Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?

[Cino]

Can't a theocracy be a democracy also?

The most important thing is the integrity of those involved.

By what standard would you measure integrity within a theocratic state? The Christian Democrats of my country are currently facing multiple corruption charges. Luckily they are just the ruling party in a mostly secular state, and not the religious party ruling by heavenly decree in a theocracy.

Historically, theocratic states tend to become oppressive. See all the Calvinist attempts, the Puritans in the North American colonies, the various mandates from heaven, the Papal states, Monk-ruled Tibet, Taliban rule in Afghanistan, ... state religion is bad enough, a religious state is my nightmare vision.

 

[muhammad_isa]

By what standard would you measure integrity within a theocratic state?

I suppose it depends what is meant by theocracy?
I am not referring to people ruling by military force who's ambition is "to rule the world".

The Christian Democrats of my country are currently facing multiple corruption charges. Luckily they are just the ruling party in a mostly secular state, and not the religious party ruling by heavenly decree in a theocracy.

What do you mean by "heavenly decree"? It doesn't sound much like a democracy.
It sounds more like people claiming "I'm right, and I don't care what you think, you have to do what I say!"
That is not a democracy. Anybody can behave like that, whatever their religious persuasion.

Historically, theocratic states tend to become oppressive. See all the Calvinist attempts, the Puritans in the North American colonies, the various mandates from heaven, the Papal states, Monk-ruled Tibet, Taliban rule in Afghanistan, ... state religion is bad enough, a religious state is my nightmare vision.

My "nightmare" is deception and corruption. You are right that human history is marred by conflict and violence.
Civilisations rise and fall. That is due to our imperfect nature.
You see the corruption from past "theocracies" [ and so do I ], but isn't it really a misnomer?
Can't atheists rule in a similar fashion, behaving badly towards others, abusing their position of being in a majority?

 

[Cino]

Can't atheists rule in a similar fashion, behaving badly towards others, abusing their position of being in a majority?

Absolutely. There is plenty of precedent. That's why I like secular liberal democracy so much better than belief-system based democracy. Fewer taboos, and the religious beliefs of a particular group are not preferred over those of any other. It's the ideal, at least. But it's a better ideal in my opinion than that of a theocracy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I like secular liberal democracy so much better than belief-system based democracy..

Democracy is democracy
Isn't it more about national constitutions?

eg. In the 1st United States Congress, following the state legislatures' request, James Madison proposed twenty constitutional amendments, and his proposed draft of the First Amendment[US] read as follows:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Constitutions can be changed. They are fluid.
In many parts of the world, we have military coups designed to "put in their man" and amend constitutions.

If we have a democratic government that proclaims it rules on behalf of God, as specified by some religion, there can
certainly be problems. I would not agree that it is always a bad thing, but if it is not endorsed by the general public, then yes .. it is bad.

 

[Thomas]

Morning all – I found this, which throws an interesting sidelight on the topic in question:
"Prior to Nicea, did most early Christians accept the divinity of the Son? Or did they not?"

The following is an précis of part of an essay written by Dr. E.R. Goodenough (1893–1965), a scholar in the history of religion. He studied at Drew Theological Seminary, Harvard University and Oxford University (D.Phil. 1923). He taught at Yale University from 1923 until he retired in 1962.

Goodenough championed the idea that within the Gospel of John are some of the earliest, 'primitive', Christian materials, pre-dating the Synoptics and Paul. There appears to be some shift in contemporary scholarship to support this thesis, I'm still hunting round for sources.

The Mystical Vine in the Gospel of John:

"I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman" (15:1)
"I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing." (15:5)

The analogy of the vine accords with John's vision of Jesus as Logos. It is not that Jesus is the trunk and we the branches, the concept is a more mystical one, that Jesus is the vine in its entirety, and we are branches in the vine, parts of a greater whole, not whose source but whose totality is Jesus.

The analogy offers a significant difficulty. A popular theme in Christian art, the Church made little or no use of it to describe the corpus Christianum ('the Christian body'). The official figure of the Church is not the vine but Paul's 'head and members'...

MY ASIDE: The Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi of Pope Pius XII (1943), mentions the figure of the vine just twice, and both times wraps it in the extended metaphor of Jesus the head and we the body; I say 'extended' because when Paul speaks of this mystical body of the Church he does not distinguish between head and members – we are all one body in Him – "So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." (Romans 12:50), "For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:17), or as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ." (1 Corinthians 12:12), "For in one Spirit were we all baptised into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink." (1 Corinthians 12:13) "But now there are many members indeed, yet one body." (1 Corinthians 12:20).

Nowhere, when Paul speaks of this 'one bread, one body', does he mark Christ as its head. I labour this point because the figure offers the same 'significant difficulty' as implied in the Johannine figure of the vine, and one which the pedagogy of the Church glosses over by rolling the Pauline 'head' and the Pauline 'body' into one, which in fact the apostle does not. Anyway ...

TO CONTINUE:
The 'significant difficulty' is that an exegesis of the parable might lead one to assume John is suggesting pantheism.

The Logos in which we are all members is a Stoic conception, but in John the vine is Logos in a NeoPlatonic, rather than Stoic, form. Since the Logos-vine is not itself the Ultimate. God the Father is the 'husbandman' cultivating the vine, the Father is not himself the vine, as He would be to a Stoic.

The vine of John is an adaption of the Stoic Logos to Platonic thinking (a commonplace in Philo, although Philo never deployed the image of the vine as one of his numerous analogies). John is most likely to have adopted a an image already known in Judaism, even though not in Philo. Scholars recall that Israel was often compared to a vine in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that this is the most likely source of the Johannine image.

The sixth chapter, with its long insistence upon the necessity of eating the flesh and drinking the blood show the members of John's community were devout communicants who believed in the real presence. He lost not a few of His followers after these 'outrageous' statements. It marks a low point in His mission, and the pathos of what follows is clear:

"After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God." (v67-69) This marks the turning point. From here on, His course is Jerusalem. John notes: "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him." (7:1) The crime could only be blasphemy.

The Early Church did not just believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and God, they believed that by partaking in the Mystical Meal they would be entering into a Divine Union with God.

 

[RJM]

"I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing." (15:5)

I’m aware that Christ spoke the parable of the vine in relation to himself and his disciples. But I am taking it out of that context as an analogy of how the unbegotten vine and the begotten branches are of the same being and substance? Although the branch could not exist without the vine, it is also evident that the branch is inherent in the vine, at its origin, and that without the branch the vine would be useless to produce fruit?

It is not a perfect analogy but, for those who object that the whole concept is impossible and illogical, it perhaps helps present a mental idea of the Son begotten of the unbegotten Father, but before time began?

The Early Church did not just believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and God, they believed that by partaking in the Mystical Meal they would be entering into a Divine Union with God.

I agree that the early eucharistic ritual (already practiced in Rome by AD 60) is evidence that Christians at that time regarded Christ as divine (in His own right)

 

[Thomas]

But I am taking it out of that context as an analogy of how the unbegotten vine and the begotten branches are of the same being and substance?

Interesting question ... I'd say the minds in those times were far more open to the idea of the Divine. Of the Eucharist Augustine famously said "Be what you see; receive what you are" (Sermon 272).

It's a Union? The Son's divinity was the same as the Father's – the Divine Nature the same, whilst His human nature and substance is the same as ours. You and me and him and her are four different humans, but one human in nature and substance. The spiritual soul permeates the material body.

Although the branch could not exist without the vine, it is also evident that the branch is inherent in the vine, at its origin, and that without the branch the vine would be useless to produce fruit?

As long as we assert the free act of God in creating the vine, that is to say God is not lesser without the vine ...

I agree that the early eucharistic ritual (already practiced in Rome by AD 60) is evidence that Christians at that time regarded Christ as divine (in His own right)

Agreed, and that we participate by invitation in that Divinity.

 

[RJM]

the Mystical Meal

The 'Pure Meal' was also an Essene practice, with priestly blessing upon the bread and wine.

"And after this purification is over, they every one meet together in an apartment of their own, into which it is not permitted to any of another sect to enter; while they go, after a pure manner, into the dining-room, as into a certain holy temple...

And when the table has been prepared for eating, and the grape drink for drinking, the Priest shall be the first to stretch out his hand to bless the first bread and new wine …

After he (the novice) has entered the Council of the Community he shall not touch the pure Meal of the Congregation until one full year is completed, and until he has been examined concerning his spirit and deeds; nor shall he have any share of the property of the Congregation.

Then, when he has completed one year within the Community... And if it be his destiny...to enter the company, his property and earnings shall be handed over to the Bursar of the Congregation who shall register it to his account and shall not spend it for the Congregation. He shall not touch the Drink of the Congregation until he has completed a second year among the men of the Community.

But when the second year has passed, he shall be examined, and if it be his destiny...to enter the Community, then he shall be inscribed among his brethren in the order of his rank for the Law, and for justice, and for the pure Meal; his property shall be merged and he shall offer his counsel and judgment to the Community …"

(The Essene Community Rule)
https://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/361_Transp/JosephusQumran.html

I find the Essene connection interesting

 

[muhammad_isa]

If anybody is interested in the subject of the OP, I've come across this link..
https://ehrmanblog.org/post-archive-by-list/

One thesis in the list is about "Why Do Smart People Make Stupid Arguments?"

Apparently, it refers to a Muslim in this case.

+ + + + + + +

"It is only by defining scholarship on his own terms and by excluding scholars who disagree with him that Ehrman is able to imply that he is supported by all other scholarship."

Yes, quite likely..
It's a pretty bad argument to suggest you are right because of scholarship, imo.
One needs to present coherent arguments.
I find the gospel of truth, and the gospel of Thomas as significant finds.
They shouldn't be ignored in a genuine quest to determine truth on this topic, imo.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It seems to me that we are back to this argument of whether "Early Christians" were
subordinationists or not.
i.e. Did they consider that the divinity of the Father, was greater than that of the Son, OR NOT?

6. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
- Matthew 6 -

6. Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
- Corinthians 8 -

25. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.
- Mark 11

 

[RJM]

It's a pretty bad argument to suggest you are right because of scholarship, imo.
One needs to present coherent arguments.

And even worse argument to insist you are right in spite of scholarship to the contrary? The whole business of scholarship is to present coherent arguments backed by evidence? A little learning is a dangerous thing, imo

 

[RJM]

It seems to me that we are back to this argument of whether "Early Christians" were
subordinationists or not.
i.e. Did they consider that the divinity of the Father, was greater than that of the Son, OR NOT?

6. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
- Matthew 6 -

6. Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
- Corinthians 8 -

25. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.
- Mark 11

It's already been addressed:

The ancient Jesus Prayer says: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."
Jesus forgave sins.

IMO it is clear that, whether or not they have always done so -- Christians do pray directly to Jesus, in expectation that Christ has the power to answer prayer. However, when they pray to Jesus, it is with the understanding that it is the Father who answers prayer, however that the Father has granted Christ complete authority. Jesus Christ does not have to intercede or mediate with the Father for authority, because He already has been granted that -- Before All Ages?

Jesus in earliest Christian prayer
(edit: I've only scanned the above pdf, but offer it for deeper reading)

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19673/ #10

 

[muhammad_isa]

The whole business of scholarship is to present coherent arguments backed by evidence?

Yes, agreed.
..but claiming "scholarship" as an argument to prove you are right, is not really an argument at all .. is it?

It's already been addressed

I'm sorry?
What is the argument you are making here exactly?
Is Hurtado saying that early Christians believed that Jesus is God?

 

[RJM]

I'm sorry?
What is the argument you are making here exactly? Is Hurtado saying that early christians believed that Jesus is God?

... Christians do pray directly to Jesus, in expectation that Christ has the power to answer prayer. However, when they pray to Jesus, it is with the understanding that it is the Father who answers prayer, however that the Father has granted Christ complete authority. Jesus Christ does not have to intercede or mediate with the Father for authority, because He already has been granted that -- Before All Ages ...

Hurtado is definitely saying that many of them did pray to Jesus directly, and I have tried above to clarify the terms of that. It is courtesy to capitalize 'Christians' in writing. The same courtesy is always extended to members of your own faith

 

[muhammad_isa]

Hurtado is definitely saying that many of them did pray to Jesus directly..

in that ref. he says:

"It seems to me fully plausible that these practices involved actually naming Jesus as the one through whom and/or in whose name prayer was offered."

I have already agreed with the above. That doesn't change those Bible verses that I quoted.
Ehrman talks about a proto-orthodox Christianity
that was "going to become dominant in the 4th century, held by people before the 4th century"

He argues that it was not dominant before then. I agree with him.

 

[muhammad_isa]

However,
from what I can gather Ehrman agrees..

“yes, now I agree that Jesus is portrayed as a divine being, a God-man, in all the Gospels. But in very different ways, depending on which Gospel you read.”

Of course, that doesn't mean that he holds no informed opinions of why that may be so.
At the end of the day, we have people believing in an eternal God and claiming different things.
We can take an intellectual approach .. we can take an emotional approach..
..we can take a traditional approach or a combination of these.

The most important thing, imo, is for us not to deny logical truths.
Mankind always has and always will, unfortunately.

 

[Thomas]

"It seems to me fully plausible that these practices involved actually naming Jesus as the one through whom and/or in whose name prayer was offered."

Well that would fit in with early Christian liturgical practice, and the Liturgy came before the Scripture.

It seems to me that we are back to this argument of whether "Early Christians" were
subordinationists or not: i.e. Did they consider that the divinity of the Father, was greater than that of the Son, OR NOT?

I doubt they asked that question.

It seems to me that common sense would suggest they saw the Father in relation to the Son as they did human fathers in relation to human sons. Fathers are 'greater' because they are father, but they are not different in substance or nature to their sons; fathers and sons are the same human substance, human nature. Thus, they would seem to me they would assume the Father and the Son as having the same Divinity.

Technical 'subordinationist' questions – of substance, nature, being, etc., – is the kind of hair-splitting that theologians and philosophers got into, it's not the kind of thing the man-in-the-street would think about, and probably frown at with incomprehension.

And again, here we see the problem of Hebrew theological speculation colliding with an Hellenic love of systems. What's the old saw? Two Jews, three opinions? I'm sure there were many and varied opinions about just who Jesus was. Each Gospel offers its own. Paul offers another.

The history of orthodoxy emerges as a means of encompassing the most and ruling out the least ... it really is quite remarkable in that sense ... It's a flaw of them bloomin' Greeks who insist on 'philosophy' as a means of explaining the 'mystery'

The most important thing, imo, is for us not to deny logical truths.

Ah, but who's logic? There's the rub.

Revelation is by its very nature transcends logic – if it didn't, man would have arrived at the understanding under his own steam.

There is the story: Two men disputing a verse in the text asked Ubay ibn Ka'b to mediate, and he disagreed with them, coming up with a third reading. To resolve the question, the three went to Muhammad. He asked first one-man to read out the verse, and announced it was correct. He made the same response when the second alternative reading was delivered. He then asked Ubay to provide his own recital, and, on hearing the third version, Muhammad also pronounced it ‘Correct!’. Noting Ubay's perplexity and inner thoughts, Muhammad then told him, ‘Pray to God for protection from the accursed Satan.’

 

[RJM]

"It seems to me fully plausible that these practices involved actually naming Jesus as the one through whom and/or in whose name prayer was offered."

Imo it goes a step further than that. Jesus, in Christian prayer from the earliest times, is not simply a mediator before the Father. Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary to mediate with the Son, and they pray to saints to mediate before God, but they pray to Jesus directly – in the sense already described:

Christians ... pray directly to Jesus, in expectation that Christ has the power to answer prayer. However, when they pray to Jesus, it is with the understanding that it is the Father who answers prayer, however that the Father has granted Christ complete authority. Jesus Christ does not have to intercede or mediate with the Father for authority, because He already has been granted that -- Before All Ages?

Jesus in earliest Christian prayer

“As noted already, in the NT prayers are most often portrayed as addressed to God. Moreover, the prayer-appeals to and acclamations of Jesus that we have considered are not presented in the NT texts as an alternative to prayer to God, certainly not any competition or threat to the latter. Instead, Jesus is co-recipient or direct recipient of prayers, invocations and liturgical acclamations as the unique Son and Lord affirmed by God (“the Father”) who shares in the name and glory of God … That is, Jesus is appealed to, invoked and acclaimed in obedience to the one God who has exalted Jesus and now demands that he be reverenced … and so as responses to God’s glorification of Jesus. That is, the inclusion of Jesus in devotional practice is done in the context of this understanding of Jesus’ relationship to God and God’s purposes.
P17


But if Jesus is reverenced with reference to God, it is also true, and highly significant, that prayers to, and the worship of, God in the NT are typically offered with reference to Jesus. NT discourse about “God” includes programmatic references to Jesus (and also to the Spirit), and even more so the devotional practices of prayer and worship have a “dyadic shape”, worship of the one God very much re–configured (in comparison with the Jewish religious matrix) with reference to Jesus
P18


Indeed, the early Christian appeal to God as “Father” seems to have been heavily shaped by and based in the conviction that Jesus is God’s unique Son, and in Jesus’ relationship to God as his Father. This is illustrated, for example, in Paul’s statements about believers addressing God as “Abba, Father” under the impulse of the Spirit of God who is also “the Spirit of Christ” … and “the Spirit of his [God’s] Son” … As reflected in other NT texts, for believers God is Father particularly because he is “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” … a striking re–designation of God when compared with Jewish traditional references to “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
P19

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then the atheists have it..
Trinitarians and non-trinitarians believe in different gods.

It's Father v trinity..
Let's take a vote .. that will sort it out. Who's for brexit, and who's isn't?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . och aye the noo!