[2] The Sixth Paradigm [R. Holloway--Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity] - Part 2

 Source (in the public domain): http://radicalfaith.org/holloway/sixth%20paradigm.htm

From a talk Holloway gave in May 2003

Accessed: 2020-09-03

Go to Part 1 

The Sixth Paradigm  [Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity] - continued

Richard Holloway (former Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh)

 

PARADIGM #4: The Protestant Reformation Paradigm

Kung's fourth paradigm (P#4) is one we're more immediately familiar with - that of the 16^th century Protestant Reformation. It happened to coincide with the discovery of the Bible by ordinary people. Once the new printing presses had swung into action, many thousands of copies of the Bible became available to the person on the street. It was very soon translated from Latin into the vernaculars.

Just as the Roman institution had provided Christians with a feeling of absolute assurance, so also some people found a similar assurance in the words of Scripture. The absolute institution was replaced by texts which were perceived as the absolute truth straight from the mouth of God. The fourth paradigm promoted the same need for authority as did the third paradigm and pandered to the same fear of freedom.

More profound than such similarities is the way adherence to scriptural inerrancy prevents attempts to do theology differently. In order to preserve its internal consistencies, this paradigm must perforce retain an absolute commitment to a pre-scientific paradigm of how this world works.

In this paradigm the sun must be able to stand still, people must be able to walk on water, and the dead must be able to rise again. In contrast, institutions like the Roman Church can change and yet pretend they haven't. But how can anyone move off a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy without admitting it?

From study of the Bible as God's Word to humankind came the great theory that Luther evolved in contradistinction to the fundamentalism if the institution. It's nearly impossible for many Christians today to read Paul's letters to the early Church except through Lutheran eyes, so compelling was Luther's interpretation of the infallible authority of the Bible.

Luther taught that God saves us not through any of our own works or good deeds, be they pilgrimages, or masses or earnest prayer, but only through God's grace by the sacrifice of the Father's son. That really was a paradigm revolution for those times. It blew away the monolithic medieval Christianity of Roman Catholicism.

The Reformation church is today perhaps the most dated in feeling of all the churches.

I don't know if you ever go into a United Reformed Church building or a Presbyterian church. A few have developed new liturgical forms and norms, but on the whole the classic churches of the Reformation are, as we say in Scotland, very dour. They're heavy. You get long sermons. They may be very thoughtful sermons but they're long. It's all minister-dominated. There's no colour or brightness. It's very heavy, it's serious, it's intense.

That is also it's enduring value. It produces very serious people. Presbyterian Scotland was a very serious country which, by dint of focused effort over many years, produced a strongly democratic consciousness.

It also gave birth to the Protestant work-ethic. This was fundamental to Scotland's experience and self understanding. From this paradigm sprang also a well-educated public. John Knox, the Scottish Protestant reformer, wanted a school in every parish and largely succeeded in his ambition.

Despite this enduring value, the Reformation remnant of the fourth paradigm remains depressing and sexless. If you want to have a good time, don't go to one of these places on a Sunday morning. For unless you're solidly masochistic you'll come out feeling pretty rotten about yourself.

I often think that if you want a great exemplar of the virtues and maybe of the downside of the Reformation paradigm, look at Gordon Brown, the United Kingdom's Chancellor of the Exchequer (equivalent to the Minister of Finance in other systems). He is a deeply serious man. There doesn't seem to be any frivolity in him. He's deeply committed to his project - but he's not exactly a laugh a minute (although I'm told that with some decent malt whiskey beside him he can be quite good company). But there's no sense of frivolity of skittishness about him. In many ways he's a brilliant exemplar of the best of the fourth paradigm.

***

PARADIGM #5: The Modern Era Paradigm

The fifth paradigm (P#5) is the modern paradigm, that of the 17^th - 19^thcenturies. It is still powerfully with us, busily influencing and interpreting how we perceive the world and our lives. Nevertheless, we're increasingly able to regard it to some degree dispassionately as we sail into new and unfamiliar seas.

[1] The Sixth Paradigm [R. Holloway--Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity] - Part 1

Source (in the public domain): http://radicalfaith.org/holloway/sixth%20paradigm.htm

From a talk Holloway gave in May 2003

Accessed: 2020-09-03

 

The Sixth Paradigm  [Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity]

Richard Holloway (former Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh)

 

I want to take a glance at the whole of Christian history because one of the things I'd like to get at is this widespread notion that Christianity is or ever has been a single thing.

To do this I'll use a large text, but I want to lead into it by addressing first a very slim text.

One of the most important and influential philosophical texts of the twentieth century was a short book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions written by an historian of science called Thomas Kuhn. Now Kuhn was a student at Harvard in the 1960s. He was a young physicist and was invited by the President of Harvard to teach a course on the history of science to humanities students who knew nothing about science. He said to himself, "You don't refuse the President of Harvard!"

In his researches and preparing the course he surprised himself. He came across something that he had not hitherto realised was the case. He had a notion of science as a kind of linear activity - a bit like those machines in a coal mine which eat into the coal face - which bites its way through the facts of the universe. He thought of science as a cumulative process in which these facts were gradually laid out.

He discovered that it was in fact a more violent, interruptive activity. Hence the title of his essay. He discovered that science operates by what he called "paradigm revolutions" or "paradigm shifts". He didn't actually coin the word "paradigm" but he did give it a new kind of meaning. He said that the scientific community worked within what it called a paradigm, a constellation of views based on experiment, a world view or set of assumptions that it operated within. This was the going, working science of the time.

The paradigm was operated until it stopped working - that is, until new questions or new discoveries began to collide with the given view. Let me give you a fairly obvious example.

Aristotelian astronomy, upon which the worldview of the entire Bible is based, proposed a three-decker universe with the earth at the centre and all the spheres going round it. The whole idea was that the earth is the centre of the system both physically as well as theologically.

That was the going paradigm. And it still works. The Ptolemaic version of Aristotelian astronomy can still operate for a yachtsperson. You can cross the Atlantic using Ptolemaic astronomy, guiding your boat by the stars. So to that extent it can still be a working paradigm.

But it was overtaken by the great Copernican discovery which was revolutionary because it said, "Ah! The earth is not the thing which everything else goes round. In fact, we go round the sun."

You'll recall the great struggle which then took place. This was because the new paradigm appeared to contradict both the biblical account as well as the going scientific paradigm. Interestingly, it was only fairly recently that the Pope gave the sun permission to be the centre of the solar system.

What happens then is that you get a working set of systems which operates quite satisfactorily until along comes new knowledge, usually discovered by creatures of genius. They begin to ask questions about the old paradigm. Those who use the old paradigm resist the new - and it is entirely right that they should do so. One doesn't want to keep changing a world view which works. It's a confounded nuisance if you're switching paradigms every few years. You need to get traction, a bit of tradition and leverage on the thing.

So you make it work as long as you possibly can. You use it to try to answer the new information which is coming in. There's also in some people a natural kind of conservatism which doesn't like any kind of change. They prefer the going paradigm to anything which is coming down the road. They do so for purely temperamental reasons - but it's also true that the scientific method itself inherently tests new data until it overturns the old. And then you get a paradigm revolution and you move on.

Kuhn's little book has influenced philosophers, culture critics and theologians since the early 1960s. I want to look now at a great text which has applied Kuhn's conclusions about paradigms to Christianity.

The greatest living theologian is Hans Kung, a Roman Catholic. His is the "large text" to which I referred earlier. He doesn't have the Pope's driving licence because he wrote a book in the seventies attacking the doctrine of infallibility and he had his licence to teach withdrawn.

He still teaches theology at Tübingen University but he teaches it in a secular setting (2020-no longer teaching). Quite movingly, he's an old man now and he would like to get his licence back. He'd like to die, as it were, in peace with the Roman Church. But he has been told that he will only get the licence back if he commits to the doctrine of infallibility.

So he will have to sacrifice his conscience to get back inside the Church (which shows you how corrupt churches are). I doubt if he will do that because his whole being has been one of challenge. He's been a sort of Protestant theologian in the midst of Catholicism.

Kung set himself a few years ago an enormous task. He wanted to describe the religious situation of our day. He conceived three volumes - one on Christianity, one on Judaism and one on Islam (2020-they are all published).

He applies paradigm theory to religion. He says that contrary to what we all think, religion has been a story of shifting paradigms - an essentially dynamic, changing enterprise.

I want to race through his application of paradigm theory to Christianity. He says there have been five Christian paradigms. As we'll see, these paradigms are all still in operation. In science, new paradigms succeed, complete and often oust those that came before. In Christianity, religious paradigms never seem to get discarded or superannuated. They simply get stacked up like trays in the trolleys of self-service restaurants.

[5] A Summary of the History of Christianity: A "Paradigm Shift" Approach (Part 5)

 

A Summary of the History of Christianity (by Hans Küng)

(with annotations and revisions done by Julius-Kei Kato)

Go to Part 4

Part 5 - Paradigm #5 : The Modern Era Paradigm - Challenges to Christianity 

We will refer to sub-divisions of this article by the section numbers within square brackets (e.g. [1]).

Resources:

Original Link to this Summary (in the public domain / accessed 2020-09-20): https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-01-02-christentum/0b-01-0201-jesus.php

Paradigm Shifts in Christianity (a one-page visual diagram) https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-pdf/paradigm-shifts-christianity.pdf

 

[17] Revolutions of the Modern Age

René Descartes (1596–1650)

Was the father of modern rationalist philosophy and marked a “Copernican Revolution” in the way of thinking: the whole of reality is constituted by the human subject (“I think therefore I am” Latin, Cogito ergo sum)

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642)

Was the protagonist of the new empirical-mathematical natural science which was the basis for the technological and industrial revolution that reached its first climax in the 19^th century

Cardinal Richelieu [Armand Jean du Plessis] (1585–1642)

Was the mastermind and practitioner of a new understanding of the State and of politics: what counts is not the confessional or religious-moral point of view but rather practical politics in pursuit of national interests. The state is the natural product of a contract between the people and their rulers and is thus autonomous in relation to the Church.

The French Revolution

In the wake of runaway inflation and mass misery, the Estates-General convened in May 1789. In
June, the Third Estate, representing 98% of the population over against clergy and nobility, proclaimed itself to be the “National Assembly” and challenged the power of the king. On July 14, 1789, the people of Paris took up arms (“Storm the Bastille”). On Aug. 4, the National Assembly abolished feudalism, putting an end to the “Ancien Régime”, and on Aug. 26, it proclaimed the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.”

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789)

The basic principle of the Declaration was that all “men are born and remain free and equal in rights” (Article 1), which were specified as the rights of liberty, private property, the inviolability of the person, and resistance to oppression (Article 2). All citizens were equal before the law and were to have the right to participate in legislation directly or indirectly (Article 6); no one was to be arrested without a judicial order (Article 7). Freedom of religion (Article 10) and freedom of speech (Article 11) were safeguarded within the bounds of public “order” and “law.” The document reflects the interests of the elites who wrote it: property was given the status of an inviolable right, which could be taken by the state only if an indemnity were given (Article 17); offices and position were opened to all citizens (Article 6).

 

[18] Challenges to the Christian Churches in the Future

1. Dialogue with other confessions and, in time, with other religions.

2. Demands of the Enlightenment: freedom of religion and of conscience, freedom of assembly, of speech and of the press.

3. Leading values: “rationality”, “progress”, “nation”.

4. Relativization of Christianity in European guise: instead of a Europe-centered Christian perspective on the world, a multi-centred worldview embracing diverse regions and religions.

 

--END OF SERIES 5/5--

[4] A Summary of the History of Christianity: A "Paradigm Shift" Approach (Part 4)

A Summary of the History of Christianity (by Hans Küng)

(with annotations and revisions done by Julius-Kei Kato)

Go to Part 3

Part 4 - Paradigm #4 : Martin Luther & The Protestant Reformation Paradigm

We will refer to sub-divisions of this article by the section numbers within square brackets (e.g. [1]).

Resources:

Original Link to this Summary (in the public domain / accessed 2020-09-20): https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-01-02-christentum/0b-01-0201-jesus.php

Paradigm Shifts in Christianity (a one-page visual diagram) https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-pdf/paradigm-shifts-christianity.pdf

 

[12] Martin Luther - Life

1483  Birth in Eisleben.
1505  Entry into the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt.
1512  Professor in Wittenberg.
1517  Publication of the “Ninety-five Theses” against indulgences.
1520  Papal bull threatening excommunication if he does not retract. Luther publicly burns the papal bull.
1521  Luther is excommunicated. He stands up to his writings at the Diet of Worms, he and his followers are put under the ban (Edict of Worms). Luther is hidden till 1522
in Wartburg Castle, where he begins his translation of the Bible.
1525  The Peasants’ War. Luther got married and broke with Erasmus of Rotterdam.

1529  Marburg Colloquy with Huldrych Zwingli and Martin Bucer.
1541  Jean Calvin established a theocratic republic in Geneva.
1546  Luther dies in Eisleben

 

 

[13] Luther’s Program

Luther’s program: Return to the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Bible

In place of innumerable ecclesiastic traditions, laws and authorities, the Holy Scriptures alone serve as the criterion of being Christian – translation of the Bible into the language of the people so that everyone could understand it

Christ

In place of innumerable saints and official mediators, Jesus Christ alone serves as the Mediator of humans before God

Grace

In place of ecclesiastically imposed pious deeds to merit salvation, believers find justification before God not through their works, but through grace alone, which cannot be earned, but is received through faith alone. Grace is unconditional.

Church

In place of the medieval clerical hierarchy, the Church is the community of believers, a congregation that prays and sings together.

 

 

[3] A Summary of the History of Christianity: A "Paradigm Shift" Approach (Part 3)

 A Summary of the History of Christianity (by Hans Küng)

(with annotations and revisions done by Julius-Kei Kato)

Go to Part 2

Part 3 - Paradigm #3 : The Medieval Roman Catholic Paradigm 

We will refer to sub-divisions of this article by the section numbers within square brackets (e.g. [1]).

Resources:

Original Link to this Summary (in the public domain / accessed 2020-09-20): https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-01-02-christentum/0b-01-0201-jesus.php

Paradigm Shifts in Christianity (a one-page visual diagram) https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-pdf/paradigm-shifts-christianity.pdf

[8] Rome: Primacy of Honour in the Early Church and the Process of Latinization

•         The Jewish roots of Christianity were forgotten by a church characterized first by Greek then by Latin culture.

•         In Rome, between 360 and 382, Latin replaced Greek as the language of the liturgy.

•         The basilica, originally a large hall for secular affairs, became the model of church architecture.

•         The thanksgiving meal (Eucharist) was gradually transformed into
a sacrificial offering: the table became an altar.

 

 

[9] The Pope – Successor of St Peter? – “No”, “Yes”, or “It’s Complicated”?

•         No evidence in the New Testament that Peter was in Rome.

•         No evidence for an immediate “successor” to Peter, not even in Rome.

•         No mention of a bishop of Rome in the New Testament or in the earliest Christian sources …

•         not in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and not in the Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians.

 

•         Nevertheless, early evidence for the graves of the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome.

•         Around the middle of the 3rd Century, Bishop Stephen of Rome viewed himself as the successor of Peter and claimed a primacy over all other bishops.

•        (this part by jkk) Historically speaking then, it seems that the following idea: <the Pope is the literal successor of Peter who holds full authority [over all bishops in the Christian world], received in an unbroken chain of tradition going from the present pope all the way up to Peter himself who, in turn, received his authority as pope from Jesus himself> has to be re-evaluated very critically. It is not true in the literal sense. It can be considered an anachronism because the popes increasingly claimed this only later in history. The Eastern Orthodox churches (some of which are even older than Rome itself) have not accepted this. It remains the main block to unity among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. However, it is true that the pope as bishop of Rome has had a unique place of honour (a “primacy of honour” and primus inter pares “first among equals”) in the history of Christianity from ancient times.  (jkk)

 

 

[2] A Summary of the History of Christianity: A "Paradigm Shift" Approach (Part 2)

 A Summary of the History of Christianity (by Hans Küng)

(with annotations and revisions done by Julius-Kei Kato)

Go to Part 1

Part 2 - Paradigm #2 : Constantinople - Moscow - the Orthodox Churches 

We will refer to sub-divisions of this article by the section numbers within square brackets (e.g. [1]).

Resources:

Original Link to this Summary (in the public domain / accessed 2020-09-20): https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-01-02-christentum/0b-01-0201-jesus.php

Paradigm Shifts in Christianity (a one-page visual diagram) https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-pdf/paradigm-shifts-christianity.pdf

[5] Constantinople – The Second Rome

Emperor Constantine (306–337)

·         Christianity became, first, the favoured religion of the empire (under Constantine). Later, it became the state religion under the emperor Theodosius (380 CE).

·         Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) became the centre of Christianity (the “Second Rome”).

·         Ecumenical councils were convened to lay down rules for orthodoxy and to formulate dogmas about God and Christ and other matters.
   – Nicaea (325),
   – Constantinople (381),
   – Ephesus (433/449),
   – Chalcedon (451)

·         The Eastern Church centred in Constantinople and the Western Church centred in Rome became increasingly alienated from each other: different languages and cultures, different ways of thinking and doing things

·         Controversies about questions of faith and discipline and about primacy (of the pope) led to the separation (“The Great Schism”) between the Eastern and Western Churches in 1054. This created two separate great bodies of Christians, the “Roman Catholic Church” under the Pope in Rome and the “Eastern Orthodox Churches” under the Patriarch of Constantinople (present-day Istanbul).

 

[6] Moscow – Becomes the “Third” Rome

•         988–1448  Russia formed an ecclesiastical province under the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

•         15th Century  Moscow emerged as the centre of the growing Russian Empire.

•         1453  After the fall of Constantinople, the Russian Church claimed autonomy with its own ecclesiastical head.

•         1472  Grand Duke Ivan III married the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor and laid claim to the legacy of Constantinople.

•         1510  Moscow was called the “Third Rome” for the first time.

•         1589  Moscow was made a patriarchate.

 

[7] The Orthodox Churches

The Orthodox Churches today can be considered as heirs to the Early Eastern Church (Early Church Hellenistic Paradigm-Paradigm 2):

·         “Orthodox” identity means fidelity to tradition, especially the tradition of a rich sacramental and liturgical life fostering personal religious experience.

·         Impressive artistic traditions in church architecture, icon-painting and liturgical music.

·         Devotion to Mary and the saints as symbols of participation in the heavenly Church.

·         Mystical spirituality practiced by monks and nuns but also by many laypersons.

·         An ethic of personal asceticism, prayer and care for the poor.

·         Close association with national identity resulting in a plurality of jurisdictions in communion with each other but without a common voice.

 Go to Part 3

[1] A Summary of the History of Christianity: A Paradigm Shift Approach (Part 1)

A Summary of the History of Christianity (by Hans Küng)

(with annotations and revisions done by Julius-Kei Kato)

Part I - the Original Paradigm (#1) : Jesus Christ - Earliest Christianity - the Christian Scriptures 

We will refer to sub-divisions of this article by the section numbers within square brackets (e.g. [1]).

Resources:

Original Link to this Summary (in the public domain / accessed 2020-09-20): https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-01-02-christentum/0b-01-0201-jesus.php

Paradigm Shifts in Christianity (a one-page visual diagram) https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-pdf/paradigm-shifts-christianity.pdf

(HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!) Excellent survey by Bishop Richard Holloway of the six major paradigms in Christian history He also has a section at the beginning explaining paradigms and "paradigm shifts." HERE

[1]  Jesus of Nazareth--considered by his disciples as “the Christ” (the Chosen Messiah)

•         Place of birth: Bethlehem or Nazareth in Galilee. He grew up in Nazareth. (Historically speaking, ‘grew up in Nazareth’ is a more secure piece of data)

•         Year of birth: not after 4 BC, if Jesus was born under King Herod (27–4 BC).

•         First public appearance: around the 15th year of Emperor Tiberius (27/28 or 28/29 AD), when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

•         Public Life: as a wandering preacher and teacher in the region between Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee and Jerusalem – for a short time (some months?), at best not more than three years, during which time he gathered around himself a circle of disciples.

•         Year of Death: He was crucified when he was perhaps in his early 30s, most probably around 30 AD, under Pontius Pilatus (26–30). The exact date cannot be determined.

Christianity takes its name from Jesus of Nazareth who was called by his followers “(the) Christ” (Heb. Moshiach / Gk. christos) meaning “the anointed one.”

Jesus is not a mythical person. His history is situated in Palestine, a province of the Roman empire at the time. He had a short public ministry and then crucified under Rome for political provocation and alleged blasphemy.

 

[2.1] The Historical Life and Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew from the peasant class who proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of God. 

He lived at a time when many people believed that God was going to let his “kingdom” come.

·         God’s will—he proclaimed—is for people to love God and their neighbour (indeed even their enemies! Matthew 5:44) as they love themselves.

·         Jesus practiced solidarity with everyone who cared to listen and come to his gatherings. He prioritized the disadvantaged, e.g., the poor and the marginalized.

·         The gospels record that he performed many healing actions on behalf of the sick.

·         He sometimes relativized certain Jewish religious laws when he thought that some greater value was at stake, emphasizing that the Law was for the sake of the person and not vice versa.

·         He prophetically provoked the Temple-establishment (the priests, the Sadducee party) and their business interests in the Temple (seen in the ‘purging of the Temple’ incident)

·         He publicly confronted the religious leadership (who were Jews) and the political authorities (who were Romans).

·         For this he was tried and sentenced to death on the cross.

After his death, his disciples had encounters with him that convinced them that he had been raised by God from the dead. This easter faith and proclamation that “Christ has been risen” became the foundation of Christian faith.

 

[2.2] Jesus Christ – Human and Divine  (this part by JK Kato)

One official doctrine (teaching) regarding Jesus in Christianity is that He is both human and divine. This is the result of decisions made in several important early church councils (particularly, Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon [see below]) in which it was decided that, at the official level, Jesus Christ is to be believed by Christians as “one in essence with the Father” (hence, divine), and “one person having two natures—human and divine.”

It is important though to see how the thinking about Jesus evolved over time as a historical process. We can identify several stages:

1. ENCOUNTER: When Jesus began his public life, people perceived him first and foremost as some sort of charismatic “Rabbi” (teacher) who taught, healed, and shared fellowship with people, especially the disadvantaged.
2. MESSIAH? As time went on, some of his followers began to believe that this charismatic rabbi was the MESSIAH who many Jews at the time were waiting for—the one who was going to realize the reign of God in their midst. Jesus also probably thought so about himself. (Note that “Messiah” was NOT EQUAL to “God” in Jesus’ historical context)
3. POST-RESURRECTION: After Jesus’ death, the resurrection experience made the disciples identify Jesus more and more closely with YHWH, giving him exalted titles: Lord, Son of God, Saviour, Lamb of God, Prince of Peace, etc.
4. JESUS’ DIVINITY - This process of Jesus becoming more exalted in the thinking of Christians ultimately led (300+ years later) to a radically close identification between God ("YHWH" in the Old Testament) and Jesus as expressed in the faith-statement: Jesus is also divine  (i.e., that Jesus is “God the Son,” “God incarnate,” “the Second Person of the Holy Trinity,” etc. / aka the "deification" of Jesus). This identification happened over a period of time and was made correct and required (“orthodox”) belief only in the 300s of the Common Era or AD. Note that this deification of Jesus Christ is the unique characteristic of Christianity. It is what divides it from Judaism and Islam although the three religions are monotheistic. Christianity claims that it worships ONE God in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
5. The roots of this belief in Jesus having some sort of divinity are already found in the New Testament – most notably, in the gospel of John.

For a more detailed presentation of related points, see my article “Did Jesus Claim that He Was God?” in: http://www.catholica.com.au/gc4/jkk/016_jkk_240419.php