Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?

As an addendum, if one is going to continue insisting Roman Emperors shaped Christianity:

The Ecthesis of Emperor Heraclius (issued 638) was an imperial compromise in an attempt to end all Christological dispute. The patriarchs of the Eastern Empire agreed, but Pope Severinus condemned the Ecthesis outright, and so was forbidden his seat until 640. His successor Pope John IV also rejected the doctrine completely, leading to a major schism between the eastern and western halves of the orthodox church.

Emperor Constans II, fearing the religious divine within the Byzantine Empire, needed to rebuild his forces to stand off the Arab incursions, and so required unanimity. He issued an imperial edict, the Typos in 648. This edict made it illegal to discuss Christology. He declared that the whole controversy was to be forgotten.

In Rome, the Latern Council (649) under Pope Martin I, condemned both the Ecthesis and the Typos. Pope Martin wrote to Constans and told him so.

The situation between the emperor and Rome deteriorated thereafter, as it became clear Rome would not bow to imperial pressure. Nor was the discussion of Christology silenced ...
 
Thomas said:
No, they didn't, which the two examples above testify.
Click to expand...
Those examples refer to events in the 7th. century .. and the differences between Oriental Orthodox
and Catholic. The literal "Divinity of Christ", was already established .. it was the details that
remained controversial.
eg. fully human, fully God etc.

..and nobody really knows .. it becomes more of an ego trip and political than anything else. :)
 
Faithfulservant said:
Attacked is a strong word. It suggests violence. I hope that's not what happened.. if so I'm sorry.
Click to expand...


I was fortunate to have just the opposite experience to @muhammad_isa .

I used to live near a large house that I often heard singing from on Saturday eves. I really enjoyed the singing, which I found uplifting. So, one of those evenings I decided to go into the house(the door was open) and found large group of people who were singing Gospel songs. So, I sat down and stayed until they finished singing.
At the end, everyone turned to their neighbour and shook hands and wished each other well(I don't remember the exact words, this was in 1976), so I just wished them a good week and left with everyone else.

It was only when I was walking home, that I realised I was the only non-black person in the room.
 
This morning I just searched the internet for interesting things, and I came upon the Meggido Mosaic.
It dates from 230 to perhaps the latest 280 AD.
It has the wording, The God Jesus Christ.
Now, if this Mosaic was at Meggido in 230, it would mean that, 100 years before the Nicean creed ...well, Christians believed in a creed that Jesus is God!
Great, anyone who said Constantine the Great came up with the idea, should go back to all their posts and delete it.
The Mosaic will be exhibited at the Bible museum for all to see.
www.museumofthebible.org

The Megiddo Mosaic: Foundations of Faith | Museum of the Bible

Explore the Megiddo Mosaic, a beautifully preserved floor dedicated to the worship of “God Jesus Christ” from the oldest site of Christian worship in the world.
www.museumofthebible.org www.museumofthebible.org
 
Thomas said:
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.
Click to expand...
what do you mean by "out of religion as commercial enterprises"
 
Faithfulservant said:
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?
Click to expand...
Do we know how Jewish rabbis have interpreted this verse? @RabbiO would know
 
muhammad_isa said:
Modern groups which currently appear to embrace some of the principles of Arianism include Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses. Although the origins of their beliefs are not necessarily attributed to the teachings of Arius, many of the core beliefs of Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses are very similar to them.
Arianism - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Probably Christadelphians too. And the surviving spinoffs of the Armstrong churches, though there is something more like Binitarianism going on there.
 
Thomas said:
No, here you misunderstand Arius – he believed and taught that the Son – begotten of the Father – was a divine being, but not co-eternal with the Father, nor of the same (eternal) substance or (eternal) essence, but a unique divine substance/essence called into existence before all time and all creation, and through whom and by whom the world was made, the Son being the Logos of the Father.
Click to expand...
Where do they get the information that helps them determine the eternality or the substance of God or the "persons" of God?
Doesn't all of this get very far from Judaism and their theory of God? Why did that seem wise?
 
TheLightWithin said:
what do you mean by "out of religion as commercial enterprises"
Click to expand...
Unlike Europe, the United States allowed a different approach to religion – anyone can start one.

Some of the emerging denominations came firstly as publishing houses of religious tracts ... but I would be remiss if I were to say that all new denominations were commercially inspired, that is, in it for profit. So yes, I backtrack from suggesting that.

The unfortunate aspect, I suppose, is television evangelism and some 'megachurches' that seem to encourage people to invest in the church as a means of spiritual or even financial reward.
 
TheLightWithin said:
The first paragraph seems to be saying the teachings came from Jesus through the apostles. Though it is not clear if they are meaning to be quoting Jesus? Or if these are the early formal teachings of the church?
Click to expand...
The Didache is not scripture, it's more like a very early catechism.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Where do they get the information that helps them determine the eternality or the substance of God or the "persons" of God?
Click to expand...
Basically from the Biblical arguments of the Eternity of God – the idea that God 'was' before the world was made, and 'will be' after the world has gone. Further that God did not emerge from something (or nothing) – the argument of infinite regress ('What was before God?').

Psalm 89: "Before the mountains were made, or the earth and the world was formed; from eternity and to eternity thou art God."

The idea of 'time' or any aspect of 'duration' belongs to the created order and not to the divine. God is always present everywhere, all the time, often spoken of as 'the eternal now', although this is of course figurative, as in fact there is just the imutable Is-ness of the Divine which is not subject to any kind of spacial or temporal modification or delineation.

So if Jesus is the Logos of God, that Logos is not other than God, and thus enjoys the same qualities.

Arius argued that Jesus is God, but unlike the Father does not exist eternally. Before Arius, Origen argued that God (the Father) begets the Son eternally – if God is God and God is eternal, then God is eternally Father. If there was a time when the Son was not, as Arius says, then there was a time when God was not father, so God becomes mutable, and it leads to a whole raft of contradictions, not the least the accusation of binitarianism.

TheLightWithin said:
Doesn't all of this get very far from Judaism and their theory of God? Why did that seem wise?
Click to expand...
Well the discussion of that is a big subject. The Gospel of Matthew argues Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish Messianic prophecy.

TheLightWithin said:
Why did that seem wise?
Click to expand...
It was seen as necessary to preserve the faith against drifting off into some version of Hellenic theogony (a genealogy of the gods)
 
TheLightWithin said:
Were the councils free of influence from the Emperor?
Click to expand...
They were more free than critics want them to be.

Constantine called Nicaea to determine whether, among other things, Arius was right or not. The result was, in that regard, a failure, Arius was wrong, but various permutations of subordinationism reappeared. Another question to be settled is what date to celebrate Easter, as there was a different calculation in the West and the East ... the emperors want everyone singing from the same songsheet, as it were. Conformity is unity. What the song was doesn't really matter – as long as it's not seditious, obviously.

The emperors weren't really interested in theological distinctions – they wanted an end to disputes which troubled the harmony of the empire. Clearly in that regard they failed, as disputes went on for the next few centuries, despite imperial intervention to shut the disputes down.
 
TheLightWithin said:
I know that.
Click to expand...
I was just wondering at the question as the thread is titled Did most early Christians believe in the divinity of Christ. Of course Jews are not going to believe the Tanakh speaks of Jesus. So you can see why I would believe your question is suspect?
 
Faithfulservant said:
I was just wondering at the question as the thread is titled Did most early Christians believe in the divinity of Christ. Of course Jews are not going to believe the Tanakh speaks of Jesus. So you can see why I would believe your question is suspect?
Click to expand...
no
i'm interested in comparing the contrasting interpretations
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top