Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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.

There is absolutely nothing analogous between the concept of God taking on human nature and any concept you might find in Hellenistic mythology.

nature

There was no such thing as a "non-hellenistic" Jew during the time of Jesus.

non Hellenistic Jew

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 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.

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".

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,

true/correct

The above is barely relevant fluff.

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.

[mikewhitney]

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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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.

[mikewhitney]

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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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?

[mikewhitney]

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?

[Tassman]

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

[DesertBerean]

What was

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?

[Tassman]

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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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.

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.

The idea of the observant Jew can be ambiguous or problematic.

Would you care to elucidate?

The Messiah was sent to bring forgiveness of their sins

The Jewish Messiah does not forgive sin.

, so they needed to come to the Messiah to have that benefit. We also have to ask what they observed.

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.

Also, the Rabbinic Judaism was taking form at the time of Jesus

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

this especially was the form that had been rebuked by Jesus.

What form was this?

Or, were the only observant Jews those who had separated to Qumran?

That subject would constitute an thread devoted to it.

[Dan Zebiri]

Jesus explicitly claims to be the EXCLUSIVE Son of God in Matthew 11:27, a Synoptic Gospel: -
This is again echoed in another Synoptic Gospel, Luke 10:22:-
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.

Thank you much Hypatia. My response was for Esther. I was not intending that response as an opportunity for your conspiracy theory.

[mikewhitney]

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

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.

[Christian3]

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?

[JimL]

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.