Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?

[TheLightWithin]

The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden

Yes! I actually have that somewhere!

 

[juantoo3]

Not exactly early Christianity, but early Protestism is covered in Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

An English translation of the Septuagint might be in order for a better understanding of the Jewish perspective.

And a Strong's Concordance is always a good study tool.

 

[Thomas]

All the these Calendar changes! The Hebrew calendar is the only one I would trust if it was even possible to ignore the rest of them.. but because the calendars have been changed how can anyone even know what the true day in history even is.

Don't forget the Essene calendar ... that was in plays too!

 

[Thomas]

do you also think that much of what many early Christians' believed has possibly somewhat been manipulated limited or distorted through the lens of 2000 years of history ?

In some cases yes, and still so today. There are some 'sensational' views of early Christian history around today, books even making it to the best-seller lists.

And there is more sober scholarship, but those books tend not to gather media attention, and not having anything particularly sensational to say, tend to pass without comment.

What documents would we study about early Christians' and their beliefs ?

Depends what era you're talking about.

as far as I have found, there are not that many documents existing outside of the documentation that is found in the Roman Catholic Church that summarizes what the Roman Church Leaders had to say about Non Catholic " so called " heretical or erratic faiths,

We need to be careful about anachronisms here. If there were representatives of the Greek Orthodox or other Patriarchates here, they'd come down quite hard on you for this. The 'Roman Catholic Church' was not the entity then as it is now.

Are the only documentation available for us to study centered specifically around the the trinity - the human and divine disagreements of God and argumentations between the Catholic Church and those who they castigate as hereticks

The Arian Controversy
Sabellianism:
Adoptionism:
Nestorianism:
Apollinarianism:
Arianism:

Most of these heresies rose within the Eastern Roman Empire, and were Greek-based rather than Latin-based. The then Pope regarded Arianism as a local problem in Alexandria – where it arose – and saw no need to get the whole church embroiled, as it were. It's only when political players got involved that it became such an issue.

it seems everyone else were not able to preserve their faith in writing, are the only surviving documentation that exists today are what the Roman Catholic Church has preserved about those who they deemed as heretical. ?

The problem here is that writing and recording was a long, expensive and laborious process. And the materials were fragile so had to be periodically recopied to be preserved ... so yes, obviously no-one saw the need to preserve the works of heretics for posterity.

In the same way, even the works of the orthodox were lost ...

As a context, De Rerun Natura (The Nature of Things), a work by the Epicurean poet-philosopher Lucretius (c99-55BC) was lost until a single manuscript was discovered in 1417, in a library in a Benedictine monastery at Fulda.

The oldest complete text of Homer's Illiad dates to the 10th century, later gifted by Greek Cardinal Basileus Bessarion along with his library of Greek manuscripts to the Republic of Venice in the 15th century.

Seneca's writings were widely admired, and again versions turn up in monastic libraries, but again, one of the oldest extant texts was lost in the 12/13th century (from a civil collection)

It's the same for almost every ancient literary giant – there are references and citations, but so often the actual text itself is lost.

So it's not so much that so little has survived, as anything survived at all, in a continent ravaged by wars left right and centre, especially after the fall of the Roman Empire, in many places the monasteries kept the flame of scholarship alive, and so transmit such texts to us.

 

[juantoo3]

Actually Vellum, sheepskin, was pretty long lived, and many examples exist of being scraped of the old writing and new writing applied. It was also very expensive and time intensive.

Over time most scribal duties migrated to monasteries, and these monastic scribes were charged with producing the successive reprints of accepted texts. Of note, if a scribal error was noted, the errant text was pulled and sent to the scriptorium...not to be used, but also not to be discarded in any mundane, profane manner. Consequently there are ancient texts to be found in these monastic scriptoriums that are hundreds, even over a thousand years old.

That is how the Codex Sinaiticus was found:

Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fragilegums]

The Bible also highlights the different various ways how that a very early Christian would innocently deviate, wander or stray from the truth that God shortly thereafter preserved in his Scriptures, such as Saint Peter, when he was beginning his ministry in Jerusalem. Peter was wanting to eat separately from gentile believers.

Gal 2:11 ....... when Peter was come to Antioch,...... Paul ....... withstood him to the face.
because before Peter would eat with the Gentiles : but Peter eventually withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. I am so thankful for the Scripture that has been given by inspiration of the Spirit Holy and have been preserved. Christians can know what is truth about what God expects for his sons and daughters.

 

[Fragilegums]

Hello, hey

thanks so much for taking time to write me, if you would have time to direct me to the introductory thread " I would be happy to submit this very introduction if you please.

I am a Christian man who believes in the inspired word of God found in the 66 books of the Bible.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the only savior, only born son of God and that he is the fullness of the spirit of " God's spirit " manifested in the flesh.

Mankind, we - are not born as sons and daughters of God but we can become begotten / born of God by submitting to the Spirit holy of God, however Jesus alone is the only born / begotten son of God in that he was born as the invisible spirit of God, manifested in flesh, the fullness of the divinity of God

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the divine bodily.

Gal 4:4 when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son,
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in the anointing
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Eph 3:19 And to know the love of the anointing which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Eph 4:13 ...... the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of the anointing
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

I also believe that Jesus is someday coming again back to earth in the 2nd coming to raise the dead and bring them with the living - of " those in Christ " and bring us up to heaven as his own bride.

I have studied the scriptures extensively and spent so much time in this study, meaning = most of the time, it is basicity all that I do, for about 20 years for most of the day and night. If i have a question or long to know what the Bible says about something, I will spend a week studying until I find the answer, I study the Greek and Hebrew and believe that these manuscripts contain the truth of God's message and plan of salvation and also the truth about the history of Hebrew people.

Love is what I have for all people - and I have found that upon " salvation-al core biblical, christian beliefs " I am mostly in agreement with most Protestant posters in all christian forums - but this core the " salvation-al core of biblical, christian beliefs " is very, very small part and portion surrounding of all that is contained in God's word.

my goal is to find how can we all learn from one another, together and through agreement and disagreement study and discuss what we will decide and believe in the future concerning the word of God in scriptures.

 

[Fragilegums]

for example , here is another very interesting forum I have posted in, very recently
click on the " comment "

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/9c2ptd/_/e59jcoe

if interested, you can discover what I am interested in and how I would respond in other controversial topics
scroll down to the very last post, I am the poster called " elegantattoms " note, the last three posts

we trust the sources /. PhA tersie and Mhh uddersa
sorry, it's baal tesh caeZar

 

[TheLightWithin]

thanks so much for taking time to write me, if you would have time to direct me to the introductory thread " I would be happy to submit this very introduction if you please.

Introductions

New? Feel free to introduce yourself and meet the other members here. :)

www.interfaith.org

You find that and other threads on https://www.interfaith.org/community/

Another space with interesting stuff relevant to what you just said is

I identify as: (belief)

My post was also serious. :D

www.interfaith.org

 

[Greg]

I believe:

The association of Jesus as an image to God, is based solely on the goals of a religion that unified Judaism and Greco-Roman polytheism. It has nothing to do with any actual beliefs. It was the "adults" herding the "children" in the Roman empire.

1 Corinthians 15:28 shows that the Scripture authors knew (and didn't want successive leaders to forget) that Jesus was used as a symbol/image for God:
"...the Son himself will also be subjected..."

We need to keep in mind that the Scriptures (e.g. Mark, Luke, Matthew, John) of the new Roman religion were based on a pre-conceived largely-Paulinian theology which itself was based on use of Jesus to substitute for animal sacrifices. These Scriptures were mainly directed at church leaders but used subtle language knowing that the general public might also see them.

 

[Greg]

... therefore I think that we don't know much about the early movement in Judaism, that was transformed to Christianity.

 

[iBrian]

I believe:

The association of Jesus as an image to God, is based solely on the goals of a religion that unified Judaism and Greco-Roman polytheism. It has nothing to do with any actual beliefs. It was the "adults" herding the "children" in the Roman empire.

1 Corinthians 15:28 shows that the Scripture authors knew (and didn't want successive leaders to forget) that Jesus was used as a symbol/image for God:
"...the Son himself will also be subjected..."

We need to keep in mind that the Scriptures (e.g. Mark, Luke, Matthew, John) of the new Roman religion were based on a pre-conceived largely-Paulinian theology which itself was based on use of Jesus to substitute for animal sacrifices. These Scriptures were mainly directed at church leaders but used subtle language knowing that the general public might also see them.

... therefore I think that we don't know much about the early movement in Judaism, that was transformed to Christianity.

You may or may not find A. Victor Garaffa's The Pauline Conspiracy, available on this site, of interest:

Pauline Conspiracy – Interfaith

www.interfaith.org

 

[Thomas]

I believe:

The association of Jesus as an image to God, is based solely on the goals of a religion that unified Judaism and Greco-Roman polytheism. It has nothing to do with any actual beliefs. It was the "adults" herding the "children" in the Roman empire.

I find that very hard to believe, personally.

Was not the Greco-Roman empire already largely unified?

The Jews were particularly troublesome in that regard, but their numbers were not enough to pose a threat to the empire, and the fact that they did not proselytise meant they could be largely ignored.

Setting out to unify an already unified world under a minority (a 'reformed Judaism') banner is particularly problematic.
The Pauline image of Jesus was not accepted by the Jewish majority, and would have been by the larger world. Demigods and Sons of Gods in the gentile world were high-born, and/or heroes, not working-class boys from some backwater village ...

The last things the Jews sought with the Greco-Roman world was a unity of belief. Quite the opposite. It's about the worst possible position to start from, I would have thought?

1 Corinthians 15:28 shows that the Scripture authors knew (and didn't want successive leaders to forget) that Jesus was used as a symbol/image for God:
"...the Son himself will also be subjected..."

It seems clear that Paul regarded Jesus neither as image nor symbol, but as something else altogether?

We need to keep in mind that the Scriptures (e.g. Mark, Luke, Matthew, John) of the new Roman religion were based on a pre-conceived largely-Paulinian theology which itself was based on use of Jesus to substitute for animal sacrifices.

Er, no, that's not the case at all.

The Pauline account of the institution of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:23) makes it clear he's passing on a received tradition, a pre-existent teaching of the Church. Paul's account is close to Luke, whereas the Mark/Matthew account is believed to derive from a separate tradition, and lastly the Johannine references, although indirect and supposedly last, are so contentious (even among Jews) that any sensible person would have redacted such a troublesome text.

Had Paul, or whoever, sought a unified teaching, the Last Supper/Eucharist is clearly not the way to go, as it offends all sensibilities. A more gentile/generic formula would have been the way to go.

These Scriptures were mainly directed at church leaders but used subtle language knowing that the general public might also see them.

Again, no, as these scriptures were addressed to communities, and read out in Liturgical meetings.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I was hoping you would respond @Thomas. Inasmuch as you make me feel so dumb sometimes I always appreciate how you can break things down with eloquence without being verbose. I did not have the energy to try to tackle what I considered a tangle of misinformation.

That Jesus, a carpenter, would come from Nazareth that was quoted " what good can come from Nazareth" be recognized as the Messiah and the only begotten Son of God. Who would die on the cross and each of His disciples die gruesome deaths and suffer enormously and STILL claim what they claimed. Who in their right mind would do so without believing 100% what they preached. Even Peter prior to Jesus crucifixion denied Him 3 times from fear .. at what point did Peter change His tune? When Jesus appeared to Him after He rose from the dead. Jesus restored Peter and set him up to lead His church. Peter demanded to be crucified upside down because he felt he wasn't worthy to die the same way as his Savior. I could never doubt the Truth.

 

[Thomas]

I was hoping you would respond @Thomas. Inasmuch as you make me feel so dumb sometimes I always appreciate how you can break things down with eloquence without being verbose.

That's very nice of you to say.

That Jesus, a carpenter, would come from Nazareth that was quoted " what good can come from Nazareth" be recognized as the Messiah and the only begotten Son of God. Who would die on the cross and each of His disciples die gruesome deaths and suffer enormously and STILL claim what they claimed. Who in their right mind would do so without believing 100% what they preached.

Well that's not verbose and I think you nailed it!

(Now I have a vision of me before the Judgement Seat, and Our Lord saying, "OK, but that 'nailed it' comment in your IO post? Not funny. Not funny at all." Pray for me ... )

 

[muhammad_isa]

I find that very hard to believe, personally.

Was not the Greco-Roman empire already largely unified?

The size of the Christian communities had significantly grown in large urban centers like Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Carthage in the early 3rd century. The Christians were outlawed for their alleged opposition to traditional Roman values, but they were only sporadically persecuted. A drastic change came with Emperor Decius' edict compelling all Romans to make sacrifices to the gods in 249. Non-compliant Christians were executed or forced into exile and the purge continued until Emperor Gallienus put an end to it in 260.
Later_Roman_Empire - Wikipedia

That's just one example, but there are plenty more.

The Jews were particularly troublesome in that regard, but their numbers were not enough to pose a threat to the empire, and the fact that they did not proselytise meant they could be largely ignored.

Saul of Tarsus did not stop being a Jew .. he believed that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
He most certainly 'proselytized'.

The Pauline image of Jesus was not accepted by the Jewish majority..

Oh, I don't know .. Jesus was very popular amongst the poor (Jews).

 

[Thomas]

The size of the Christian communities had significantly grown ...

Oh indeed, but now we're three hundred years away from Paul's supposed 'unified religion' and it's still looking no better ... Constantine was a turning point, but there were still reversals along the way.

Saul of Tarsus did not stop being a Jew .. he believed that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
He most certainly 'proselytized'.

But that's because he was a Christian, and received the commission to spread the word.

It is within Jewish speculation to believe that, in time, the gentile world would come under the authority of the God of Israel. Paul believed that time had come ...

Oh, I don't know .. Jesus was very popular amongst the poor (Jews).

Oh yes, it's popularity was fast-growing, but I still think it's a push to suggest that Christianity was founded by a Jew with the aim of unifying the greater Greco-Roman empire under its banner ... much more logical would have been a revised Judaism based on Greco-Roman beliefs, but certainly not a religion that challenged both Judaic and Greco-Roman sensibilities?

And while Paul was supposedly inventing, the Disciples and followers just stood back and took a pragmatic stance? Hardly seems likely.

Then again, Philo of Alexandria could be seen as a proponent of a Greek-inspired interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, a 'Platonic Judaism' if you like. That would have been far more amenable to the greater world ... Didn't fly, though.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Oh indeed, but now we're three hundred years away from Paul's supposed 'unified religion'..

..not Paul's .. but the creed that Roman authority preferred amongst many.

But that's because he was a Christian..

..but didn't stop being a Jew, by his own admission.
Jesus was NOT a Christian .. the term had not been invented during his time on earth.
Neither was John the Baptist.

Oh yes, it's popularity was fast-growing, but I still think it's a push to suggest that Christianity was founded by a Jew with the aim of unifying the greater Greco-Roman empire under its banner..

So do I .. Christianity evolved to be what it is today, and Roman authority was a major 'player'
in shaping it.

 

[Faithfulservant]

..but didn't stop being a Jew, by his own admission.
Jesus was NOT a Christian .. the term had not been invented during his time on earth.

The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11 after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year. The text says that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26). Courtesy of Wikipedia

Neither was John the Baptist.

John the Baptist is actually considered the last of the Old Testament prophets.

So do I .. Christianity evolved to be what it is today, and Roman authority was a major 'player'
in shaping it.

Read the book of Acts. The Apostolic church is essentially the church I attend. Not sure what you are referring to. We teach through the bible from book to book we have small groups we tithe and have communion we pray for each other we send out missionaries. You have an issue with Paul and Rome and your disdain rears it's ugly head especially when it comes to the Catholic Church. My church would not exist as it is this present day if not for the Catholic Church. Paul is the apostle for the Gentiles and we love him.

 

[Thomas]

So do I .. Christianity evolved to be what it is today, and Roman authority was a major 'player'
in shaping it.

One could argue Christianity evolved, but Rome had a great deal of trouble, and never fully succeeded, in bending Christianity to its will. Hence schisms and disputes the authorities always tried to shut down... This is old ground, well-trodden between @juantoo3 and me.