Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?

[Thomas]

How so?

Christians before Christ? Exegetes have always allowed 'for the spirit to blow where it wills' (John 3:8) and Paul noted that men worship in good faith and with good heart, it is God they worship, whether they know it or not: "What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you" (acts 17:23).

Mmm .. many from the Sanhedrin wanted him out of the way.

Yes. The Jews wanted Him out of the way. Pilate wanted nothing to do with it – they forced his hand.

I doubt that is true for the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, before they were expelled.

OK. I think otherwise.

 

[juantoo3]

Christians before Christ? Exegetes have always allowed 'for the spirit to blow where it wills' (John 3:8) and Paul noted that men worship in good faith and with good heart, it is God they worship, whether they know it or not: "What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you" (acts 17:23).

Which corresponds directly to Romans 2

 

[muhammad_isa]

Paul noted that men worship in good faith and with good heart..

That doesn't make them Christians.

Yes. The Jews wanted Him out of the way...

Umm .. not all of the Jews .. only the privileged few.

 

[juantoo3]

Thus I hope you can see we honour the Sabbath in the spirit of its meaning and purpose.

I never questioned the Christian adapted meaning and purpose of the Sabbath

You mean someone tampered with Scripture?

No...and I'm surprised at you even bringing this up. That doesn't erase translational and cultural errors of understanding.

I don't know why you keep banging on about Constantine. Sunday was clearly a day of Christian observance long before Constantine.

And I don't know why you so casually dismiss Constantine. We will simply have to agree to disagree

As for Roman practice, again, irrelevant.

Perhaps to you. I find it all extremely relevant.

comme ci, comme ça

 

[Thomas]

That doesn't make them Christians.

In your book, perhaps, maybe not in His.

Umm .. not all of the Jews .. only the privileged few.

One might wonder if, among the crowds who welcomed Him into Jerusalem, there were the same people who later bayed for His execution. I like to think not, but human nature is as it is.

 

[juantoo3]

Yep. and saw Jesus as its fulfilment.

Fulfilment yes, dismissal no.

"We are no longer under the Law" does not mean the Old Testament is no longer to be considered - as I often hear from Christians, and is evident from the almost total lack of understanding or application.

The Hebrew Scriptures were written generations, in some cases centuries later. So were Buddhist Scriptures. This is a specious argument.

And the books of Moses were most likely not actually penned by Moses. However, the Gospels do purport to be accurate biographies of Jesus, and I think it is a crucial point of understanding that the New Testament DID NOT YET EXIST during the lifetime of Jesus, let alone most of His Apostles.

Wrong. They gathered on the Lord's Day, they celebrated their own Liturgy, had the Sacrament of the Eucharist ...

We will have to agree to disagree. I have laid out my case already that the Lord's Day and the Sabbath - especially at this early stage - were one and the same, only observed differently. For one, the Temple blood sacrifice was still in full effect.

Just as one more point to support my position...with the hundreds of times the word Lord is used in the OLD Testament, who exactly does that refer to? Jesus was not walking the Earth yet.

No you didn't, reread your Acts.

I might offer the same...with a focus on the argument between Paul and Peter.

You are content with institutional religion. And there is NOTHING wrong with that.

I am focused on what was actually taught, by whom, in what context. I will not allow you to tell me that what words came from Jesus' mouth are subject to the whims of men. There's enough of that already with textual criticism.

 

[Thomas]

I never questioned the Christian adapted meaning and purpose of the Sabbath

Then I don't see your problem.

No...and I'm surprised at you even bringing this up.

Really? The Sabbath dispute as a 'nitpik'? The Crucifixion as 'a little fracas'? 'ostensibly for an insult to Roman authority' – your attempts to dismiss Scripture is somewhat breath-taking.

And I don't know why you so casually dismiss Constantine.

I don't dismiss him at all, just keep him in context. The Lord's Day (Sunday) was well established before Constantine.

 

[Thomas]

Fulfilment yes, dismissal no.

Well, if you can't see it, you won't see it.

I am focused on what was actually taught, by whom, in what context.

Actually, I don't think you are. I think you've chosen your side and are not listening to the other. I don't ask you to agree, rather to understand. You seem unable to accept that our being right does not make you wrong.

As I see it, you're ignoring the import of Christ's words and deeds, and the theological significance with regard to the understanding and interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

And, to be fair, you raised the text criticism argument – it's the basis of your whole argument.

But, as you say, we disagree.

 

[RJM]

Christianity was indistinguishable from Judaism at the time of the Fall of the Temple. You had to be Jewish to even be a Christian...and ALL that entailed.

Paul didn't think so, and neither did Peter after a little thought on the subject, as reported in Acts 10:9-11:18 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 10:9-11:18&version=NIV

This revelation happened to Peter while Paul was still alive. Paul died in Rome under Nero in 64/65 about 30 years after the death of Christ -- before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and had been travelling and writing for many years prior to that. So if Christians were bound to circumcision and kosher observance it wasn't for very long after Christ's death and resurrection?

 

[juantoo3]

Really? The Sabbath dispute as a 'nitpik'? The Crucifixion as 'a little fracas'? 'ostensibly for an insult to Roman authority' – your attempts to dismiss Scripture is somewhat breath-taking.

You've known me how long? And you go here???

I have not at any time dismissed scripture. Yes, I was a wee bit sarcastic, not anywhere close to elicit such condemnation.

Like I said, wars have been started over much less...by 800 pound gorillas. That is why I usually keep my personal faithwalk quiet and to myself.

No man has authority over my soul.

 

[juantoo3]

Paul didn't think so, and neither did Peter after a little thought on the subject, as reported in Acts 10:9-11:18 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 10:9-11:18&version=NIV

This revelation happened to Peter while Paul was still alive. Paul died in Rome under Nero in 64/65 about 30 years after the death of Christ -- before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem So if Christians were bound to circumcision and kosher observance it wasn't for very long after Christ's death and resurrection?

I think Thomas and yourself are not fully grasping what I am trying to say here.

Context...Christianity in Jerusalem...corporate headquarters, headed up by James the Just. Peter was probably vice-pres, if you want to look at it that way. And in Jerusalem where Christianity started, the initial converts (the vast majority with only very minor exceptions) were Jewish already, and in Israel among the Jews where Christianity started Jewish rules prevailed, including all of the 613 Mitzvot. To be Christian in Jerusalem prior to...I will concede the argument and Peter's eyes being opened...meant being fully observant Jewish first. It was assumed.

This is a relevant argument defending against Mr Garaffa. If not for Paul...Christians today would have to be fully compliant with Judaism FIRST, and that is a sufficient handicap to why the Messianic Jewish churches were so easily pushed aside so early on. Bar Kochba was the catalyst, but mandated Kosher practices before even qualifying to become Christian was simply untenable to new recruits outside of Israel. Paul explained...legally...why that was not necessary. Notice I said "not necessary," not "no longer necessary." The reason it was not necessary is because the Gentiles were not subject to Kosher, therefor it never was necessary. In that point alone, the Jerusalem Church was mistaken, but it was an understandable mistake considering the culture and source.

 

[juantoo3]

You seem unable to accept that our being right does not make you wrong.

pots and kettles...I wonder if you can see the irony

I'd still buy you a beer.

 

[RJM]

Context...Christianity in Jerusalem...corporate headquarters, headed up by James the Just. Peter was probably vice-pres, if you want to look at it that way. And in Jerusalem where Christianity started, the initial converts (the vast majority with only very minor exceptions) were Jewish already, and in Israel among the Jews where Christianity started Jewish rules prevailed, including all of the 613 Mitzvot. To be Christian in Jerusalem prior to...I will concede the argument and Peter's eyes being opened...meant being fully observant Jewish first. It was assumed.

Which is why Paul is an essential part of the New Testament? Peter and presumably James quite soon came around to his universal Christianity, before the destruction of the temple. Before the gospels were completed. Those who insist Paul is irrelevant to the true message of Jesus, usually forget that it was Paul's interpretation that won the day, amongst the closest Apostles who had walked with Christ in the flesh?

(edited)

 

[Thomas]

pots and kettles...I wonder if you can see the irony
I'd still buy you a beer.

Actually, I can. and I'd still accept it.

 

[RJM]

I'd still buy you a beer.

@Thomas might prefer a 12 yr old Laphroaig?

 

[juantoo3]

Which is why Paul is an essential part of the New Testament? Peter and presumably James quite soon came around to his universal Christianity, before the destruction of the temple. Before the gospels were completed. Those who insist Paul is irrelevant to the true message of Jesus, usually forget that it was Paul's interpretation that won the day, amongst the closest Apostles who had walked with Christ in the flesh?

(edited)

I'm not certain there was sufficient time to make a genuine impact. If Jesus was executed circa 30ad, and the Temple was razed by the Romans circa 60ad, and Paul was executed in Rome, what? really close to 60ad, not sure when for Peter but it was soon after. I think John was exiled to Patmos around 75ad if memory serves. James was thrown from the roof of the Temple to his death not long before the Romans razed it.

The miracle is that Christianity survived at all through all of this turmoil. Christianity was essentially wiped out in Israel with the diaspora. Were it not for Paul's evangelizing, Christianity would not exist, absolutely not in any form we recognize today.

 

[juantoo3]

@Thomas might prefer a 12 yr old Laphroaig?

I would be good with that!

 

[RJM]

Temple was razed by the Romans circa 60ad

I think 70 AD is accepted? From Josephus The Jewish War?

 

[RJM]

logging off

 

[muhammad_isa]

Which is why Paul is an essential part of the New Testament? Peter and presumably James quite soon came around to his universal Christianity, before the destruction of the temple..

I don't see it in terms of "universal Christianity"..
I see it in terms of concessions .. concessions were made, such as not having to get circumsised,
in order to "join the fold".

It is not that the OT was cancelled ..there was no NT in those days.