Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
    Messianic Jews are Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah. The first followers of Jesus were Messianic Jews.
    They did not believe their leader was an anthropomorphic deity.
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      This would all be good and well, if it wasn't for the small problem that "Hellenised concepts of anthropomorphic deities" doesn't quite fit the idea that we find when we look at the orthodox idea about Jesus' divinity.
      Judaism had, and still has, one ineffable invisible deity. Jesus was a pious and observant Jew. In the writings of Paul are to be found concepts that would eventually lead to the theological development of Jesus' divinity.
      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      There is absolutely nothing analogous between the concept of God taking on human nature and any concept you might find in Hellenistic mythology.
      Ah now what specifically do you infer by “nature”? Form? Substance? Essence? Image? Body? What “nature”?

      Stories of gods descending and impregnating mortal women who went on to give birth to demi-gods or heroes are frequently found in Graeco-Roman mythology and Roman Emperors were deified after their deaths. The apotheosis of human beings was therefore hardly unknown. The Ancient Egyptian chthonic deity Osiris provided the classic pattern of the savior god. His initiates believing that he had once died and risen again and that by ritual assimilation with him, they too could attain immortal life. The cult of Isis and Osiris was well-known in the Graeco-Roman world with the second century CE writer Apuleius most probably an initiate.

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      There was no such thing as a "non-hellenistic" Jew during the time of Jesus.
      That is a misconception and an oversimplifiction of a very complex area. You would need to define precisely what you understand by a “non Hellenistic Jew”.

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      Being "steeped in Hellenistic culture" was something that had been common to all Jews for hundreds of years regardless of whether they lived in Palestina/Judaea or scattered across the Hellenistic/Roman empire.
      This is not entirely correct. Of course the entire region of the ancient near east was Hellenised by Alexander and indeed without the influence of Hellenistic ideas the religion of Christianity would never have developed. However, in my opinion you have made a blanket statement about the entire region with regards to the extent of Hellenism and the degree to which, by the first century, it had permeated Jewish culture.

      Given that the Jews had rebelled against both Greek and Roman invaders and the familial link between Hezekiah the Zealot, his son Judas [aka Judas of Gamala/Galilee], and his son Menahem [leader of the Sicarii] who was involved in the revolt of 66 CE there was clearly a strong anti-“pagan” feeling amongst many Jews, particularly those in Galilee. There was also a long-standing antipathy towards the Herodian dynasty as not being “true” Jews. Herod the Great’s father Antipater was an Idumaean and his family had converted to Judaism in the second century BCE.

      Mishnah Sotah 9:14 states that when the first Jewish rebellion took place, “they” [presumably, the rabbis] forbade fathers to teach Greek to their sons, but what exactly did this mean? Given the injunction we can assume that at least some Jews had been learning and speaking Greek but we have no idea how many, nor where they lived, nor the purpose for them doing so. If some fathers were teaching their sons Greek, was this a typical occurrence among Jews or something exceptional?

      Prior to the 66 CE rebellion Judaea was the primary locale of rabbis but what does that saying tell us about what was going on in Galilee? The saying also occurs in a document written over a century after the first Jewish war took place, which raises the question of its historical reliability. If a rabbi or group of rabbis did issue such a prohibition, was it observed and respected by anyone outside their rabbinic circles? Or was it specific only to them? That the statement is not attributed to any named individual merely serves to exacerbate the problem.

      In Judaea the Sadducean aristocracy would have spoken Greek and wealthy Jews in the cities would also most likely have spoken and learned the language. We can also assume that merchants and various trades-people would have been competent in the lingua franca of the region. In Galilee, a client kingdom to Rome when Jesus lived, we can assume much of the same. So yes, while the cities of both Judaea and Galilee were Hellenised and yes while many people in those cities spoke Greek, the question has to be asked, how far did that Hellenisation extend into the rural communities of both regions? How much did it influence life in the small towns and villages in Galilee and Judaea?

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      This is a strange statement, because it implicitly assumes what it's trying to prove. The only way to hold that there was no "orthodox beliefs" about Jesus, His nature and His relation to the Father is by assuming from the onset that orthodox Christianity is false.
      In the first two centuries of the religion the nature of the Christ varied enormously. Irenaeus writes of the Trinity but what did Irenaeus understand by that? Did he envisage a single Godhead with three persons sharing the substance [ousia] but with three distinct[beings] hypostases? Most probably not.

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      None of the data we have by itself indicates that beliefs that were in accordance with later orthodoxy didn't exist during the "first two and a half centuries".
      As previously mentioned, all sort of beliefs existed, and, by the late third century this appears to have been one of them but it remained only one among many. It had no authority. It was not the “right opinion” [orthodoxy]

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      It's also not clear to me how you would determine from history that there was no orthodox belief, given that orthodoxy is defined by adherence to what is true/correct,
      Who do you think determined what was “true/correct” in the Christian church in the fourth century? The answer was ultimately the Emperor for political expediency and who was influenced by various powerful and opportunistic prelates.

      The continual debates and arguments within Christianity led to the farcical situation that the empire found itself in by the last quarter of the fourth century with the the two Augusti believing two different versions of Christianity.

      Valentinian II was a Homoean and Theodosius I supported the Nicene belief. Theodosius issued the Edict of 381 which initially was only enforced in the East but after he became sole Emperor in 392 was extended to the entire empire.

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      The above is barely relevant fluff.
      You are welcome to post your rebuttal – with full citations.

      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      The council of Constantinople did not "create" orthodoxy, it simply affirmed it.
      I did not write that Constantinople created orthodoxy. It affirmed it by Imperial edict with the threat of severe legal penalties for those who dissented.
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        They did not believe their leader was an anthropomorphic deity.
        Nah. It would by anachronistic to apply Hypatia's concept to first century followers of Christ.

        I think it would help to see the survey you did of the first century Jewish Christians in order to come to your idea that they did not recognize the Deity of Christ.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
          Nah. It would by anachronistic to apply Hypatia's concept to first century followers of Christ.

          I think it would help to see the survey you did of the first century Jewish Christians in order to come to your idea that they did not recognize the Deity of Christ.
          The Greek Χρήστος [Christos] is merely the translation of the Hebrew "māshīaḥ" [Messiah] which literally means anointed. The Hebrew original has nothing to do with divinity.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            The Greek Χρήστος [Christos] is merely the translation of the Hebrew "māshīaḥ" [Messiah] which literally means anointed. The Hebrew original has nothing to do with divinity.
            Great observation of something unrelated to question at hand.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              Great observation of something unrelated to question at hand.
              Just for clarification are you attempting to allege that first century observant Palestinian Jews considered their leader to be an anthropomorphic deity?
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                Just for clarification are you attempting to allege that first century observant Palestinian Jews considered their leader to be an anthropomorphic deity?
                Certainly they knew that Jesus was God incarnate. There is no reason why they would have a different conception of what happened.

                Your question sort of depends on whether you use the term "observant Jew" to mean those who then followed the God of Israel through their acceptance of their Messiah.

                The idea of the observant Jew can be ambiguous or problematic. The Messiah was sent to bring forgiveness of their sins, so they needed to come to the Messiah to have that benefit. We also have to ask what they observed. The form of Judaism they followed since Ezra was a new form that did not exist before the Babylonian captivity. The Maccabean revolt messed things up again with the emphasis on preserving the national identity of the Jews. (Note that the changes they did seem a natural response to the situation.) Also, the Rabbinic Judaism was taking form at the time of Jesus-- this especially was the form that had been rebuked by Jesus. Or, were the only observant Jews those who had separated to Qumran?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  Depends on what you mean by "evolved". The doctrine of Jesus' divinity was further clarified at Nicaea, yes, but in the essentials the Nicaean Creed isn't saying anything that's not already found in the New Testament. Your claim that the Christology of Jesus being divine and one with the Father was devised decades after the death of Jesus is pure conjecture. We have no idea how long these ideas existed before they were written down in the gospels, and at least when it comes to Jesus divinity we know thanks to the hymn in Philippians that the idea arose probably within a decade of Jesus' death.
                  What was “clarified” at Nicaea in 325 and Constantinople in 381 plus numerous other bitterly argued church councils was HOW the man Jesus could be God in a monotheistic religion that already had its God. And the end result is far from the simple assumption that the man Jesus was somehow divine – as found in the Philippians kenotic hymn. The end result is the tortuous, contradictory doctrine of the Holy Trinity: This doctrine holds that “God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" etc. etc. etc.
                  Last edited by Tassman; 06-19-2020, 12:53 AM.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    What was “clarified” at Nicaea in 325 and Constantinople in 381 plus numerous other bitterly argued church councils was HOW the man Jesus could be God in a monotheistic religion that already had its God. And the end result is far from the simple assumption that the man Jesus was somehow divine – as found in the Philippians kenotic hymn. The end result is the tortuous, contradictory doctrine of the Holy Trinity: This doctrine holds that “God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" etc. etc. etc.
                    Um? Could someone help me out...I thought the issue debated by the first Council was not the divinity of Jesus but whether he was Uncreated and equal with the Father?
                    Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                      Um? Could someone help me out...I thought the issue debated by the first Council was not the divinity of Jesus but whether he was Uncreated and equal with the Father?
                      The divinity of Jesus was a crucial component of the debate. "The Council of Nicaea was the first council in the history of the Christian church that was intended to address the entire body of believers. It was convened by the emperor Constantine to resolve the controversy of Arianism, a doctrine that held that Christ was not divine but was a created being". Encyclopedia Britannica.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        Certainly they knew that Jesus was God incarnate.
                        The concept that he was God incarnate is a much later theological construct. You are retrojecting fourth century Hellenistic beliefs back to the early years of the first century and attributing such beliefs to a group of observant Jews for whom such concepts would be both completely abhorrent and in violation of the first two commandments.

                        Jesus and his followers were pious and observant Jews. They did not worship anthropomorphic gods.

                        It is in the writings of Paul that are to be found concepts that would eventually lead to the theological development of Jesus' divinity.

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        Your question sort of depends on whether you use the term "observant Jew" to mean those who then followed the God of Israel through their acceptance of their Messiah.
                        The Jewish Messiah is not a divinity.

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        The idea of the observant Jew can be ambiguous or problematic.
                        Would you care to elucidate?

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        The Messiah was sent to bring forgiveness of their sins
                        The Jewish Messiah does not forgive sin.

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        , so they needed to come to the Messiah to have that benefit. We also have to ask what they observed.
                        It’s generally known as Second Temple Judaism.

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        The Maccabean revolt messed things up again with the emphasis on preserving the national identity of the Jews.
                        The Maccabees rebelled against the very things you are suggesting a group of first century observant Palestinian Jews had no issue with, namely Hellenistic religious practises [including anthropomorphic deities] and the attempt to destroy the Jewish religion and force those practises upon the Jewish people.

                        You might also recall the delegation sent Gaius [Philo of Alexandria was one of them]. Or the outrage caused when Pilate brought the standards into Jerusalem.

                        Yet here you alleging that a group of Galilean Jews from that same period [i.e. the first half of the first century] were quite prepared to worship a human being. You will excuse me if I think you are writing nonsense.

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        Also, the Rabbinic Judaism was taking form at the time of Jesus
                        Rabbinic Judaism developed as a result of the First Jewish War.

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        this especially was the form that had been rebuked by Jesus.
                        What form was this?

                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        Or, were the only observant Jews those who had separated to Qumran?
                        That subject would constitute an thread devoted to it.
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • Jesus explicitly claims to be the EXCLUSIVE Son of God in Matthew 11:27, a Synoptic Gospel: -
                          “ALL things have been handed over to me by my Father; and know one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father (ie. God) EXCEPT THE SON, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.”
                          This is again echoed in another Synoptic Gospel, Luke 10:22:-
                          “ALL things things have been committed to me by My Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows Who the Father is Except THE Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.”

                          And there are strong, good reasons to regard this as the authentic sayings of Jesus Christ. It is a saying of Jesus from a source shared by both Matthew and Luke and is therefore very early. The saying has also been shown to go back to an original Aramaic version, which confirms and points in favor of authenticity.

                          Furthermore it is unlikely that the early Christians invented this saying of Christ because it says that “the Son is unknowable” – “no one knows the Son except the Father (God)” which would seem to exclude even Jesus’ followers from knowing Him. But the conviction of the post-Easter church is that Christians CAN know the Son (Phil.3:8-11). So this saying is unlikely to be the product of later church theology.

                          This saying of Christ discloses revelatory truths about Jesus’ self-concept – that He regarded himself as God’s exclusive AND the unique Son of God and the ONLY revelation of God the Father to mankind. Just consider this. Jesus thought of Himself as God’s only Son in an absolute and unique sense as also as having the exclusive authority and power to disclose His Father God to men and women.

                          THE Son chooses whoever HE WISHES to make that revelation to, and ONLY Jesus THE Son can do this.

                          Another significance of this? John 17:3 says that to know God is to have eternal life. So, it is Jesus Christ THE unique, one and only Son of God – Who truly knows God – who also gives eternal life to His chosen ones. This again is fully in line with Jesus Christ’s words: “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” John 10:28.

                          Not only is Jesus Christ THE unique and exclusive Son of God here, who alone knows God the Father with personal intimate and the deepest knowledge – as distinct from all the other who were called ‘sons of God’. Jesus Christ alone, has the exclusive authority to impart and give that knowledge of God to whosoever HE chooses to give it.

                          That is something only the true Son of God – as the Word of God himself - has the right and authority to impart - and he gets to choose whom to give it to. As God and His Word are inseparable, Jesus - who is that Son and Word naturally, has exclusive knowledge of God the Father NO ONE else can possibly have.

                          There are indeed themes in the Synoptics that clearly identify Jesus THE exclusive Son of God with divine roles AND the Dispenser and Giver of divine knowledge and eternal life. To claim otherwise is not based on what the earliest Christians, apostles and eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ followed.



                          Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                          Thank you much Hypatia. My response was for Esther. I was not intending that response as an opportunity for your conspiracy theory.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            The concept that he was God incarnate is a much later theological construct. You are retrojecting fourth century Hellenistic beliefs back to the early years of the first century and attributing such beliefs to a group of observant Jews for whom such concepts would be both completely abhorrent and in violation of the first two commandments.

                            Jesus and his followers were pious and observant Jews. They did not worship anthropomorphic gods.

                            It is in the writings of Paul that are to be found concepts that would eventually lead to the theological development of Jesus' divinity.

                            The Jewish Messiah is not a divinity.

                            Would you care to elucidate?

                            The Jewish Messiah does not forgive sin.

                            It’s generally known as Second Temple Judaism.

                            The Maccabees rebelled against the very things you are suggesting a group of first century observant Palestinian Jews had no issue with, namely Hellenistic religious practises [including anthropomorphic deities] and the attempt to destroy the Jewish religion and force those practises upon the Jewish people.

                            You might also recall the delegation sent Gaius [Philo of Alexandria was one of them]. Or the outrage caused when Pilate brought the standards into Jerusalem.

                            Yet here you alleging that a group of Galilean Jews from that same period [i.e. the first half of the first century] were quite prepared to worship a human being. You will excuse me if I think you are writing nonsense.

                            Rabbinic Judaism developed as a result of the First Jewish War.

                            What form was this?

                            That subject would constitute an thread devoted to it.
                            I'm not sure why all your studies have missed so many facts to lead you to so many less informed questions. You are right that the Jews would not worship a Messiah that were a mere man. So, Jesus had to be recognized as deity.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                              I'm not sure why all your studies have missed so many facts to lead you to so many less informed questions. You are right that the Jews would not worship a Messiah that were a mere man. So, Jesus had to be recognized as deity.
                              Have you noticed that Hypatia_Alexandria rarely if at all backs up her opinions with Scriptures?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                                Have you noticed that Hypatia_Alexandria rarely if at all backs up her opinions with Scriptures?
                                No, but I have noticed that you only back up your opinions with the scriptures. You can't substantiate the assertions in scripture by reading scripture.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                201 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X