Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?

harmonicat said:
And Trinity is the most divisive doctrine in Christianity today!
Click to expand...
Just a general point:

Non-Trinitarian denominations, or whatever, form a small percentage of Christians, nearly all are relatively young, and nearly all were founded out of religion as a commercial enterprises in the US.

Therefore, logically, the 'divisive' element are the recent non-Trinitarian ones ...
 
I think that 1 John 5:7 clarifies something about the trinity.

It is erroneous to make the form of Jesus part of it, only what was made flesh in Jesus should be.

Jesus very much came into the world at a given time thus it is foolish to make him in particular eternal.

At the same time the divinity of Jesus would have been quite a common thing for people back then, they were prepared to accept this because it was also the goal of their own religions already.

Not only this it's quite clear we are to take on that divinity ourselves, which is the only real evidence of his divinity imo.

We also see in the Gnostic texts that this was even more emphasized by the non-literalists, and perhaps we can even go so far as to say the organizations limited insight from the Spirit to utilize the beliefs for their own power.

There is no valid basis for suggesting anything but our divinity is the goal of the covenant of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
Just a general point:

Non-Trinitarian denominations, or whatever, form a small percentage of Christians, nearly all are relatively young, and nearly all were founded out of religion as a commercial enterprises in the US.

Therefore, logically, the 'divisive' element are the recent non-Trinitarian ones ...
Click to expand...
I don't agree with that .. it assumes that the majority of "Early Christians" were Trinitarians,
which is highly debatable.

Furthermore, those Christians who embrace Islam would not be deemed "Christians" anymore
by Orthodox Trinitarians.
This is why it is so divisive.
 
muhammad_isa said:
I don't agree with that .. it assumes that the majority of "Early Christians" were Trinitarians,
which is highly debatable.

Furthermore, those Christians who embrace Islam would not be deemed "Christians" anymore
by Orthodox Trinitarians.
This is why it is so divisive.
Click to expand...

Certainly I think that early Christians were more focused on oneness than labels.

For me what unites Christians and Muslims is the Neoplatonism that shapes their mysticism, at an exoteric level they have always fought.
 
muhammad_isa said:
I don't agree with that .. it assumes that the majority of "Early Christians" were Trinitarians,
which is highly debatable.

Furthermore, those Christians who embrace Islam would not be deemed "Christians" anymore
by Orthodox Trinitarians.
This is why it is so divisive.
Click to expand...


Within the Sufi's for instance the "Light of Muhammad" takes the place of Logos in their trinity.

In Neoplatonism the triad is Monad, Nous, and Psyche but these are easily mappable to not just Christian and Muslim thought but even Hinduism and other traditions...

If are you insistent on a given expression conflict is unavoidable, but if you are more flexible in your understanding it starts to become difficult to tell the difference between traditions... mostly it's just a difference of language eventually.

This is largely being lost today, the strictest adherents do not admit outside influence.

In reality they have all constantly interacted and influenced each other, we do not give enough credit to the capacity of the ancients to travel widely and share ideas.
 
In Hinduism it is most directly Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagwan... the transcendent, universally imminent, and particular incarnation...

In Buddhism the Trikaya gives the same triad through Dharmakaya, Samboghakaya, and Nirmanakaya...

At a certain point if you care about inclusivity you have to accept this basic metaphysics...

My personal favorite expression of it is Shiva, Shakti, and Siddha.

There is no actual difference though.
 
Last edited:
Ruh and Nafs are the same in Islam, but Allah is considered transcendent even though it has attributes.

It's less clean.

At the same time Father has attributes, while the feminine aspect of God in Judaism is called Shekhina... in Christianity her name is Sarah.

This is a function of Galatians 4:21-31, those born of the Spirit have Sarah as their mother... just as Tara is the mother of the Buddhas, and in Hinduism is accepted as the mother of Narayana and Vishnu in some texts. Similarly Isis is the mother of Horus, who worked with Thoth to restore Ma'at from the seed of Osiris... it is a common theme.

Shiva, Shakti, Siddha is my favorite because it's the most inclusive.
 
It also has the connotation that Shakti is the power of Shiva and Siddha is his form... thus an inherent oneness is established.
 
I've been to a meeting of new Muslims, who were predominately black, and heard them
talking amongst themselves "What's that white man doing here?" :)

I've been to a non-denominational Christian meeting, and when it was revealed I was a Muslim,
I was attacked by a C of E priest for not believing that Jesus was God.

etc. etc.
 
DaoYin said:
There is no valid basis for suggesting anything but our divinity is the goal of the covenant of Jesus.
Click to expand...
No. If more time was spent actually studying what Jesus said rather than manipulating the text to fit your belief you would never say that. Glory belongs to the Father and Jesus shares it with His Father. Jesus said He is the way the Truth and the Life noone comes to the Father except through Him. Noone else. Nothing else. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Noone else. Nothing else.

Putting Jesus in your box of every path leads to God is nothing like the Jesus of the bible. Christianity is intolerant.

Matthew 10:34-36
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

You can add every other religion or belief to that box of yours but trying to fit Christianity into it does not work unless you only accept 10% of what is written. That's not Christianity that is false teaching and deception. IMO

Edit to add that I'm trying to redirect this thread to the OP
 
muhammad_isa said:
I've been to a meeting of new Muslims, who were predominately black, and heard them
talking amongst themselves "What's that white man doing here?" :)

I've been to a non-denominational Christian meeting, and when it was revealed I was a Muslim,
I was attacked by a C of E priest for not believing that Jesus was God.

etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Attacked is a strong word. It suggests violence. I hope that's not what happened.. if so I'm sorry.
 
muhammad_isa said:
I've been to a meeting of new Muslims, who were predominately black, and heard them
talking amongst themselves "What's that white man doing here?" :)

I've been to a non-denominational Christian meeting, and when it was revealed I was a Muslim,
I was attacked by a C of E priest for not believing that Jesus was God.

etc. etc.
Click to expand...

The Quran says Ruh Allah is upon him.

Explain the difference between this and being divine, I don't understand.
 
The only real difference between the traditions as I see it is that Islam is about obedience while the New Testament teaches how to move by the Spirit yourself.

There is no difference with the Sufi's but they were killed for saying Jesus was their messenger.

Why does Islam kill its Wali in favor of the Imam?
 
Don't get me wrong Christians make the same mistake, indeed the Protestants reject the Saints as a tradition of men... ironically rejecting the tradition passed down for an actual tradition of men...

The Catholics rejected theosis for almost a thousand years so for that period their so called saints are useless, but the Orthodox traditions still required you to know God to speak on theology.

The Western tradition thinks it just as blasphemous as the Muslim to actually live truth.
 
muhammad_isa said:
..verbally attacked .. I just told him I wasn't interested in discussing it.
That's not what I was there for. i.e. to establish a doctrine
Click to expand...

It is certainly better to know the truth than just uphold beliefs as it...

Never the less there actually are facts about truth, and thus wrong statements about it.

To deny this is to ignore truth as real or knowable.
 
Your opinion actually doesn't matter.

If your opinions are too contrary to truth you will be miserable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top