RE: A.S.K. your way to proof.
May 5, 2020 at 11:41 am
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2020 at 12:21 pm by Bucky Ball.)
(May 5, 2020 at 9:56 am)Jehanne Wrote:(May 5, 2020 at 4:55 am)SUNGULA Wrote: I think he meant Trinitarianism and i think he means there was no single orthodoxy but many parallel ones among different groups
The scholarly consensus (especially, among secular New Testament scholars and historians) is that the views of Jesus as expressed in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed was not the view of Jesus among his first followers, who saw him as a fully Jewish individual, perhaps a prophet, who foretold the end of the World and the defeat of the Romans by an angel from Heaven, "the Son of Man". In fact, no one in the first 40 years after the death of Jesus saw him as being "fully God, true God..." etc.
Completely irrelevant. That is not the issue. A red herring.
(If you're going to assert scholarly concensus, you must reference it to a source, and probably a poll of scholars).
You said there was no orthodoxy. Then you said Arianism was an orthodox position.
The thing you were taking exception to was whether there was an orthodox position or was there orthodoxy.
Clearly orthodoxy developed. And you just contradicted yourself AGAIN.
Quote:view of Jesus among his first followers, who saw him as a fully Jewish individual, perhaps a prophet, who foretold the end of the World and the defeat of the Romans by an angel from Heaven, "the Son of Man". In fact, no one in the first 40 years after the death of Jesus saw him as being "fully God, true God..." etc.
Then THAT was the orthodox position at that time. And if NO ONE disputed it, then you just contradicted yourself again.
Quote:There's never been an "orthodox Christianity"; rather, right up to the present day, things have been in a constant flux.
Apparently, then, the first forty years were not in constant flux, as you claimed, if that wasn't.
Of course no one in the first 40 years believed him to be God, (although being a "divine being" for a Jew was not equivalent to Yahweh
... there were all sorts of divine beings in the heavenly host). One can be divine in Hebrew thought, and not "just" be a human.
But that does not imply equality with Yahweh, or anything even approaching it. It's a field of considerable interest in Jewish studies.
A Jew would never equate a human with Yahweh. A "son of god" was merely a righteous man, not what it came to be later.
Clearly he was not "just a human", even then. Paul wrote (during the 1st 40 years)
Quote:For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,1 Corinthians 15.
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Ordinary humans do not appear to people after they die. Already in the first 40 years he was not thought to be an ordinary human. The development of the concept of how he became a god is explored in Ehrman's book on the subject.
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist