We are a Christian Fellowship meeting in North London with a strong interest in teaching
the Bible and understanding our time in
the light of Bible prophecy
Da Vinci Code - shaking the foundations of Christianity? [pt 1]
Claims of the Da Vinci Code
The Da Vinci Code is an action packed thriller novel by Dan Brown which has become
a best seller and is to be made into a film. It is also a powerful attack on the
foundations of Christianity. Of the books nearly 600 pages only a few have spiritual
significance. I will ignore the story which is a compelling and exciting one (although
very far fetched) involving murder in the Louvre, a police chase from Paris to London,
secret societies, cracking codes and narrow escapes from death for the hero, Robert
Langdon, a Harvard professor, and heroine, Sophie Neveu, a French code breaker. In
the course of their adventures they encounter Sir Leigh Teabing, an eccentric English
aristocrat living in France who supplies much of the information which attacks basic
The behind the scenes antagonists in the book are the Priory of Sion, where it is
claimed the secret of the Sangreal (Holy Grail) has been hidden, and Opus Dei, a
Catholic sect prepared to kill in order to discover and destroy this secret. In the
introduction Brown claims that what he says about both groups is factual and that
all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in the novel
According to the book, the Priory of Sion was founded in 1099 by the French king
Godefroi de Bouillon. He was possessor of a powerful secret that had been in his
family since the time of Christ and founded the Priory to preserve this secret, which
was contained in documents hidden beneath the ruins of the Temple in Jerusalem. These
documents had been retrieved by the Knights Templars during the Crusader time.
The Templars became rich through the banking system they set up, but in 1307 Pope
Clement issued sealed orders that they were heretics guilty of devil worship and
claimed that God had told him to eliminate them. They were purged on orders from
the Vatican but the documents were saved and entrusted to the Priory of Sion which
is a secret society preserving the information from generation to generation. Leonardo
da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton and Victor Hugo were prominent members. The documents
reveal information about the Holy Grail, which is not (as is popularly believed)
the cup that Jesus drank from at Last Supper in which Joseph of Arimathea caught
his blood at the crucifixion.
The expression used for the Holy Grail is Sangreal, which in old French can be divided
as san / greal (holy grail) or sang / real (royal blood). The real meaning of the
Holy Grail is that it is the royal blood line of Jesus and Mary Magdalene who were
married and had a child who was the ancestress of the French Merovingian kings. It
turns out that Sophie Neveu is of this blood line at the end of the novel.
Information about Jesus supposed marriage to Mary Magdalene has been suppressed from
the time of the Council of Nicea in AD 325 when, under the influence of Roman Emperor
Constantine, the New Testament was fixed with its present four Gospels which were
selected from numerous other documents containing details of Jesus life. The other
writings contain information about the alternative Jesus who was just a great man,
married to Mary Magdalene. They were destroyed on the orders of the church.
The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus was not part of original Christianity and was
narrowly voted in only at the Council of Nicea. Jesus had entrusted the future of
the church to Mary Magdalene which upset the male disciples of Jesus. The New Testament
now accepted by the church is not the genuine account of the life of Jesus or of
the early church therefore Christianity as we know it today is built on a lie.
This is a male dominated conspiracy to obliterate the sacred feminine and goddess
worship from religion. Within the concept of the sacred feminine is the idea that
women should be priests and that the sexual act should be considered a pathway to
commune with God. Sophies grandfather, Jacques Saunière, (whose murder sets the ball
rolling in the novel) turns out to have been a high priest of the sacred feminine
and Sophie had been alienated from him because she found him engaged in a group sex
act known as Hieros Gamos.
The church suppressed this teaching and as a result became male dominant, resulting
in wars and life out of balance, with women-hating societies showing disrespect for
Mother Earth. The Holy Grail itself is an ancient symbol for womanhood celebrating
the power of the feminine. The church through the story of Eve committing the original
sin puts the blame on woman, but the Grail elevates woman, in particular Mary Magdalene
who carried with her a secret so powerful that if revealed it threatened to devastate
the very foundation of Christianity (page 322).
Are these claims true?
The claim that the book is historically accurate does not stand up to examination.
The original Priory of Sion was a regular Catholic priory of monks which existed
from around 1100 to 1617. The Priory of Sion relevant to this issue was invented
by a Frenchman called Pierre Plantard in the early 1960s. Plantard was an occultist
who admired Hitler and thought the world should be ruled by a government of spiritual
elite. He fabricated documents about the Priory of Sion which was supposed to have
preserved records of the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (of which he was one
of the descendants). He then placed them in credible places including French museums
with forged certificates of authentication. Plantard died after being involved in
a financial scandal in 1993. Documents were found in his apartment certifying him
to be the true King of France. Not the most credible of information sources!
Plantard’s ideas crossed the Channel when an English actor, Henry Lincoln, associated
with him and reproduced his story in three documentaries broadcast on the BBC during
the 1970s. Despite the fact that many people knew that Plantard’s documents were
a fake the story gained credence and Lincoln then co-authored the book The Holy Blood
and the Holy Grail (Jonathan Cape, London) with Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh.
This book is a recognised source of The Da Vinci Code. In fact Baigent and Leigh
unsuccessfully sued Dan Brown for plagiarising their material. They were also no
doubt annoyed to find their surnames linked to the one of the characters in the book,
Sir Leigh Teabing (Teabing is an anagram of Baigent).
In the novel Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor, is the source of much of the supposedly
accurate historical information and an unsuspecting person could easily be fooled
into thinking that this eminently reasonable man is speaking the truth. The other
source of information is Sir Leigh Teabing who, despite turning out to be the villain
of the piece, presents information on the Holy Grail in an authoritative way which
appears to be historical and accurate.
The Council of Nicea
According to the Da Vinci Code the original version of Jesus teaching and of Christianity
was entirely different from the one know today. It was re-invented at the Council
of Nicea in 325 AD when the Roman Emperor Constantine imposed the view of Christianity
he wanted to be made official on the bishops of the church and fixed the New Testament
in the form we now have it.
The three main points challenging Christianity which Dan Brown makes through the
characters in this book are these:
He claims that the Bible was collated by the emperor Constantine. He claims that
the Council of Nicea invented the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. He claims that
the sacred feminine is the original idea of the divine which was replaced by the
dominant male God of the Bible. We will look at these three points in the following
Before we do this it will be helpful to take a closer look at Constantine and the
debate which took place at the time about the nature of Jesus.
Diocletian, the Roman Emperor from 284-305 was the last great persecutor of the hristians
under the Roman Empire. The main period of persecution was from 303 -305 during which
time there were many martyrs and much destruction of the property and books of Christians.
The death of Diocletian led to the rise of Constantine who was proclaimed emperor
in 306. Constantine was challenged by his rival Maxentius whom he defeated at the
battle of Milovan Bridge in 312. At this point the Roman Empire was in danger of
fragmenting. Constantine is reputed to have seen sign of cross at this battle and
believed he conquered through the cross. So he took this as a sign that Christianity
was the favoured religion which would unify the empire. He published the Edict of
Milan in 313 formally ending Christian persecution and restoring confiscated church
property to Christians.
Constantine wanted to use Christianity as a means of uniting the Roman Empire so
he wanted the Christians to be united. He was not happy to find disagreements amongst
Christians about issues of interpreting the teaching of the Bible and about who Jesus
was. Constantine himself was not so much interested in the finer details of doctrine
as in ending the strife that was caused by religious disagreements. This resulted
in him supporting various sides of theological issues during the course of his life,
depending on which side might help peace to prevail.
Arius and Athanasius
Around this period a controversy had arisen amongst the Christians over the question
of the divinity of Jesus. This centred on the teaching of Arius who was a bishop
and lived in Libya from about 250 to 336. Arius position was certainly not the one
put forward in Da Vinci Code that Jesus was just a great and powerful man. Arius
had a view of Jesus as the Saviour who came from heaven and used the Bible, not the
Gnostic gospels (which we will look at in the next chapter), in his arguments. However
he said that if Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father, there must have been
a time when he was begotten, therefore He must have had a beginning. As a result
there must have been a time when he was not, i.e. he was a created being. Arius was
opposed by Athanasias who argued that If Christ were not truly God, then he could
not bestow life upon the repentant and free them from sin and death. Athanasius won
the debate at the Council of Nicea resulting in the Nicene Creed being formed. We
will look at this issue in more detail in Chapter 4.
Constantine did not take part in this debate nor did he pressure the bishops as to
how they should decide on this issue. As many of these men had come through the severe
persecution of Diocletian they were not likely to cave in to pressure from the Emperor
as to what they were to believe. In fact in later years Constantine was to side with
Arius and his followers against Athanasius whom he banished in 336 AD.
Church and State after Constantine
There were certainly negative consequences for New Testament Christianity in Constantines
involvement. He began process of unifying church and state which led the way to the
established Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches and the church’s compromise
of the truth of the Gospel in return for political power. He encouraged the process
already at work of cutting the Christian movement away from its Jewish roots, separating
Easter from Passover and fixing Sunday as the day of worship. He centralised power
in Constantinople (modern Istanbul) in 330 leading to increasing imperial control
of the church in the east. Following his death in 337 the empire was divided between
his three sons leading to the division between the eastern empire ruled from Constantinople
and the western empire ruled from Rome. Despite the political compromise which came
out of the union of church and state which Constantine initiated, God overruled at
Nicea regarding the doctrinal issue of the divinity of Jesus and ensured that the
truth was enshrined in the creed of the church.
Who wrote the Bible?
In order to create the wrong idea of Jesus at the Council of Nicea, the Da Vinci
Code claims that the Bible as we know it today was collated by the pagan Roman emperor
Constantine the Great … More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament,
and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
among them. (page 313).
In fact the issue of which documents should be included in the New Testament was
not even debated at the Council of Nicea. It was at the Third Council of Carthage
in AD 397 that the New Testament was fixed in its present form. In making this choice
the Council of Carthage was not imposing something new and alien onto the church.
It was merely codifying what was already the established practice of Christian communities.
There is internal evidence within the New Testament itself that the Apostles recognised
which texts were considered scripture. In 1 Timothy 5.18 Paul refers to Luke’s Gospel
as scripture (graphe) quoting both Deuteronomy 25.4 and Luke 10.7 as such. In 2 Peter
3.15-17 Peter recognises that Paul’s writings were authoritative and then refers
to the rest of the scriptures and warns his readers to beware of those who twist
their meanings. This implies that he considered Paul’s writings to be scripture as
well as other documents which are not named.
The writings of early Christians show a clear acceptance of the four Gospels as the
genuine account of the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons
around AD 180, wrote, For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live
and four universal winds, and as the Church is dispersed over all the earth, and
the gospel is the pillar and the base of the Church and the breath of life, so it
is natural that it should have four pillars, breathing immortality from every quarter
and kindling the life of men anew. Whence it is manifest that the Word … has given
us the gospel in fourfold form, but held together by one Spirit. (Against Heresies
III). He goes on to affirm the Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as
the authentic accounts.
Quotations from the New Testament in early Christian writings are so extensive that
it could virtually be reconstructed from these writings without the use of New Testament
manuscripts. There are no less than 36,289 quotations from the New Testament in the
works of the early Christian writers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Eusebius. The New Testament is the worlds best
documented work of ancient history, with over 24,000 manuscripts, the oldest of which
is part of the Gospel of John, conservatively dated at 125AD. The worlds second best
documented ancient book is Homers Iliad of which we have 643 manuscripts. (Information
from Evidence that demands a verdict by Josh McDowell).
So what about the over 80 gospels allegedly considered for inclusion in the New Testament?
It is true that there are many other writings than the New Testament about Jesus
and the Apostles, many of which exist in fragment form only. Some of these writings
were little more than fiction using the characters of the New Testament but writing
something imaginary like the Da Vinci Code itself. Many of them were written to justify
some new teaching which often deviated from the New Testament teaching of the Apostles.
Some of these teachings have become mainstream in the Roman Catholic and Eastern
For example in order to make Mary into the Eternal Virgin of Roman Catholicism one
has to do something about the fact that the New Testament teaches that Jesus had
brothers and sisters, who would have been born in the normal way to Joseph and Mary
after the Virgin Birth of Jesus (Matthew 12.46, 13.55, John 2.12, Acts 1.14). So
a story is invented in the Protoevangelium of James of Mary being placed by her parents
in the Temple from the age of 3 to be brought up by the priests and then being given
to Joseph upon her miraculous pregnancy as a wife. Joseph was an old widower who
already had children. By this device found Mary is able to be the perpetual virgin
and Jesus is able to have brothers and sisters. Needless to say there is no biblical
basis for this at all.
Other writings were created in order to justify views considered heretical by New
Testament teaching. For example docetism teaches that Jesus was not really human
at all but only seemed to be a man. So we read in the Acts of John 93: Sometimes
when I went to touch him (Jesus), I met a material and solid body; and at other times
when I felt him, the substance was immaterial and bodiless and as if it were not
existing at all. It is not surprising that such documents were rejected by believing
Christians as they conflict with New Testament teaching that Jesus was both fully
man and fully God.
The most common heretical view was Gnosticism, a heresy which plagued second and
third century Christianity and taught that the Creator God was distinct from the
supreme Divine Being. It taught that there was a special knowledge gnosis through
which people could discover that Being. In many ways this is parallel to modern New
Age ideas with its concept of a spiritual experience enlightening you to discover
the god within and its teaching that God is in everything.
The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas has Jesus say: He who drinks from my mouth will become
as I am and I shall be as he. The kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of
you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realise
that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves,
you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty. It is I who am the light
which is above them all. It is I who am the all. >From me did the all come forth,
and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift up a stone
and you will find me there.
All of these quotations would fit Jesus into the New Age philosophy which is so popular
today. They conflict with Bible teaching which tells us that God is separate from
His creation and that inside of us is a sinful human nature which we need to be set
free from by repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus. He cleanses us from sin and
dwells within us by the power of His Holy Spirit when we put our trust in Him.
There was no great conspiracy organised by the Emperor Constantine to reject the
other gospels from those considered to be scripture. Early Christians rejected them
for the same reasons Christians today reject the Book of Mormon or the writings of
Jehovahs Witnesses, Scientology and any other cult group because they conflict with
revealed Word of God.
In The Da Vinci Code Teabing quotes from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene as one of his
sources for the claim that Jesus was married to Mary, saying that this and the Gospel
of Philip are unaltered gospels (page 334). This might sound a powerful claim, but
in fact it is a total fraud. This Gnostic gospel dates from the middle of the second
century and is known only from three fragmentary manuscripts.
He also quotes from the following fragment of the Gospel of Philip to justify the
claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene (parts in brackets indicate word or
sections now lost on the existing document): And the companion of the [...] Mary
Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often
on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him Why do you love her
more than all of us? The Saviour answered and said to them, Why do I not love you
like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are
no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the
light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.
The Gospel of Philip can be clearly linked to Gnostic teaching rejected by early
Christians from the following quote: The world came about through a mistake. For
he who created it wanted to create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of
attaining his desire. For the world never was imperishable, nor, for that matter,
was he who made the world. This idea that the present creation was made by a lesser
god known as the Demiurge who did a botched job of it is originally found in the
Dialogue of Timaeus by Plato. In the later philosophy of neo-Platonism and Gnosticism
the Demiurge was considered the architect of the universe, but at the same time,
an entity distinct from and inferior to the supreme God. By contrast the Genesis
account in the Bible is of a good God who creates a perfect world spoiled by Adams
Although the Da Vinci Code claims the alternative gospels were suppressed by the
male dominant church in fact the final verse of the Gospel of Thomas should not be
too popular with feminists. Peter says, Women are not worthy of Life. Jesus replies:
I myself will lead her in order to make her male … for every woman who will make
herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. So much for the sacred feminine!
The significance of the Gnostic gospels received a great boost in December 1945 with
the discovery of 13 leather bound papyrus books dating from third to fifth century
near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. These books were not made available in English until
1977, but since then they have become popular with people looking for an alternative
view of Jesus. One of the most influential books on this subject is Elaine Pagels’
book 'The Gnostic Gospels'. In this book she claims that Gnosticism should be considered
as legitimate as orthodox Christianity, because it was simply a strain of competing
Christianity. Dan Brown quotes Elaine Pagels as one of his sources in the Da Vinci
However these books were never considered for inclusion in the Christian canon and
rarely mentioned in the writings of early Christians except to denounce them. For
example Seraphion of Antioch a bishop from 190 to 211 let some of his flock read
the Gospel of Peter in church, until he read the book himself and the concluded it
had heretical teaching about Jesus and did not conform to other ancient apostolic
Elaine Pagels own story is interesting. Alienated from her evangelical Christian
upbringing, she studied at Harvard and read in the Gospel of Thomas: If you bring
forth what is within you what you bring forth will save you. Her faith came back,
but not into biblical Christianity but into Gnosticism. If we think about this quote
from Thomas, we see that it is saying something entirely different from the New Testament.
According to the Gospels what is within us is the problem a sinful human nature
from which we need to be delivered by accepting the salvation offered by the sacrifice
of Jesus on the cross. As a result of this teaching our own personal impressions
or experience become the final authority. We are the measure of ourselves and find
our own truths within us. This is the essence of modern spirituality. Do your own
thing God dwells within you as you.
Not so. God is the final revelation. He has revealed the truth, through Moses and
the Prophets and finally through the Messiah Jesus and his Apostles. We do not discover
truth or god within ourselves, we discover truth and God when we turn from preoccupation
with self and look to God who is eternal and outside of us. God became man to dwell
amongst us in the person of the Messiah Jesus. He wants to live within us by His
Spirit when we repent and believe. This involves ceasing to be our own authority
and submitting to authority of God and His Word.
Although the New Testament does not refer to the Gnostic gospels (for the simple
reason that it was written before them) it does refer in the later epistles to the
kind of teaching that they would embody. Paul wrote of those who preached another
Jesus as a result of which people received a different spirit and followed a different
gospel (2 Corinthians 11.4). See also 1 John 2.18 and 2 Peter 2.1. The Da Vinci Code
is the product of teachings about another Jesus who is not the real one. There is
nothing new about this and no doubt it will contribute to the spread of false ideas
about who Jesus is in our time. Jesus prophesied that in the end times there will
be other false prophets and false messiahs (Matthew 24.24).
Jesus - great human teacher or Son of God?
In the Da Vinci Code Teabing claims that at the Council of Nicea the Emperor Constantine
led the bishops to declare Jesus as Son of God by a vote a relatively close vote
at that (page 315). This was a new idea because Until that moment in history Jesus
was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a
man nonetheless, a mortal. In other words Christianity as we know it today was invented
by Constantine who imposed the view of Jesus as a divine person on the church through
the Council of Nicea.
In fact the Council of Nicea did not invent the divinity of Jesus. This was the claim
of Jesus Himself (I and My Father are one John 10.30), which was taught by the Apostles
in the New Testament and affirmed by a huge number of writings of early Christians
which predate the Council of Nicea (AD 325) by up to two hundred years. It is true
that the issue of Jesus divinity was a central issue at the Council of Nicea in order
to settle the debate raised by Arius teaching which was opposed by Athanasius.
Arius argued that Jesus is not of the same substance as the Father (i.e. that he
is a kind of esser god who takes second place to the Father). Athanasius showed
from the scriptures and the witness of the early church fathers that Jesus is not
a created being and exists from eternity being of one substance with the Father.
Athanasius won the debate and the Council agreed to the following statement about
the identity of Jesus in the Nicene Creed: I believe in one God, the Father almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not
made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for
us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered,
and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come
to judge the quick and the dead.
When it came to voting on this issue was it a relatively close vote? Not quite. Only
two out of more than 300 bishops failed to sign the creed!
It is no accident that the concept of the Trinity was an issue of controversy at
the time of the Council of Nicea. It remains today the aspect of the Christian faith
most likely to be attacked by those outside the faith and most likely to be misunderstood
by those within it. Jehovahs Witnesses expend considerable energy teaching against
this belief and in fact follow an idea of who Jesus is which is very similar to the
one put forward by Arius. They try to convince others that Jesus Christ is a created
being, not having existed in eternity past with the Father, and not fully God.
Among the world religions, Islam specifically teaches against the Trinity. Chapter
four of the Koran argues, Say not Trinity: desist: it will be better for you: for
Allah is One God: glory be to Him: (far Exalted is He) above having a son (4:171).
Although Muhammad seems to have wrongly believed that Christians taught that the
Trinity consisted of God the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus the Son, they reject
as sinful anything being made equivalent with Allah, especially Jesus.
It is true that the word Trinity never appears in the New Testament. However the
concept that God is a plural unity is central to the uniqueness of the Christian
faith (further information on this subject is available in Chapter 5 of my book The
Messiah Factor). The Bible teaches that God eternally exists as three persons, Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God. Each plays
a part in our salvation. Jesus is the visible member of Godhead who became man in
order to redeem us. As such for the time that He was on earth He was subordinate
to the Father and will at the end of the age present the redeemed creation to the
Verses pointing this out are often used to attack the view of Jesus divinity, in
particular John 14.28 where Jesus says, My Father is greater than I and 1 Corinthians
15.28 where Paul writes, Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son
Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be
all in all. The explanation of these verses is that for the purpose of His mission
to save the human race Jesus humbled Himself to take the form of a servant and appear
as a man. During this time He was submitted to the Father, with the ultimate aim
that He would restore to God the present creation which is in disorder as a result
of Satan’s rebellion against God and the human race falling into sin as a result
of Adams disobedience.
This submission to the Father, like an astronauts submission to ground control during
his mission, did not mean an inferior status to the Father. In John 10.33 Jesus states
clearly, I and My Father are one, the implication of which was not lost on the Jewish
opposition who took up stones to stone Him, because You being a man make Yourself
God. (John 10.36). At other points in Johns Gospel Jesus claims to be of one nature
with the Father (John 5.17-8, John 8.58, 14.1, 9). The opening verses of John make
it clear that the authors intention is to declare the divinity of Jesus: In the beginning
was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning
with God. All things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that
Just in case you might miss the point about who John is referring to when he uses
the term the Word he writes in verse 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among
us and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full
of grace and truth. It stands to reason that if all things were made through the
Word (Jesus) then He Himself was not made and is uncreated. So obvious is this fact
that the Jehovahs Witnesses translation of the Bible has to re write John 1.1 by
saying the Word was a God which is an interpretation to suit their idea not a valid
translation from the original Greek text.
The issue that led to Jesus trial and crucifixion was His claim to be God. In His
trial the High Priest asks Him Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed? If you
put together Jesus reply recorded in Matthew 26.63-66, Mark 14.61-64 and referred
to in John 19.7 it is clear that the Sanhedrin understood Jesus to be claiming to
The Son of the Blessed
The one who would sit at the right hand of power.
The Son of Man who would come on the right hand of power.
Their response was to condemn Him to death for blasphemy.
Other relevant issues are:
Jesus accepted worship as God (Matthew 8.2, 14.33, John 9.35-9, 20.27-9, Revelation
5). By contrast wherever anyone worships a created being in the New Testament they
are told not to (Acts 10.25-26, 14.12-18, Revelation 19.10).
He claimed authority to forgive sins which only God can do. Mark 2.5-7.
Paul affirmed him as God. Philippians 2.9-11, Titus 2.13
So did Peter. Matthew 16.15-17, Acts 2.36.
So did Thomas. John 20.28
So did Stephen. Acts 7.59.
So did the Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah. Isaiah 7.14, 9.6, Micah