Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?

DaoYin said:
In so much as it shapes your perception of reality, sure.

Yet, ultimately you are finite so it doesn't matter at all.
Click to expand...
Right .. I see that in the same way as "God has no need of our worship .. it is mankind who are in need".
 
Of course Haqq is a name for God.

Rather, God has the quality of being the truth.

John 4:24 again.
 
All are to have Ruh Allah upon them.

The Wali did, but the Sunnah hates them for it.

It's not ok.
 
This is the wish of Numbers 11:29

Again, how precisely does moving by the Spirit differ from being a divine incarnation?

1 John 4:1-6 touches on this... what is in us?

Mostly it's related in my mind because of the title of the section, the only direct relation is another statement of God within us.

This is already there in Ephesians 4:6, John 17:26, and 1 Corinthians 6:19... ourselves becoming the trinity in one.

1 John 5:7
 
Last edited:
Again note Galatians 3:20

God needs no mediator because God is one.

"Verily Allah is closer to you than your jugular vein"

It is the underlying reality of everything including the form you call "me" which happens to include this part of your neck.

That is the Spirit.
 
Short recap:
"Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?"
Answer: Yes, although quite how that was understood and defined is a subsequent issue.
 
Thomas, Thank you for this thread.
Was this your own research?

The Trinity: Genesis of a doctrine

Elsewhere @muhammad_isa said: Yes .. the Arian conflict was all about the trinity... This theological construct which was first established in the Roman church at Nicea still haunts us today. This is factually wrong on three points: The first is that the conflict was not about the Trinity – not...
www.interfaith.org www.interfaith.org
 
OupaPiet said:
Was this your own research?

The Trinity: Genesis of a doctrine

Elsewhere @muhammad_isa said: Yes .. the Arian conflict was all about the trinity... This theological construct which was first established in the Roman church at Nicea still haunts us today. This is factually wrong on three points: The first is that the conflict was not about the Trinity – not...
www.interfaith.org www.interfaith.org
Click to expand...
Yes. Probably pulled from all over ...
 
Yahweh kid said:
So who did they believe Jesus is?
Click to expand...
..depends which group of Christians you refer to..

Adoptionism, Arianism, Docetism, Ebionites, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism and of
course Trinitarianism were among various beliefs/creeds.

..and as we know, Trintarianism was eventually enforced by Roman rulers, declaring any other
creed as heretical and punishable.
 
muhammad_isa said:
..depends which group of Christians you refer to..
Click to expand...
That's true.

Adoptionism – believes Jesus became God, being born human, but adopted and deified by God the Father at His baptism.

Arianism – believes that Jesus is God, but unlike the Unbegotten or Uncreated Father, 'there was a time when he was not', and that the Son was begotten of the Father.
"but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning." ( Theodoret: Arius's Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia).

Docetism – believes Jesus was God, but not human, that his was a spiritual substance and only appeared to be flesh and blood.

Marcionism – believes similar to Docetism.

Ebionites – believe, like adoptionists, that Jesus was human but adopted by God at His baptism.

Gnosticism – that's a whole other ballgame. Different schools have different ideas, but generally Jesus is a Divine Being of Light, sent into the world to lead humanity from darkness.

Montanism – arose in the late 2nd century as a belief in the New Prophecies delivered by Montanus and his two female colleagues, Prisca and Maximilla, claiming inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Their followers claimed they were part of a prophetic succession originating with the daughters of Philip the Evangelist.

muhammad_isa said:
Trintarianism was eventually enforced by Roman rulers, declaring any other creed as heretical and punishable.
Click to expand...

Old ground, but just for balance, a brief look at the allegiance of the Roman emperors:
Constantine the Great 306-337 – Nicene, but baptised by an Arian bishop.
(Now we have eras of co-emperors, east and west, and immediately now, three co-rulers:)
337-340CE Constantine II – Nicene
337-350CE Constans – Nicene – although thought largely to aggravate Constantius.
337-361CE Constantius II – Arian
Constantius exiled Nicene bishops, and when sole emperor (355CE) extended his pro-Arian policy to the western provinces with force, exiling Pope Liberius and installing Antipope Felix II.

At the Arian Third Council of Sirmium in 357CE led to dissent within the ranks and three camps evolved to oppose the Nicene Creed.

The first rejected Arius and his teaching and accepted the equality and co-eternality of the persons of the Trinity (Semi-Arian).
The second avoided invoking the name of Arius, but in large part followed Arius's teachings and described the Son as being like the Father.
The third group explicitly invoked Arius and described the Son as unlike the Father.
(Constantius wavered in his support between the first and the second party, while harshly persecuting the third.)

The debates among these groups resulted in numerous synods, in 343, 358 and two in 359, with no fewer than 14 further creeds issued between 340 and 360, leading a pagan commentator to declare "The highways were covered with galloping bishops."

Saint Jerome famous wrote of this time that the world "awoke with a groan to find itself Arian."

361-363CE Julian – pagan in favour of Hellenic Neoplatonism (aka Julian the Apostate / Julian the Philosopher)
Julian declared no favour either way and allowed all exiled bishops to return, increasing dissent all round.

363-364CE – Jovian – generally pro-Christian without bias.
364-375CE – Valentinian I – again even-handed with regard to Christianity.
364-378CE Valens – Arian – revived Constantius's persecution of Nicene believers.
379-395CE Theodosius – orthodox.

381CE Council of Constantinople declares a Triune creed.
Theodisius emerged as sole emperor and pro Nicene, although he appointed pagans to high offices of state.

So after Constantine what we see is a brief era of pro-Nicene orthodoxy in half the empire, then either Arian or not bothered, until Theodosius.

What is clear is that the emperors tried but could not settle the Nicene/Arian dispute in their favour (peace at any price) and that Arianism failed in the empire because it broke into factions and wore itself out.

Nicene orthodoxy won because it remained constant across the period in question.

Meanwhile, across borders, Arianism's flowering under Constantius saw Gothic convert and Arian bishop Ulfilas on a mission to the Gothic tribes across the Danube. The Goths were converted to Arianism, which spread among other Germanic tribes – Vandals, Langobards, Svevi, and Burgundians). When these tribes invaded the Western Roman Empire they founded their own Arian kingdoms.

In these kingdoms arose separate Arian and Nicene Churches, with parallel hierarchies, each serving different sets of believers. The Germanic elites were Arians, the majority population was Nicene. There was a general policy of toleration between Christians that included the Jews.

Towards the end of the 5th century, Arianism was giving way to Trinitarian orthodoxy, and ceased to have any meaningful presence by the 8th.
 
Thomas said:
Arianism – believes that Jesus is God, but unlike the Unbegotten or Uncreated Father, 'there was a time when he was not', and that the Son was begotten of the Father.
Click to expand...
No .. not G-d .. the SON of G-d.

Not the same thing at all. I know it is to you. :)

Thomas said:
Ebionites – believe, like adoptionists, that Jesus was human but adopted by God at His baptism.
Click to expand...
No .. they did not believe he was G-d.

Thomas said:
..Nicene orthodoxy won because it remained constant across the period in question.
Click to expand...
Not a good reason for becoming "the truth". ;)

I don't see any point in me giving a lengthy reply, as we don't seem to agree on the very
basic difference.
i.e. Jesus is not G-d .. not the Father (for Arians and Ebionites in particular)
 
Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born,to us a son is given;and the government shall be upon his shoulder,and his name shall be calledWonderful Counselor, Mighty God,Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Who would this son be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top