Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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.

I recommend you read the first two commandments. You are retrojecting a much Christian theological construct on to pious first century Palestinian Jews.

Do you know anything about the Ebionites?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Have you noticed that Hypatia_Alexandria rarely if at all backs up her opinions with Scriptures?

Scripture is not a reliable evidence based historical source.

[Dan Zebiri]

And that is just your bias and preconceived notion that colors all your assertions with your subjective prejudices rather than actual objective facts, H.A.

Remember that bias & prejudices cuts BOTH ways, yours included!

Scripture is not a reliable evidence based historical source.

[Christian3]

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.

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

Cite the Scriptures.

[mikewhitney]

I recommend you read the first two commandments. You are retrojecting a much Christian theological construct on to pious first century Palestinian Jews.

Do you know anything about the Ebionites?

I see you like to inject humor. The NT writings were made with the awareness of the Decalogue and the Shema. To claim anything else seems rather contrived.

The Christian construct is from the Jewish writings.

The Ebionite beginnings are somewhat predictable in the later chapters in Acts and in Hebrews. These folks had a lot of pressure on them to conform to the general religious trends in Judea. The situation can be assessed either that the Ebionites were all the Jewish followers of the "real" Christ or that their viewpoint fell to the wayside because it was not the correct understanding. If, as Gamaliel is noted as saying, this continuing Messianic movement is of God, then God's hand preserves the truth over against groups like the Ebionites.

[Christian3]

Scripture is not a reliable evidence based historical source.

So you don't believe Scriptures are the history of an event.

Are you an atheist?

[JonathanL]

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.

The theological development on Jesus' divinity from Paul is mainly clarificational in nature. Paul ascribes full divinity to Jesus, and equality with the Father. As the kenotic hymn in Philippians makes clear, Paul, and the people from which he borrowed the hymn from, believed Jesus submission to the Father was a temporary, and self-imposed affair.

Ah now what specifically do you infer by “nature”? Form? Substance? Essence? Image? Body? What “nature”?

All of the above, with maybe the exception of image, depending on what you mean by the term.

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

Not relevant. Mary becoming pregnant through the power of a disembodied Holy Spirit is not analoguous to anthropomorphic gods descending and fathering children by having sexual relations with mortal women.

and Roman Emperors were deified after their deaths.

According to Christian theology and the scriptures, Jesus did not become divine after His death, He already existed eternally as God from the very beginning.

The apotheosis of human beings was therefore hardly unknown.

What we have in the NT is not an example of apotheosis and so this is completely irrelevant.

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.

The parallels that have been drawn between Jesus death and resurrection and the so-called "dying and rising gods" of the ancient near east have been seriously overblown by atheists on the internet. Superficial similarities, and that's all we have between the story of Jesus' death and resurrection and these aforementioned stories of dying and rising gods, do not establish dependence and borrowing.

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”.

By a non-Hellenistic Jew I mean a Jew who had been largely untouched and uninfluenced by Hellenistic thought and culture. In the extent they existed it would have been in rural areas where people rarely travelled to and experienced life in the city.

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.

Citing a footnote from Skarsaune in his book In the Shadow of the Temple, p.75 where he himself quotes Shaye J.D. Cohen we read:

Source: Skarsaune, 2002, p.75, footnote 20

The same point is made vigorously in Shaye J. D. Cohen's recent comprehensive history of Judaism in our period, Maccabees to Mishnah, pp. 35-37. He concludes: "This conception of ´Hellenism´ leads to a redefinition of ´Hellenistic Judaism.´ All the Judaism of the Hellenistic period, of both the diaspora and the land [of Israel], were Hellenized, that is, were integral parts of the culture of the ancient world. Some varieties of Judaism were more Hellenized than others, but none was an island unto itself. It is a mistake to imagine that the land of Palestine preserved a ´pure´ form of Judaism. The term ´Hellenistic Judaism´ makes sense, then, only as a chronological indicator for the period from Alexander the Great to the Maccabees or perhaps to the Roman conquests of the first century B.C.E. As a descriptive term term for a certain type of Judaism, however, it is meaningless, because all the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period were ´Hellenistic´" (p.37).

© Copyright Original Source

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.

Anti-"pagan" sentiments among Jews did not mean they were free from, or succeeded in avoiding being influenced by Hellenistic thought.

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?

Assuming by "small towns and villages in Galilee and Judaea you mean a village like Bethsaida, presumably to quite a considerable extent. Again, citing Skarsaune:

Source: Skarsaune, 2002, pp.40-42

Perhaps the most impressive evidence for the extent to which Judaism and Hellenism were exposed to each other during the crucial centuries around the birth of Christ comes from the study of the languages used in Israel. A Greek visitor would have had no problem being understood in the streets and shops of Jerusalem. . . .

. . . This [koine greek] is the language employed by several Jewish authors of that time and by the authors of the New Testament. It is the language of the educated elite in all provinces of Alexander's empire, and even became the preferred language of the cultural upper class in Rome itself. Even more remarkable, perhaps, is that Greek gained a certain foothold as a spoken and written language in Israel among the native Jewish population. It did not replace Hebrew or Aramaic, but seems to have been used in addition to these two languages.

Archaelogy provides some telling illustrations. Many inscriptions have been found on ossuaries, dating roughly from the 200 years prior to A.D 135. These inscriptions were intended to be read by family members, and one must presume they were written in the language most familiar to the family. Of a total of 194 known inscriptions, 26 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic and 64 percent are inscribed in Greek alone. Other Jewish inscriptions have also been found, written in Greek, which were obviously meant to be understood by the majority of literate people. . . .

. . . It is thus evident that Greek was much in use in Israel during the time that Jesus lived and the early church was established . . . This should be no surprise to a reader familiar with the New Testament. Two of Jesus´ disciples have Greek names—Philip and Andrew—and precisely these two disciples wanted to introduce some "Greeks" (possibly Gentile God-fearers or Greek-speaking proselytes) to Jesus (Jn 12:20-22). The remark made about Philip in this context ("who was from Bethsaida in Galilee"), seems at first sight rather irrelevant, but might indicate that it was well known that Greek was spoken in Bethsaida. The fact that Peter's parents chose to give his brother Andrew a greek name may indicate that Greek was a familiar language in their family. . . .

© Copyright Original Source

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.

Irenaeus might not have used the terminology of later orthodoxy, but nothing he writes is in opposition to later orthodox thought.

Source: Jackson Lashier, B.A., M.Div., The Trinitarian Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons, 2011, p.3

Irenaeus develops Trinitarian theology in the following ways. First, he defines
God’s nature as spirit, thus maintaining the divine transcendence through God’s higher
order of being as opposed to the use of spatial imagery (God is separated/far away from
creation). This definition allows him to speak of God’s work in the world apart from the
use of semi-divine agents. Second, Irenaeus removes spatial language and a time element
from the concept of divine generation. Thus, although both Logos/Son and Sophia/Spirit
are generated from God/Father, they eternally exist with God and in God. Because they
come from God, they are divine to the same degree as God, existing in an eternal,
mutually interpenetrating relationship, which results in one, simple divine nature. Finally,
Irenaeus distinguishes the three entities in their eternal unity through attributing to them
different functions in the economy. God/Father is the source of the creative and
redemptive work, while Logos/Son and Sophia/Spirit enact the work. However, the logic
of Irenaeus’ argument demands that the same quality of divinity be shared among all
three figures. Their equal divinity provides the Son and the Spirit the power to enact the
will of the Father in the economy. The result is a developed Trinitarian theology that
posits three distinct entities named Father, Son, and Spirit, eternally united through one
divine and spiritual nature.

© Copyright Original Source

https://epublications.marquette.edu/...ssertations_mu

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]

Orthodoxy is only a meaningful term if you already believe that the scriptures on which this orthodoxy is to be based are actually true. Of course, from your perspective, not being a believer, none of the various beliefs and groups that professed adherence to the Christian scriptures, both OT and NT, could be considered "orthodox" in any meaningful sort of way. If there existed a "right opinion" it would be the right opinion regardless of what authority it had.

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.

This point is just plain nonsense, and relies completely on your mistaken assumption that "orthodoxy" is in some way tied up with having the authority to punish someone for professing beliefs that are in variance with establised belief. The fact that the emperor had the political power to punish those who professed beliefs that differed from what was established as orthodox during the various councils of Christendom does not mean that the emperor was the one who determined which beliefs were orthodox, and which were not. It was the bishops who convened to these councils that came that came to an agreement (excluding a few dissenting voices) on which beliefs were to be considered orthodox, the emperor simply recognized the judgement of the bishops that had convened on the matter.

You are welcome to post your rebuttal – with full citations.

I don't need to post any rebuttals. I'm not objecting to what you wrote in that specific part of your post, I'm simply stating that it's irrelevant to the discussion.

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.

And again, this is largely irrelevant to the question of whether orthodoxy existed or not. The issue of authority to demand adherence to a particular belief is largely unconnected from the question of whether that particular belief is orthodox/true or not.

[siam]

Not relevant. Mary becoming pregnant through the power of a disembodied Holy Spirit is not analoguous to anthropomorphic gods descending and fathering children by having sexual relations with mortal women.

why not?
the end result of either process is a God in human form?

sex is bad/sin in Christianity?
its not a sin in either Judaism or in Hellenistic cultures right?

[JonathanL]

why not?
the end result of either process is a God in human form?

Not exactly. On the one hand you have the demigods of greek and roman mythology who are half-god, half-mortal and who had a definite beginning in time. On the other hand you have Jesus, who existed eternally as the divine Word of God, who came down to earth and took on human nature.

sex is bad/sin in Christianity?
its not a sin in either Judaism or in Hellenistic cultures right?

Even Islam knows that the idea that God would have sex with mortals (or just in general) is a ridiculous idea. Please stop being daft and asking stupid questions.

[siam]

Came across this while looking into another topic....
but---it does seem that the Emperors did exert authority on theology.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunomius_of_Cyzicus
"... On the recommendation of Eudoxius, Eunomius was appointed bishop of Cyzicus in 360.[3] Here his free utterance of extreme Arian views led to popular complaints, including those from a number of contemporary writers such as Andronicianus. Eudoxius was compelled, by command of the emperor, Constantius II, to depose Eunomius from the bishopric within a year of his elevation to it."

"In 383, the emperor Theodosius, who had demanded a declaration of faith from all party leaders, punished Eunomius for continuing to teach his distinctive doctrines, by banishing him to Halmyris in Scythia Minor."

Their theological views were---
The teaching of the Anomoean school, led by Aetius and Eunomius, starting from the conception of God as Creator, argued that between the Creator and created there could be no essential, but at best only a moral, resemblance. "As the Unbegotten, God is an absolutely simple being; an act of generation would involve a contradiction of His essence by introducing duality into the Godhead." .....etc.

so...even as late as the 4th century, there were many views on Christian theology....with Arianism and its variations the biggest competitor?

[siam]

Not exactly. On the one hand you have the demigods of greek and roman mythology who are half-god, half-mortal and who had a definite beginning in time. On the other hand you have Jesus, who existed eternally as the divine Word of God, who came down to earth and took on human nature.

Even Islam knows that the idea that God would have sex with mortals (or just in general) is a ridiculous idea. Please stop being daft and asking stupid questions.

Took on human nature = demigod/God in human form.
demigod-half human half God---Christian formula---fully God, fully human ---either way, the ratio is the same.

No---from the Islamic perspective Both ideas---God "begetting" and God incarnating are equally ridiculous

[siam]

sex is bad/sin in Christianity?
its not a sin in either Judaism or in Hellenistic cultures right?

What I meant to ask was ---some Christian ideas might be traced to Hellenization or Judaic (influences) but if a concept of "sex is bad/sin" exists in Christianity, what would be its historic precedent culture/theology...if any?

[JonathanL]

Took on human nature = demigod/God in human form.
demigod-half human half God---Christian formula---fully God, fully human ---either way, the ratio is the same.

This is an incredibly naive and simplistic way to look at it. In the first place, it's not even the same kind of divinity that is being compared. In the case of Christianity we have a theistic God with all that entails (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, morally perfect etc...) taking on human nature while still retaining full divinity in the theistic meaning of the word, while in the case of pagan mythology we have a completely different sort of anthropomorphic gods siring offspring with the help of mortals and producing half-divine, half-human hybrids.

No---from the Islamic perspective Both ideas---God "begetting" and God incarnating are equally ridiculous

That seems to me to be a flaw in the Islamic perspective, more than anything else.

[siam]

This is an incredibly naive and simplistic way to look at it. In the first place, it's not even the same kind of divinity that is being compared. In the case of Christianity we have a theistic God with all that entails (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, morally perfect etc...) taking on human nature while still retaining full divinity in the theistic meaning of the word, while in the case of pagan mythology we have a completely different sort of anthropomorphic gods siring offspring with the help of mortals and producing half-divine, half-human hybrids.

That seems to me to be a flaw in the Islamic perspective, more than anything else.

Ok---you may be right that they are conceptually different...but they are functionally the same are they not? The God-Man concept is "hybridity" in function since it is God in human form.

What is a flaw or not in one paradigm/worldview should not be determined by the assumptions that make up another paradigm/worldview. For example, to judge Christian "truths" by the standards of the sacred texts of the Buddhists (sutras) may not be an appropriate method. If you need to discern if a doctrine or presumption is flawed, it might be better to discuss it within the paradigm itself. Logic and reason might be good tools to use for such an exercise. (that is, if we are discussing the Islamic presumptions and paradigm)

[Tassman]

So you don't believe Scriptures are the history of an event.

The Bible is not a reliable historical source because it does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians, namely 'historical critical methodology'.