Jesus wasn't God until 325 AD

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Medicine*Woman, Feb 28, 2004.

  1. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    Jesus wasn't God when/if he was crucified. In fact, he was voted to be deified in 325 AD. His deification was patterned after Sol Invictus.

    THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA ~ Edited by Hugh Fogelman

    The Council was to have taken place at Ancyra, but on the orders of the ex-pagan Constantine who had his residence at Nicaea the venue was changed so that he could personally control the proceedings. The Synod took place between June l9th and August 25th. The Emperor summoned all Church leaders with the aim of reaching a consensus over the status of Jesus. (it appears no one really knew)

    The number of bishops who attended is not known. The traditional figure is 318, which goes back to the late writings of Athanasius of Alexandria; possibly a symbolic figure based on the number of Abraham's servants [Genesis 14.14]. The correct figure is still probably around 300. In the version of events presented in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, almost all were from the Eastern half of the Empire; more than 100 from Asia Minor, about 30 from Syria- Phoenecia and less than 20 from Palestine and Egypt.

    Constantine regarded the religious question exclusively from the angle of political expedience. His interest was to secure peace rather than any theological verdict. He had already adopted the Sol Invictus as the state deity, so if Jesus could somehow be deified he would be more easily compatible with Sol Invictus.

    As the parties were in conflict, the task of deciding the fate of Jesus was deferred unto Constantine who was theologically incompetent and was inclined to making decisions on inadequate grounds. To him the deification of a man would not have seemed important. He had his father Constantius deified on his death and expected to be granted the same honor on his demise.

    He ruled in favor of Jesus' deification, and demanded that the delegates should sign acceptance to what became known as the Nicene Creed. This Creed is the first dogmatic definition of the Church and has served as a backbone of Christian orthodoxy through the ages. It defined the relations of Jesus to the Father within the Godhead as homoousion tot patri (of one substance with the Father) designed specifically to exclude Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea writings makes it explicit that the Emperor himself proposed this term. The delegates that gave assent to the Creedal statement were to be invited to stay on at Nicaea as Constantine's guests for his 2Oth Anniversary celebrations, while those who rejected the Creed would be banished.

    The repercussions of the Nicene Creed are immeasurable as Ian Wilson writes:

    'Merely to enumerate the ways in which the original concepts of Jesus and his teachings were adulterated as result of Constantine's actions and the consequences of the Council of Nicaea would take a book in itself.'

    Rome became the official center of Christian orthodoxy, Trinity the accepted doctrine and deviation from this view was now considered not as a different opinion, but as punishable heresy.

    There had been earlier instances of compromise. After Constantine's edict of paganism, Christians, with their new found freedom and scope and association with Constantine, were willing to compromise themselves to maintain that position.

    In 321 AD, Constantine in honor of the Sun God, enacted that on the venerable day of the Sun, the law courts and all workshops were to be closed, so Christianity, which had previously observed the Sabbath on Saturday, took on Sunday as its day of rest.

    Today Christianity breaks the 4th Commandment weekly and does not even knowing it sadly thinking Jesus changed the Sabbath to Sunday....in honor of the worship of the Sun. Rome did this! Similarly, Jesus' birthday used to observed on January 6th (as it still is in parts of Eastern Europe.)

    However, for both Sol Invictus and Mithraism, the religious day or Natalis Invictus was celebrated on the midwinter solstice, December 25th, so the Western Church adopted this day also. The aureole of light crowning the sun god's head became the Christian halo.

    With so much of the original faith given away, Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln write:

    "Christian doctrine as promulgated by Rome at the time, had much in common with the cult of Sol Invictus anyway; and thus it was able to flourish unmolested under the sun cult's umbrella of tolerance. Christianity as we know it, is in many respects actually closer to those pagan systems of belief than its to its own Judean origin."

    The distorted formula of faith promulgated at Nicaea laid the ground work for the classical development of Christian Trinitarian theology, disseminating far and wide the seeds of ignorance and error.

    In closing if you want to do further research into these areas whereby you can see for yourself how the faith of Jesus was altered and changed into “a faith about Jesus” then besides this ministry's websites this short book list should be beneficial:

    1.. The Encyclopedia of Religion. (Macmillan 1987); vol. 4 p.125
    2.. New Catholic Encyclopedia. (Mc-Graw Hill 1979); vol. 10, p. 432-433
    3.. Constantine and the Conversion of Europe. Penguin Books, A.H.M. Jones; p. 137
    4.. The Early Christian Church. P.G. Davis, p. 176
    5.. Jesus: The Evidence. (Pan Books), Ian Wilson
    6.. The Messianic Legacy. (Corgi 1986), M. Baigent, R. Leigh & H. Lincoln
    02/28/04
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rainbow__princess_4 The Ashtray Girl Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    286
    Without bothering to read it... I assume you mean like that decleration of Constantine which stated that the church and pope had ultimate power when it was written 400 years after Constantine died?

    I have no idea, but I definitely believe you... I think...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    ....Constantine pretty much stayed out of the dispute letting the bishop's decide.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Just prior to the Nicene Council of 325 there were two great students, Arius and Athanasius who became locked in doctrinal combat over a Greek word. So intense and so world wide did their debate become that historians said the world was divided over a dipthong (the sound of two vowels in a single syllable.) Now if the Greek is so perfect, and so ordained of God, why was there such a dispute? Surely God did not intend us all to know the Greek? Right today we are having arguments over the Greek.
    Today also, we have some students who claim that the original manuscripts were written in the Aramaic which was the language of Jesus and the people of His day. It is claimed by them that the people did not speak and write in the Greek as is so commonly supposed. And the fact is our historians are divided on that. It seems possible that the New Testament was first written in the Aramaic.
    We find the words in both amazingly the same so that there is no difference actually in content or doctrine. We may even conclude that God has allowed these newly discovered manuscripts and recent publications of already known scripts to come before us to prove the authenticity of what we already had. And we find that though translators may fight each other, scripts do not.
    Now you can see that you can't base interpretation upon students' profound knowledge of the language the Bible is written in.

    No one can doubt but what the Scribes and Pharisees and the great scholars of the year 33 A.D. knew the exact laws of grammar and the exact meanings of the words in which the Old Testament was written; but for all their superb knowledge they missed the revelation of God's promised Word manifested in the Son.
    There He was set forth from Genesis to Malachi, with whole chapters devoted to Him and His ministry, and yet except for a few who were illuminated by the Spirit, they missed him entirely.

    As much as we believe in trying to find the oldest and best manuscripts to get the best record of the Word possible, we will never get the true meaning of it by study and comparison of Scriptures, sincere as we may be. IT WILL TAKE A REVELATION FROM GOD TO BRING IT OUT. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT PAUL SAID, "WHICH THINGS WE ALSO SPEAK, NOT IN WORDS WHICH MAN'S WISDOM TEACHETH, BUT WHICH THE HOLY GHOST TEACHETH." I Cor. 2:15. The true revelation is God interpreting His own Word by vindicating what is promised.

    I Timothy 3:16 says, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into Glory". This is what the Bible says. It doesn't say a thing about a first or second or third person here. It says God was manifest in flesh. One God. That ONE GOD was manifested in flesh. That ought to settle it. God came in a human form. That didn't make Him ANOTHER GOD. HE WAS GOD, THE SAME GOD. It was a revelation then, and it is a revelation now. One God.

    Let's go back in the Bible and see what He was in the beginning according to the revelation He gave of Himself. The great Jehovah appeared to Israel in a pillar of fire. As the Angel of the Covenant He lived in that pillar of fire and led Israel daily. At the temple He announced His coming with a great cloud. Then one day He was manifested in a virgin born body that was prepared for Him. The God that tabernacled above the tents of Israel now took on Himself a tent of flesh and tabernacled as a man amongst men. But He was the SAME GOD.

    The Bible teaches that GOD WAS IN CHRIST. The BODY was Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead, BODILY. Nothing can be plainer than that. Mystery, yes. But actual truth--it can't be plainer. So if He wasn't three people then, He can't be three now. ONE GOD: And this same God was made flesh.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2004
  8. Neutrino_Albatross Legion of Dynamic Discord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    751
    Well thats a rather absurd statement. If jesus existed and was a god it had nothing to do with the nicene council. That was just when the romans decided he was a god.
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Many scripts do contradict one another, even within the bible. Certainly the gnostic gospels differ drastically in their interpretation of Jesus.

    But Jesus never insisted he was a god, he was god's son, as we all are god's sons and daughters. He preferred this metaphor over one of kingship because it is more direct, personal, and democratic. What is truly absurd is a comittee of ROMANS deciding what Jesus' teaching was all about, distorting it for their own political ends.
     
  10. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    I'd hardly say that it was commitee of "romans." Most of the people there were bishops from eastern side of the empire.

    If Jesus were to insist that he was a god he may have commited sin. However, he is God, for he said that he would judge us.

    A metaphor is not direct, nor would I say that Jesus' teachings were entirely democratic. He states clearly to Peter in Luke, "who is the manager" that I will put in charge. Although he listed some rather severe punishments for the manager who disobeys him, there does not seem to be any suggestion of democracy.

    I don't believe that the bishops present had political motives. As for Jesus' divinity, they were decided on that, sinced it was practically universal belief that Jesus was divine. There were, however, ebionites that may have believed that Jesus was not divine, but after 70AD they were pretty much disbanded when the temple was destroyed.
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Medicine Woman

    Excellent topic. I also like to recommend Karen Armstrong's A History of God, which I tend to quote extensively at times like this. The fourth chapter, "Trinity: The Christian God," starts out with a discussion of Athanasius and Arius, moves on to Nicaea, and makes the point that the controversy pushed on at least sixty years after Nicaea. It's too much to transcribe without violating all manner of intellectual properties laws to a point that I can't accept of myself.

    However, I will go so far as to speculate that it really was, at first, a rhetorical quirk between Arius and Athanasius, but its Nicaean chapter includes an essential denial of the humanity of Christ. And it's really all a matter of stylistics and aesthetics. Athanasius couldn't tolerate the idea of a frail, human Christ inasmuch as he couldn't see how something given back to ash and dust (mortal remains) could possibly bear the burden of the Redeemer. Armstrong expresses that Athanasius held the position that, "If the Logos himself were a vulnerable creature, he would not be able to save mankind from extinction." (p. 110) To figure it out in Athanasius, see Against the Heathen, 41.3, and be prepared for a headache.

    Okinrus
    I might disagree. At least from the turn of the second century forward there was a push for orthodoxy. Louth, in the commentary for Staniforth's Early Christian Writings, notes of Clement of Rome's epistle to Corinth, "And here too we find the beginnings of an established institutional authority, as the age of the Apostles receded into the past, and an attempt to draw together the several strands of apostolic tradition." (p. 22) Ignatius of Antioch repeatedly notes the authority of the bishops, and advises the congregations to heed that authority. Polycarp, around the middle of the second century, writes in general terms against the heresies as "vapid discourses and sophistries of the vulgar," (Staniforth, 118), or "vain, empty talk and error of the multitude," by a nearby online translation. And who would happen to be a disciple of the martyred Polycarp? None other than Irenaeus of Lyon. I won't pick on Irenaeus' logic today, though it is important to note that he did stress the necessity of there being only four Gospels, and he did seek to refute heretics and the gospels they claimed.

    The third century was its own sideshow; Hippolytus in the tradition of Irenaeus, and Cyprian in the way of Tertullian ... by the time we get to Arius and Athanasius, orthodoxy seems to be what it's all about.

    Armstrong notes that after Nicaea, Arius managed to regain imperial favor, and "Athanasius was exiled no fewer than five times." (p. 111)

    So it seems to me that there must necessarily be certain politics involved; setting the Creed, installing a moment of heresy in the orthodoxy, it was all political to begin with. Why else does a question like How could Jesus Christ have been God in the same way as God the Father? become so affecting that ex nihilo becomes cemented in the foundation in order to justify an essential denial of Christ's humanity?

    Armstrong notes that at the outbreak of the conflict, it was unclear whether or not Arius was wrong in the first place, but the bishops, I'm sure, were very aware of the political implications of resolving Christ as strong and divine or else frail and human. The bishops, in choosing with Athanasius, made a very political decision, as it is otherwise inexplicable to me why they should seek to undermine the symbolic value of Christ's crucifixion.

    • Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Knopf, 1994.
    • Athanasius. Against the Heathen. See http://www.synaxis.org/ecf/volume27/ECF00001.htm
    • Staniforth, Maxwell and Andrew Louth. Early Christian Writings. London: Penguin Classics, 1987.
    Early Church Fathers: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/
     
  12. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    Orthodoxy is not usually a political topic. Early Christian writings suggest only that Christians did not want to be confused and persecuted for what heretics may have done and teaching the truth; this is mentioned by Justin Marytr among other writers I believe. But overall it's sort of a double edged sword. If Christians did nothing about heresies, then Christians surely could not have the truth nor preserve the truth.

    Well, Tiassa, I suggest that you read Clement's short work if you haven't already. From my understanding Clement is probably the same Clement mentioned within Paul's writings. His mentioning of the martydom of Paul and Peter were constrasted with ancient examples, suggesting that a significant number of those in the Church may have known Paul and Peter personally.

    Imagine if you received teachings from Peter, John and the Apostles yourself and to have someone distort them for their sordid gain. Would you be a bit angry? We would know that Polycarp was false if he wasn't angry.

    No, if I recall, Irenaeus simply said that the heretics don't have the gospels. I think he does speak of some of the corrupted canons such as Marcion's, but would never refer to these as gospels.


    While I do agree that politics eventually was brought into Christianity, it could only occur when Christians were of significant numbers. Furthermore, Arianism was a new teaching with absolutely no parallel within the early Church, which not only suggested the oneness of God but the divinity as well. Overall, though, I'd expect that Jesus' divinity would either completely denied or supported. The fact that Arianism makes Jesus a lesser God suggests that Arian was corrupted by greek theology, not the Church's teachings.

    Well, I can't answer that since you are suggesting that there was some "way" that Jesus became God. Nor does the Trinity deny Christ's humanity. All biblical teachings on this must concede that Christ existed before being born, before Abraham.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    It's usually very near the center of a political conflict involving religion.
    Wasn't Justin Martyr one of the apologists who tried to raise Christianity's political favor by slandering the Jews? His response to the charge of atheism was not, "You're thinking of someone else."

    Justin Martyr is kind of humorous in a grim way.
    That is a bizarre statement. It accepts at the outset that the "heresies" were all wrong. Yet Docetism goes into the Nicene Creed, at least. I just don't think it appropriate to be so confidently condemning of "heresies." The "logic" of orthodoxy is often supremely ridiculous. (Irenaeus and the four gospels, for instance.)
    To draw from Louth's commentary, again:
    See, the thing is that I don't really argue certain points with you, but rather have a different opinion of both their significance and meaning. Such as:
    This actually isn't much of an argument.

    However, it doesn't change the fact that yes, we can expect some anger if one claims such a heritage. Nonetheless, it does not change the fact that the trend of the Apostolic Fathers was toward orthodoxy and the establishment of political authority inasmuch as, say, Christianity would eventually win imperial favor.
    Well ... to respond to that would require picking on Irenaeus' logic. Simply saying that the heretics had no gospels did not necessarily make it so; his illustration of the point is anemic at best; it actually gives me a chuckle--to think that something so powerful as the Christian church traditions could rise from something so ... well ... foolish as Irenaeus and some of his contemporaries. Here I would invoke the contemporary discussion of Thomas, at least; we need not imagine that every proclaimed Gospel was true, but limiting the canon to four ... there must be some better reason than Irenaeus offered. I'm of the opinion that the validity of the Gospels would best be served by the ejection of the Johanine aberration entirely, and limiting the Gospels to three. This would be symbolically consistent with the Trinity, at least, and the power of the synoptic troika would stand from its consistency. Admittedly, this would change some perspective on the rest of the New Testament canon, so we can't possibly know what the result would have been. John is a powerful Gospel because it resonates with people, but it certainly tangles what is alleged to be a fairly simple theology and might actually be otherwise.
    As a basic statement, I agree entirely. However, the ante-Nicene period is significantly marked by a move toward the authority of the bishops, a move toward orthodoxy. Nicaea occurred largely because of the power of the Arian controversy to affect the religious masses, and therefore the empire. I think the numbers were sufficient well before Nicaea.
    The Arian controversy centered around a question that apparently had never been asked. The Arian assertion came about in response to the idea of, "What do we actually mean when we say ...?" To the one hand, it seems almost an inevitable question of a faith corrupted by knowledge. I know that seems like a bit of a slam, but as Christianity grew, it directly reflected much about the nature of its growth. Elaine Pagels' Origin of Satan makes a compelling argument that the development of "Satan" from an Old Testament idea into such a central figure of the Gospels and the Christian experience first finds the Devil in Judaism, then in Paganism, and then among the flock, reflecting in those phases the composition of the Christian body politic as first largely Jewish, then adopting a large number of pagan converts, and finally the diverse and disagreeing mass identifying itself within the confines of Christianity. The Christian evangelism adapted to its environment according to its missionary needs. As differing perspectives, new knowledge, and diverse peoples entered the Christian experience, it seems almost inevitable that someone should ask the question of how 1 + 1 = 1. It seems a necessary question in a period when Greek rationalism was prevalent among the converts; Origen's response to Celsus reads a little bit like an homage to irrationality. That the question should be asked at all seems to reflect the changing experience of a growing evangelical cohesion.
    Oddly, Arius didn't think he was denying Jesus' divinity. Looking back, the issue I have with the Arian controversy is that Athanasius, in winning at Nicaea, denied Jesus' humanity. Denying Jesus' humanity actually undermines the effect of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection; apparently there are some even in the modern day who feel that the crucifixion is more important than the teachings--what this means is a reasonable noodle-scratcher inasmuch as I've seen it discussed in all of the hype about Gibson's film, and nobody's really being more specific than that. It would seem to me unwise to deny Christ's humanity especially if (if ... if ... if ...) one accepts the assertion that "the crucifixion is more important than the teachings."°
    Hmm ...

    (1) The discussion of the "way" Jesus "became" God has much to do with rhetoric. Jesus was, for the most part, very careful in how he characterized himself. Strangely, I think the issue becomes important in any sense to atheists, agnostics, and other assorted infidels, when their investigations into Christianity reach a hair-splitting point. Jesus may have known what and who he was--the sign at his baptism is a bit problematic to the significance of the crucifixion, as well--but the idea that "Jesus is God" can become very tenuous when it is employed as an argumentative presupposition in a non-Christian examination of Christianity. I think that, within the faith, you're not arguing a wrong point, but rather one that is different from the "way" and "becoming" called under scrutiny in this topic. As to that "way" and "becoming," it's more a transformation of the lamb into the lion, how the people have come to inflate Jesus in a way that would, most likely, make their Savior rather uncomfortable in a social setting.

    (2) The Trinity itself does not deny Christ's humanity in a faith context. But Athanasius' argument did. The more human Christ was, the less capable Athanasius conceived Him of pulling off the Redemption. Yet it is Christ's very humanity that makes his crucifixion such a valuable price, such a powerful sacrifice, such a loving act.

    (3) The only real question inasmuch as Christ "existed before being born," and contemporary abortion politics aside, is In what form did the Logos exist? There are some perspectives on Christ's existence that can be problematic to the faith; the familiar example I generally invoke is a Biblical "paraphrase" that has sold quite a few copies, apparently, that even has members of the author's own church squirming just a little; in addition to actually changing the meaning of certain verses in Genesis, God is also depicted explaining to His Son that He had a Plan; now, unless God's knowledge is incomplete, unless God's wisdom is imperfect, unless God isn't what the theology claims (often, this is the case, but still ...) such an assertion would pretty much indicate that The Plan existed at least since Creation itself. (Somehow, the idea of God leaning over a drafting table with an eraser and saying, "Nope, that didn't work out like I thought it would," is unappealing to many Christians.)

    A last note on the divinity of Jesus: We see in Justin Martyr a refutation of the accusation that Christians are in fact atheists. The Christian notion of God, seeming quite foreign and without precedent to many pagans, was viewed as atheism by some. A similar difference seems to pervade the Arian controversy, and it seems a bit of a wash job to me. To be certain, it seems universal among Christians that Jesus was "divine." But what a statement such as "Jesus was divine" actually means to various people isn't nearly so simple; as TheVisitor notes, "the world was divided over a dipthong." Even my theistic acknowledgment, which many Christians call atheistic, can accept a statement such as "Jesus was divine," but that acceptance occurs on such a plane that I can also accept the Shahadah, or even a Wiccan bumper sticker that says the Goddess is alive and magick is afoot.

    Notes:

    ° crucifixion more important than the teachings - I don't think this is a straw man, though I personally find the assertion as it floats around in the media at present detestably absurd. Okay, perhaps even as it appears in the media it's a straw man, but I won't assign the statement to anyone who doesn't directly make it, because I'm aware that it can mean about forty-thousand things other than the absurdity that strikes me so directly in the present context. (The question at the heart of the consideration is to acknowledge that certainly the crucifixion is the key to Redemption, and while works alone do not earn one salvation, a faith alleged in Christ can still, by one's acts, as outlined at least twice in Matthew--chs. 5 & 25--get one kicked out of the party.)
     
  14. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    No, Justin entered into a dialog with the Jewish Typhro.

    No, what settles orthodoxy is entirely doctrine; it has nothing to do with the number of books. The fact was that only the four gospels and Paul's writings were anywhere close to the correct doctrine. The early heretical "gospels" were so far off from Christian doctrines that aside from having something to do with Jesus had nothing to do with Christianity.

    I don't believe Iraneus would not refer to the other gospels since the word "gospel" means the good news.

    Irenaeus was no fool.

    Yes, these were the only gospels that were true, that were developed anytime near Jesus' death and quoted by the Church father's. All the other gospels, except for the Didache which is too short, developed outside of the Church, and were not quoted.

    John's gospel says that Jesus will judge us which is tantamount to claiming that Jesus is God since "God is the only judge" is repeatively affirmed in the Old Testament.

    It's not whether the crucifixion is as important as the teachings. Paul says that the teachings become worthless without belief in Christ's death and resurrection, but this does not deny the teachings, though. For the teachings to have any bearing one must have hope, knowing that evil can be conquered.

    Doctors and teachers of the faith make mistakes. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, was not afraid to say that St. Augustine made a mistake by proposing forced baptism on Jews.

    Yes, implicit within the statement that Jesus is divine is that there is mystery that we cannot know simply because we are not God.
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884

    On Irenaeus

    I don't believe Iraneus would not refer to the other gospels since the word "gospel" means the good news.
    Irenaeus was no fool.

    Of the first, I think we're just looking at the same aspects differently; I think I get your drift, but if I do it seems a little bit beside the point. More on that in a moment.

    Whether or not Irenaeus was a fool through and through is its own question, I admit. But the tenuous and foolish "logic" I've been alluding to really is ridiculous:
    I look at it as follows: There are "only four" Gospels? Fine. But give me a better reason why it should be so.

    It's a persuasive argument, but in a form discouraged as superstitious by my own Christian education among both Lutherans and Catholics. What separates Irenaeus from similar ideological tapestries in support of doctrinal assertions in other religious systems is that Christianity presumes in its faith a certain exclusivity on Truth that is fairly unique. It's part of the reason they want students to wait until late in college before they hear these ideas, so that they examine the history from a perspective predetermined by faith.

    Because--

    since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh

    --is not exactly a logical argument. The number of presuppositions required for such an argument to bear weight indicates that it is best served as a rallying call while preaching to the choir.

    Nor is this a strong argument:

    For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.

    Such an argument means nothing outside a certain range of presuppositions that leave Irenaeus preaching to the choir. In fact, it seems included to support 3.11.7, which seeks to undermine the heretics by declaring the orthodox interpretation of the Gospels the only valid one, and since even the heretics call on the Gospels . . . .

    So it becomes essential to undermine the other texts that lend to the heretics' varying interpretations of the faith. And frankly, 3.11.8 is a cartload of horseflop. It's a pure faith declaration intended to establish that those "who represent the aspects of the Gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer," (3.11.9) are wrong. The argument only carries any compelling weight if one already agrees with Irenaeus at the outset, or shares enough superstitions to believe that a reference to a "prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men" establishes the credibility of the Gospel of Mark.

    The established title of Book III, Chapter 11, is "Proofs in Continuation, Extracted from St. John's Gospel. The Gospels are Four in Number, Neither More Nor Less. Mystic Reasons for This."

    Mystic reasons? Okay, fine, but I still say it's "preaching to the choir."

    I have in my mind this bizarre analogy that started with Tertullian and Irenaeus that certain of the important names in the developmental history of the Christian experience remind me of right-wing talk radio. The haughty self-assurance is oozingly familiar, and the circular logic of arguing in part against those who challenge the validity of John by presuming the validity of John seems similarly dissatisfying.

    Look at the structure of Chapter 11:

    • 1 - 6: Argues from John
    • 7: Notes Valentinius' use of John as affirmation of the validity of orthodoxy; dependent on prior six parts, and preceding chapters of Book III. ("Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel . . . .")
    • 8: "Mystic" reasons dismiss other texts supporting heretical viewpoints
    • 9: Challenges those heretics who would discount John; depends on reasoning that cycles back to arguments from John; it's a circular pattern that essentially presumes any question in pretends to address invalid, and in that aspect it really does seem dishonest.

    Adversus Haereses is a fine work inasmuch as it can reaffirm faith. But it's not a compelling argument aside from its sheer volume unless you agree with it at the outset, thus rendering it unnecessary.

    It really does sound like a right-wing talk-show host; for example:

    (1) Argues against homosexuality (and homosexuals) from the Bible
    (2) Notes gay-rights citation of Jesus' forgiveness as affirmation of validity of Biblical argument in civil law
    (3) Dismisses all reasons for anyone to read the Bible differently from talk show host
    (4) Ignores those who would discount Biblical authority in civil law (see #2 for a circular aspect)

    It's just not a solid argument. There are too many presumptions necessary, too many handouts and bonus points and handicaps demanded before the arguments make any sort of sense.

    Whether or not Irenaeus was a fool in his daily life is a separate issue; after all, he well could have been doing the best with what he had to work with.

    But his arguments in support of a canon of four Gospels (no more, no less) is superstitious, foolish, and more than a little arrogant. If Irenaeus imagined himself arguing to anyone not already in his camp, he may well have been a fool.

    On other points

    I consider Justin Martyr's "First Apology" downright hilarious (We're atheists inasmuch as we don't like your petty gods that you can relate to, but we have a bigger, mightier God than you!) But what I was getting at, in relation to your earlier invocation of Justin Martyr, was that I see Martyr's writings differently from your characterization.

    That "these were the only gospels that were true" seems insufficient, as that assertion seems to be exactly what is in question inasmuch as Irenaeus' refutation of the heresies is concerned.
    Nonetheless ....

    I guess it's just that in light of valid and well-argued theories pertaining to various "political" aspects of the four canonical Gospels (e.g. Pagels, Origin of Satan) I don't see something like Thomas as nearly so far-removed from the canon as the orthodox position tends to hold it. I find your mention of the Didache interesting since I perceive it to be at least occasionally in conflict with the canonical teachings, even at the outset. (Part One is more Jewish than Christian, invokes a Talmudic "Golden Rule" instead of Matthew 7.12; the bit about almsgiving at the end of the end of part 1 seems to conflict with Matthew 6.3.)

    I might disagree with Paul regarding the value of Jesus' teachings, as I tend to disagree with Paul about a good many things. The modern issue is a sound-bite; the ancient issue is a bit more pertinent, I think. What Jesus knew and understood about himself dramatically affects the value of the crucifixion, inasmuch as God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Well, how much love is that if everybody involved in the sacrifice knows that everything turns out okay in the end?

    The idea of Jesus' divinity that I can accept does, in fact, maintain the high value of Christ's sacrifice. What puzzles me about Athanasius is the rejection of the human aspect insofar as frail humanity seems insufficient to Athanasius to carry the weight of Redemption. It is in fact this human triumph over frailty that makes the crucifixion so special. Was Jesus just putting on a show at Gethsemane? Something for the scribes, an "Oscar moment" for the ages? Athanasius, in rejecting Christ's humanity, seems to be questioning God's wisdom.

    Think of the terms people use: passion, sacrifice, triumph over death, &c. One must be human--prone to dissolution, decay, and death in order to triumph over death. The passion is a human experience. The sacrifice draws its value directly from Jesus' humanity, and all of this simply displeased the orthodox aesthetic. And that value is what is undermined at Nicaea, which I tend to think implies if not demonstrates factually that much politicking was afoot.

    I agree entirely regarding the necessity of hope that evil can be conquered. It is one of the foremost reasons for religion among human beings.

    And of course the doctors and teachers can make mistakes. They are, after all, human beings. But what does the idea of a "mistake" suggest in the sense that the debates at Nicaea also contributed to the formation of an orthodox Creed? That's where the issue gets really interesting, in my opinion. The question bears serious implications in the question of what connections the modern faith bears to Christ himself, or to the Apostolic mission in the aftermath of His Ascension.

    Lastly:
    This I agree with, but I'm having a hard time seeing the connection between the "fact" of the mystery, diverse perspectives on the questions that lead to the mystery, and the resolution of aspects of that mystery.

    I point to the difference between "denying Jesus' divinity," and "denying Jesus' humanity." Arius didn't think he was denying Jesus' divinity, but Athanasius was repulsed by the idea of Jesus' humanity. Whether Jesus was "divine" as Muhammad, or even Prophet Gibran, or "divine" as in "God", is such a question that to underplay Jesus' humanity would eventually become a heresy in and of itself. Yet there, at the core of the Creed, is a debate in which that very condition won the day.

    Such a resolution of Jesus' divinity is unsatisfactory insofar as it undermines the value of the crucifixion.

    • Irenaeus of Lyons - Adversus Haereses: See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm
    • Justin Martyr - First Apology: See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
    World Scripture - The Golden Rule: See http://www.unification.net/ws/theme015.htm#12
     
  16. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    I don't find Ireneus' logic here rediculous since many of that time were into numeric meanings as shown by Revelation. Ireneus was merely stating what the four gospels meant to him. He was not using arguments for a canon that did not even exist formally.

    There was absolutely no rational way that Iraeneus could explain the number of the gospels without resorting to some type of numerical mystism, and I challenge you to come up with a reason for the number of words you write.

    I find this arguments just as worse as any argument that Iraenus made. Could we say that atheists want their children to examine history predetermined by disbelief?

    I don't think we should judge Justin's perception of atheism, really only a reaffirmation that Christians aren't atheist, since this was the Roman's perception prevalent at the time. <blockquote>Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him),9 and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.</blockquote>

    I wasn't really speaking of the Gospel of Thomas, which could be disqualified from the biblical canon because of lack of content, harmony and stylistic issues. But my point here is that those groups who accept the Gospel of Thomas also had many other gnostic literatures. The very meaning of "God" and "knowledge" in the Gospel of Thomas is radically different than Christianity, and you will find similar trends in modern heresies.

    Ultimately, though, I think all unbiased research has shown that not only the Gospel of Thomas unorthodox but a forgery. The most convincing argument that it's not Q, if such a writing existed, is that it has material and wording are in common with Matthew where they should be more in common with Mark, and the entire concept of salvation in the gospel of Thomas, the finding of some meaning in some text seems foreign to all Jewish writings of that era. Surely a Jew would never say such a thing for such a short writing void of meaning, and if he did, would say the Torah or even like the book of Enoch, the Son of Man. Of course another type of "knowledge" does indeed save, but 1 John clarifies what John meant by knowing Jesus in his gospel.

    I did not mean to say that the Didache was entirely orthodox, but that it developed somehow within the Church. After reading it a few times, I don't believe that the Didache severely contradicts the faith anywhere. Matthew 6:3 must be understood in the context of the Jesus' teachings on the mount where he says that we are the light of the world.

    I'm not entirely following this argument since all of Jesus' knowledge came from the Father; thus, the cross was every bit of faith. Jesus had to have faith that he would be resurrected. It's only that he relied perfectly on the knowledge from the Father, not the world, that he was able to make such a claim. Presumably, if we have faith we can do the same thing, along with moving mountains, through God; but won't pretend to have such faith.

    Well, I've read what Eusebius said about Jesus being God. Much of the Old Testament quotes such as fruit from the tree of life, when Abraham calls one of the persons "Lord" and when the commander of the heavenly host appeared at the destruction of Jerecho hint that Jesus already had physical form before the incarnation. Of course this is heretical, but it could lead someone into believing that Jesus had either already assumed human nature or never assumed human nature.
     
  17. Markx Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    970
    Wow! You hid the nail M.W. Good post. I will join after my exam on monday. Good seeing you again.

    Peace
     
  18. KalvinB Publicity Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,063
    Considering the texts in which it's quite obvious Jesus was believed to be God predate the council, he wasn't deified by the council.

    That misses the entire point of the council. Even in the Bible you find accounts where people didn't believe Jesus was actually God. The purpose of the creeds and counciles was to put what the most essential doctrines of Christianity are in a creed so that there was a clear distinction between various groups.

    The vote wasn't "is he God" the vote was "is it essential to salvation to believe he was God"

    In order to be considered saved by various groups you must accept the creeds which are a summary of the doctrines necessary for salvation. If you don't believe Jesus was God then you're not believing in the Jesus of the Bible. If you don't believe in the Jesus of the Bible you're not saved. That's the point.

    Ben
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Okinrus

    As a personal note, I'm having difficulty at the outset with this point of yours--
    --which seems rather off the mark.

    You're right; there was absolutely no rational way to determine the appropriate number of gospels; resorting to numerical mysticism is not rational.

    The number of words I write is irrelevant, though, inasmuch as the issue Irenaeus was concerned with was the number of Gospels. He chose to assert that there could only be four--no more, no less--and backed that assertion with irrationality and superstition. I don't dispute the notion that, "many of that time were into numeric meanings as shown by Revelation," but rather contest the significance, as such an idea in no way changes what you have already noted: there was absolutely no rational way to explain the number of gospels.

    And I think you're treading into ... well, I don't know where this course is intended to take you, but Irenaeus was not merely asserting "what the four gospels meant to him," but rather was, in fact, arguing toward "a canon that did not even exist formally." He certainly wasn't arguing on behalf of the Gospels of Mary Magdalene, Thomas, Phillip, or the Ebionites when he insisted that there can only be four Gospels. My first question, when I consider the idea that Irenaeus was "merely stating what the four gospels meant to him," is to wonder if we're reading the same text--which argument are you referring to?
    Okay, but you quoted the text yourself.

    I'm perfectly willing to withdraw ridiculous, but my assessment of what his argument says, stands. Allow me to show you what I mean:

    • "We're atheists inasmuch as we don't like your petty gods that you can relate to, but we have a bigger, mightier God than you!" (as restated by Tiassa)
    • "And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught." (Justin Martyr)

    (T) We're atheists inasmuch as we don't like your petty gods that you can relate to
    (J) And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned

    (T) but we have a bigger, mightier God than you!
    (J) but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity . . . .

    This is Justin's response to the charge of atheism. "We're atheists with respect to what you call God, but we claim to have a bigger God." (Which implicitly declares that Christians aren't atheists.)

    What's funny is that technically, I do the same thing. When a Christian calls me atheist, I wonder why he or she can't think beyond a shoebox version of God, which sentiment implicitly declares that the idea of God that I consider in order to call myself a theist is "larger" or "greater" than the God described in the Bible. (I actually believe I can establish that notion to be true if we consider the role of God's responsibility for evil. It would be more accurate to say that while it is a useless endeavor to try to one-up the God described in the Bible, my problem with the "size of God" described by Christians most likely originates within the faithful themselves.)

    See? Who says we never learn things about ourselves here? It strikes me as even funnier that I've never actually recognized the similarity before. Rather, I get to spend a bit this evening thinking about the significance of it.
    So could John.

    But we eventually must get around to Thomas, and what strikes me about the argument against Thomas is not the aspects of Matthew and not Mark, but rather the presence of what seems parallel to the Pauline evangelism in some places.

    But I was reaching more for a theme with Thomas. Orthodoxy was analogous in a certain way to the idea that "gravity holds you down." Well, it's sort of true. For any practical purpose relating to all but the latest thin chapter of the human tale, such a definition of gravity was perfectly suitable. But when you open up to considerations of the Universe at large, "gravity holds you down" not only is insufficient in itself, but is erroneous.

    No I don't expect that Irenaeus or any of the orthodox voices should argue millennia ahead of their time; a couple of decades would be nice, and Jesus was perhaps centuries ahead of his contemporaries.

    Irenaeus is fallacious nonetheless. His argument is substantial within orthodox confines, but it doesn't mean much outside, and that's the problem inasmuch as the issue resides outside the boundaries of orthodoxy. The "backdrop reality" Irenaeus paints is fantastic and fluffy; even at the time the observable reality seems to have been considerably different.

    The criteria for the canon that would come about,

    (A) was subjective unto itself; presumptuous in lieu of observable fact, and
    (B) was influenced greatly by such figures as Irenaeus, who came before it.
    I think that would make a most interesting discussion.
    As long as we're on a Matthew kick, it's worth calling in Matthew 7:
    Whether we take the moral or the practical consideration, there is something to be said against judgment. As Jesus explained, with the judgment you pronounce will you be judged--whether you are right or wrong constitutes a forgivable offense at worst, but the standard by which one judges is at least the foundation of how one will be judged.

    In the moral sense, God is the only judge, and thus your judgments will be especially held against you.

    And in giving, well ... I see a number of things in the parts of Matthew 5 and 6:

    • One is to give, to perform their good works, where others might see so that they can lead by example
    • One is, however, to reserve from public view their motives; your piety is between you and God
    • Do not draw attention to your good works for the sake of your piety; simply do the work and let that be your testament

    I throw in Matthew 7 because the Didache seems to ask people to play judge to a certain extent. Louth writes of the Didache:
    Louth also writes of the Epistle of Barnabas:
    The Two Ways is a curiosity because it comes from Matthew 7.13-14; in fact, a footnote on those very verses from the New American Bible reads:
    It seems to me that the question surrounds what is meant in the Didache by, "thou knowest to whom thou hast given" (Hoole), or, "until thou shalt have learnt to whom to give" (Lightfoot). They say different things, but that's not actually problematic, as both invoke a certain complicated sense of judgment.

    Hoole: The vagary of knowing to whom you have given (are giving, will give) is much akin to "classic" welfare arguments in American politics. In this sense, the judgment is very simple: one finds reasons to not give if they are so inclined--the outcome depends entirely on the individual's interpretation of abstract ideas.

    Lightfoot: Much more concrete, but still one must consider the criteria. How does one "learn to know to whom to give"? While the outcome doesn't rely solely on the individual interpretation--but, rather, the interpretation of another, or interpretation by convention--one still risks failing to be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5.48), or, more realistically, doing or failing to do unto Him (Matthew 25.31-ff) according to convention.

    As many mothers have said, "If everybody jumped off a bridge, would you?" Part of the hard way that leads to life involves bucking those trends and not bowing to convention when convention would lead one astray.

    Elaine Pagels, in The Origin of Satan, writes:
    The tendency to extrapolate (also prevalent in Barnabas) is a bit of a challenge to the credibility of the Didache; it is often within those extrapolations that the teaching runs across the grain of Jesus' more canonical wisdom and instruction.

    And no, in the end, I would say that superficially, it's not a severe contradiction. But it does seem problematic. In discussing Barnabas and the Didache, Pagels asserts, "Barnabas outlines a moral code that would dominate Christian teaching for generations, even millennia to come." (154) Now, to be fair, part of what she was referring to was Barnabas' discussion of sex with young boys. Fine and fair. But still I wonder why extrapolate Jesus in order to address something that should be straightforward?

    But Pagels' assertion reflects an underlying theme of my own; the foundations of what becomes the modern faith, contemporary Christianity, are laid during these early centuries. This is what's problematic, as well, with Irenaeus. (And Tertullian, and Origen, and ....)

    Note: I am terminating this post here because I have found that what comes next gets huge; I'm considering building a general post about it and revisiting an old idea; it's a matter of whether or not I can get the thesis right. What comes from consideration of "Jesus' knowledge ... from the Father" is on the one hand a very important discussion; to the other, though, I need to figure out how to address it because it really is a discussion of its own.

    Reference notes:

    • Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses. See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm
    • Justin Martyr, First Apology. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
    The Gospel of Thomas. See http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
    The Didache, Hoole Translation. See http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/Liturgical/didache.html
    The Didache, Lightfoot Translation. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lightfoot.html
    The Epistle of Barnabas. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/barnabas.html
    The Bible, RSV. See http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html
    The New American Bible. See http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm
    • Staniforth, Maxwell and Andrew Louth. Early Christian Writings. New York: Penguin, 1968.
    • Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Vintage, 1996.
     
  20. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    Since logic is only a process to derive some fact, it seems that this is more a matter of what we consider evidence to what Irenaeus considered evidence. I don't think we can judge Irenaeus illogical for resorting to numerical mysticsm when much of the four gospels themselves uses it. For example, after Jesus feed 5,000 there was 5 loaves and three fish. I also don't think Irenaeus was answering a real question given to him but a personal question.

    The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Thomas and Philip were gnostic secret gospels. Why would Irenaeus, who met Polycarp, not know that these gospels were not in the Church? Because Irenaeus had primary evidence of what the truth was, he may have been less concerned presenting his arguments.


    I don't believe that the word atheist would be viewed as religion at that time but a philosophy or a nonbelief in a particular deity.

    No, I think Justin was explaining why Christians appear to be atheist and then explaining why Christian were not truly atheist.

    Having plans on the adoption of Irenaeus' explanation of why Jesus told Mary Magdalene that he was ascending to his Father?

    The Didache speaks of judgement of prophets, which is allowed since Jesus said that we are to judge a prophet by their fruits, and judge of someone living "idle" among them.

    Ideally, when we give to the poor it is not our judgement to give, but rather the Spirit within us that tells us to give to the poor. I don't think the Didache is telling us not to give, but rather to find someone who truly needs the care. In this respect, it's not unsimilar to Jesus' teaching that those who give knowing that they will be repaid gain nothing.

    Hmm, the Didache also bans this along with any sensible moral code. What exactly is Pagel saying here?
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Pagels is referring to the influence of these early Christian pioneers over the remainder of the Christian experience. Regardless of the conclusions, many people arguing issues of Christian history and faith employ components from generations past; the underlying logic of those components is sometimes questionable, though this is the extended argument as I see its significance.

    We might take Irenaeus, again, for instance. Drawing from Adversus Haereses (3.11.9), Pagels writes,
    Now, if the logic supporting the assertion is erroneous, what of the value of the assertion itself?

    All in all, Irenaeus' case is not particularly solid. Yet it's vital to the development of Christianity.
    By what standard? Technically, I agree, but it's a fairly libertarian standard. I would remind you, as an example, of politicians hedging over whether or not single mothers "deserve" government help. The welfare-queen stereotype is as cruelly-founded as the illiterate, watermelon-munching Negro, and equally inappropriate in the modern day. Yet whether it is Mr. Politician pounding away at the mother's reputation while refusing to help the child, or anybody's uncle refusing a bum spare change because, "He'll likely just spend it on booze," each is well within their judgment, at least by the Hoole translation. Yet in the end, cast it in the form of Pascal's wager--do we mere mortals have such judgment in God's grand universe to risk failing to do unto the least of His brethren? Is it a risk worth taking for convenience or extraneous comfort?

    It's also worth noting that I prefer, of the "Golden Rule," the negative form--do not do ... the affirmative Golden Rule has shown similar problems in a libertarian application. Which shows that "practicality" is a major theme of the Didache--I point again to the latter Pagels quote in my immediately prior post (Origin, pp. 153-154). The Didache seeks to be practical in the face of Jesus' idealism, but in that practicality one bends to a mythical ethos held aloft unconsciously by society. It's a strange relationship between the Two Ways and the ducking of the tougher idealism in favor of practicality.
    I don't disagree. I just don't think it's much of an explanation. What crushes me is that the modern word "apology" is in any way related to the apologists of early Christianity. It's propaganda, not a real argument.

    Notes:

    • Irenaeus of Lyons. Adversus Haereses. See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm
    • Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage, 1980. (1977)
    • Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York, Vintage, 1996.
     
  22. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    At the risk of undermining all the hard work that has gone into the discussion, could I perhaps bring it back to the original point?

    I believe M*W wasn't totally honest with her post:
    She doesn't believe Jesus was ever divine, whether his disciples realized it during his ministry, after his resurrection in the light of his words, or when the venerable Council of Nicea formulated it for the public at large in 325 AD.

    I think she overshot the argument by going for such a late date of "invention", when the God's triune nature is already so understood in the early second century that Satan is already mimicing it in Revelation.

    Tiassa, I know you welcome the excuse to dig into the past to throw a shadow on present doctrines by casting doubt on their formulation (digging the weed out by the roots, so to speak). But can you support M*W's view that Jesus was never thought divine before Nicea?
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2004
  23. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    I think there can be little doubt but that the gospel authors considered Jesus divine. It's a stretch, however, to think that this view was held by the late 1st century Jerusalem church. You might wish to look into the Nazarenes and Ebionites ...
     

Share This Page