The name of Jesus is probably the most inquired name in the history of man. Type the name of “Jesus” in the Google search and you will get about 738,000,000 results, in which even Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) comes short by having only about 82,700,000 results, and Karl Marx (1818-1883) by having only about 38,900,000. In short, a lot was written about the person of Jesus given his prominence, and at the same time, a lot of opinions have been said about him, and not to say the least, most of them are pretty controversial.
To lay out our direction, let us open a crucial question: was Jesus’ deity invented?
A lot of professors affirmed to be so. For instance, the late philosopher of religion and theologian John Hick argued that Jesus was only a “God-conscious teacher,” and not the God incarnate. That he did not claim and teach that he had that divine authority, here on earth. That the concept of God incarnating in the person of Jesus was only “a creation of the church, one that Jesus himself would probably have regarded as blasphemous.” Him, being the Son of God (c.f., Matt. 16:16), does not mean that he is God’s Son. “Emperors, Pharaohs, great philosophers, and religious figures were sometimes called ‘Son of God’ and regarded as divine in the broad sense that ‘divine’ then had.” That is, such theology in which Jesus is recognized as divine is just “a human creation.” The same position was held by Ghandi (1869-1948), in which Jesus only claimed to be a great moral teacher among other religious leaders.
This is also true for Dan Brown, who, in writing his ground-breaking work The Da Vinci Code, claimed that, “By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable.”  Brown wants us to believe, contrary what we traditionally hold, that Christ’s deity was merely an invention by the council he summoned on 325 AD, that is, the Council of Nicea.
The implications, however, of such assertion would be tremendous. It would nullify the Christian faith in its fundamental structure. It would turn out that the faith that we are in, was in fact the biggest religious propaganda ever.
Although one cannot deny the impact Christianity had socially (for instance the building of hospitals and orphanages, the building of accessible schools, the civil rights movement, and etc.), still it has no eternal significance that it promises, if Jesus is not God. And the remission of our sins would be a hoax. In short, we are still damned.
The Council of Nicea
Early in the third century, there was a growing heresy known as Arianism. A heresy proposed by Arius of Alexandria. It affirmed that Christ was not divine but a created being, just like any other being.
The heresy turned out to be a very controversial one, as the case with every other heresy, in which the emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine called a council to address the growing dispute. For he “saw the quarrels within the church not only as a threat to Christianity but as a threat to society as well.” Since the Roman society at that time was predominantly influenced by Christianity.
The meeting was held in ancient Nicea, and one of the conclusions they arrived at was to condemn and exile Arius. Contrary to what Brown and other liberal theologians claimed, the council however did not invent Jesus’ deity. It only eliminated the growing confusion within the church, one of which is the dispute concerning the nature of Christ – clarifying it by writing a creed (i.e., Nicene Creed). The council, with its creed, only affirmed the deity of Jesus. That the Father and the Son – Jesus – are “of one substance” (homoousios).
What do the earliest manuscripts tell us?
Centuries before that council, the New Testament, which was written no later than the first century by the disciples and contemporaries of Jesus, already gave us the earliest evidence for Jesus’ claims of divinity and their belief towards it.
To name a few, in the Gospel of John, Jesus claimed to have the same essence with the Heavenly Father. That those who knew him, would also know the Father (John. 8:19), that those who saw him, saw also the Father (12:45), that those who hates him, also hates the Father (15:23), and that those who honors him, also honors the Father (5:23). Moreover, he even claimed the authority to forgive sins (c.f., Mk 2:5; Lk. 7:48-50), which in Jewish understanding, a prerogative that only belongs to God (c.f., Isa. 43:25).
Even the early Church fathers already recognized the deity of Jesus and the worship of him. For instance, Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110) affirmed that Jesus is the “God incarnate . . . God Himself appearing in the form of man.” Not to mention Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor (c. 112 AD) who persecuted the Christians for being Christians who worshiped Jesus as divine, documented that “they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god.”
To firmly believe that the exaltation and the worship of Jesus as divine was an invention of the church, much more by the Council of Nicea, betrays the data we have. Nothing is more dogmatic than that. Or as what the authors of Reinventing Jesus conclude: “To suggest that Constantine had the ability – or even the inclination – to manipulate the council into believing what it did not already embrace is, at best, a silly notion.” A notion tantamount to saying that french fries are made up of avocados.
Jesus’ claims of divinity is indispensable from his character. In which his earliest followers believed it to be so, not because they are credulous, but because they saw that he did not remain dead but was risen from the grave, just as what he predicted.
 John Hick, “A Pluralist View,” in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralist World, eds. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 52, 35-36.
 Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 233.
 James A. Kliest, The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch, “To the Ephesians” (Ramsey, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978
 Pliny, Letters and Panegyricus, trans. Betty Radice, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969): 10.96 (2.289).
 J. Ed Kmoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2006), 215.