practice Larry Hurtado read as one more expression of devotion to Jesus together with God the Father. A mosaic in a prayer hall at Kefar ‘Othnay, near Megiddo, records that a woman named Akeptous offered the table “to God Jesus Christ” as a memorial; the excavators date it to the third century, though the date is debated. And on the Palatine Hill in Rome, scratched into a plaster wall around AD 200, a Roman hand drew a man lifting his hand toward a crucified figure with a donkey’s head and wrote beneath it, “Alexamenos worships his god” — a jeer at a Christian for adoring a crucified man. These are later than the earliest texts, so they corroborate the practice rather than date its beginning; the origin is shown by the earliest layer itself, Marana tha and the hymn.
That answers one of the most common skeptical moves against the deity of Christ — and shows how early the worship of Jesus really is, offered by monotheistic Jews from the start. The full library is waiting for whatever you take on next.
Apologia Daily — defending the faith with gentleness and respect.