|
Post by sankari on Jul 5, 2012 4:25:59 GMT
sankari: No they don't. You will search the NT in vain for any passage where Jesus is unambiguously identified and worshipped as the God of Israel. Do people usually worship what they don't consider to be a god? No. Why do you ask?
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Jul 5, 2012 17:06:14 GMT
After all this verbiage, I cannot help but think how early Christians (in Jerusalem) saw the reason for their persecution:
Christians were pretty good at recording the tenor of opposition to Christianity.
Acts 7:54-60
54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!â€
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.†60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.†And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
This may have been a literary passage rather than a historical incident but if so it demonstrates what the earliest Christians viewed as the reason for their persecution?
James, the brother of Jesus is regarded by all accounts as being particularly devout by the standards of the time but was killed by other Jews (as recorded by Josephus)?
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jul 5, 2012 21:25:14 GMT
After all this verbiage, I cannot help but think how early Christians (in Jerusalem) saw the reason for their persecution: Christians were pretty good at recording the tenor of opposition to Christianity. Acts 7:54-60
54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!â€
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.†60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.†And when he had said this, he fell asleep.This may have been a literary passage rather than a historical incident but if so it demonstrates what the earliest Christians viewed as the reason for their persecution? James, the brother of Jesus is regarded by all accounts as being particularly devout by the standards of the time but was killed by other Jews (as recorded by Josephus)? This "verbiage" has been a careful and very detailed analysis that puts the beliefs of the earliest Jesus sect into its historical context. That may seem like mere "verbiage" to those who are striving to preserve certain theological readings of the same evidence, but for those of us interested in objective analysis, this "verbiage" has been valuable and fascintating. Thanks in particular to Sankari for taking the time to gather this material together - that last long post was another absolute corker that I have filed for future reference. As to why some (few, actually) of the earliest Jesus sect members were executed, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that it was because they declared their Jesus to BE God. If that was what they believed they would all have been executed and/or driven underground. Yet for the first decades of the sect they went to synagogue, worshipped in the Temple and preached openly. Clearly this was not something they were preaching at this stage. We simply don't know what triggered the execution of James after years of him living and preaching in Jerusalem as a respected and devout Jew. And the execution of Stephen seems to be more to do with a perceived preaching against the Temple and its priesthood than anything to do with Jesus. To assume they were executed for declaring Jesus God is to read theology into the evidence and imagine things that aren't there.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 6, 2012 0:54:47 GMT
It's called exegesis. Let's return the stoning of Stephen to its literary context, which is Acts 6:8-7:58. Stephen's evangelism is described in Acts 6:8-10 as follows: He was arrested on charges of heresy, as described in Acts 6:11: The formal accusation brought against him is described in Acts 6:13-14: This matches the list of charges routinely brought against NT Christians that I posted earlier: accusations concerning the Law of Moses (Acts 6:13; 7:14), alleged breach of Jewish customs (Acts 7:14), alleged propagation of unlawful customs (Acts 16:20-21), proclaiming Jesus as king (Acts 17:5-7), etc. Notice that nobody accuses Stephen of deifying the Messiah or compromising Jewish monotheism in any way. Stephen's defence before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:2-53) is calculated to sting their consciences, and that's exactly what it does. At the climax of his apologetic (Acts 7;52-53), Stephen claims: - The Jews' ancestors killed those who foretold the first advent of the Messiah
- The current Jewish leaders betrayed and murdered the Messiah
- The Jews have not obeyed the Law of Moses
As if this was not enough to tip them over the edge, Stephen describes a spontaneous vision of the Son of Man at the right hand of God (Acts 7:56), consciously invoking Daniel 7:13 in the same way that Jesus had done (John 6:62). The Jews are left in no doubt that Stephen believes Jesus Christ is the apocalyptic Son of Man: the Jewish Messiah. From John 9:22, we know this was an excommunicable offence: Notice yet again the glaring absence of a reference to Jesus' alleged deity, or any other teaching that might compromise Jewish monotheism. Correct, and it proves that the reasons for their persecution are the same reasons I posted earlier. ...and Josephus tells us that James was executed 'on the charge of breaking the law', which matches the list I posted earlier.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 6, 2012 0:57:06 GMT
This "verbiage" has been a careful and very detailed analysis that puts the beliefs of the earliest Jesus sect into its historical context. That may seem like mere "verbiage" to those who are striving to preserve certain theological readings of the same evidence, but for those of us interested in objective analysis, this "verbiage" has been valuable and fascintating. Thanks in particular to Sankari for taking the time to gather this material together - that last long post was another absolute corker that I have filed for future reference. Thanks, you're very welcome. This is a critical point, too frequently overlooked. The earliest Christians did not see themselves as having departed from the Jewish faith. They were ethnically, culturally, and ideologically Jewish. Christianity was, in a very real sense, the second Jewish religion. Even as late as the early 2nd Century, Christians still fasted twice a week and prayed three times a day (Didache 8:1-2, 11). This was consistent with Jewish custom; so much so that the Christians had to choose different fasting days in order to avoid being mistaken for Jews. The break with Judaism was initiated by Jewish religious leaders, not by the first Christians, who repeatedly insisted that Christianity was a natural extension of Judaism, and offered salvation to all people via the promises to Abraham and David. It is only in later centuries that we see Christians denigrating Jews in general and Judaism in particular; but by this time the church is overwhelmingly Gentile, and its ideology irredeemably Hellenic. Even Justin Martyr (who was no anti-semite and enjoyed cordial relations with the Jews) tacitly affirms the departure from Christianity's Jewish roots when he tells Trypho that the OT Scriptures are 'not yours, but ours' ( Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, XXIX.)
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jul 6, 2012 11:23:30 GMT
The Jews are left in no doubt that Stephen believes Jesus Christ is the apocalyptic Son of Man: the Jewish Messiah. From John 9:22, we know this was an excommunicable offence Do we? John 9:22 reflects what was going on when gJohn was written, so what evidence is there that this was going on when Acts was written, let alone back in 30+ AD? None that I know of, and there are plenty of references to Jesus and his followers going to synagogues. The expulsion of the Jesus sect from synagogues is usually dated to post 90 AD and there is no sign of anything like it earlier.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 6, 2012 16:44:43 GMT
Do we? John 9:22 reflects what was going on when gJohn was written, so what evidence is there that this was going on when Acts was written, let alone back in 30+ AD? None that I know of, and there are plenty of references to Jesus and his followers going to synagogues. A fair objection. Some Christian scholars do regard the excommunication claim as anachronistic or unhistorical. In reference to John 9:22, the translators of the NET Bible observe: Yet although the Gospel of John was assembled around AD 90, it had multiple editors who drew on multiple sources from an earlier period (including the oral traditions of John himself). It was certainly not written by a single person in the late 1st Century. Thus there is a possibility that this is not an anachronistic reference, but an accurate description of an event which occurred some decades earlier. The excommunication referred to in John 9:22 is admittedly exceptional, and was probably limited to Jerusalem. It was was not something the Sanhedrin could effectively enforce across the entire Tetrarchy, so it is unsurprising that Jesus and the early Christians could find synagogues where they were accepted. Again, the NET translation committee on John 9:22: That seems reasonable to me. Excommunication is also described as concurrent with Jesus' ministry in John 12:42: In John 16:2 Jesus predicted this would be a regular a consequence of Jewish resistance to Christianity: It's difficult to read these statements without concluding that the author believed they referred to Jesus' own time, not the author's. That is when it became a formal policy, yes. This does not preclude an earlier, informal, localised use of the same penalty. As to whether or not there is any sign of anything like it, I believe the references in John provide evidence (however slim and arguable) that there was. But this is a side issue to my original discussion about the doctrine of the deity of Christ, so I'll leave it there.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jul 6, 2012 20:18:18 GMT
But this is a side issue to my original discussion about the doctrine of the deity of Christ, so I'll leave it there. Yes, it's peripheral to your main points (with which I agree), but the reference to those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah being excluded from synagogues comes only in gJohn - there is no hint of it in any of the earlier traditions. This is why it is regarded as a clear anachronism; to the extent that it is used to fix a possible terminus a quo for the date of gJohn's composition. I think your arguments for an earlier exclusion are pretty skinny.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 7, 2012 1:44:10 GMT
On Stephen's vision, if X is said to be at the right hand of Y, then X is not Y. We find the same distinction throughout the New Testament; Jesus is consistently distinguished as other than God.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jul 7, 2012 3:21:11 GMT
On Stephen's vision, if X is said to be at the right hand of Y, then X is not Y. We find the same distinction throughout the New Testament; Jesus is consistently distinguished as other than God. We see the same thing in the early references to Jesus' resurrection: Jesus is the subject of Yahweh's action: But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death(Acts 2:24) Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead(Galatians 1:1) It's only by donning post-Nicean/Trinitarian goggles that these clear statements can somehow be turned into Jesus raising himself from the dead - a concept not found in the texts at this stage.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Jul 7, 2012 9:27:02 GMT
There seems to be considerable willingness on here to overlook the evidence of Jewish opposition to Jesus devotion from a very early period. Hurtado - How on Earth did Jesus become a God? chapter 7 (Early Jewish Opposition to Jesus-Devotion) is very instructive e.g.
on "Jesus-Devotion and Jewish Opposition in Mark":
The author of GMark must have expected his readers to recognize the validity of the dominical warning about being brought before Jewish councils and synagogues (13:9) through their knowledge of such experiences. Thus, arraignments of Jewish Christians before Jewish authorities must be dated no later than the probable time of the writing of Mark’s Gospel ca.65-72 C.E. In fact, given that the Jewish-Christian heritage of Mark’s readers seems to lie in their past and that the intended readership is likely to have been heavily Gentile in make-up, the experiences of being arraigned before synagogue authorities on charges of blasphemy must derive from some time before the date of GMark.
That is , even before the expulsion of the Johannine Jewish Christians from their synagogues…, Christian Jews were probably experiencing the sort of condemnations for blasphemy reflected in the Markan narrative of Jesus’ Sanhedrin trial. To be sure these synagogue actions were localised and ad hoc, whereas in the post 70 C.E. period there appears to have been an effort toward a more consistently applied sanction against Jewish Christians. The Jesus devotion manifest in the Markan Sanhedrin trial narrative is sufficient to have brought Jewish charges of blasphemy. As J Marcus has argued, Mark 14:61-62 is to be taken as a claim to “participation in God’s cosmic lordship” and an “approach to equality with God”. Such an exaltation of a human figure probably drew fire from scrupulous Jews as compromising “the incommensurateness and unity of God”.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 7, 2012 12:12:43 GMT
On Stephen's vision, if X is said to be at the right hand of Y, then X is not Y. We find the same distinction throughout the New Testament; Jesus is consistently distinguished as other than God. I think there is confusion because the word "God" is used in two ways - the being God and the nature of God (as in Philippians 2:6). The first is what you are describing here, and of course Jesus was different to his Father. The question is, does Jesus have, or participate in, the nature of God. i.e. was/is he divine. The disciples didn't understand the latter during Jesus' life, but the Trinitarian formulators did several centuries later, so how and when did it develop? I think there is plenty of evidence that when they started asking the question, the early christians started to come down on the divinity of Jesus, even if they didn't formulate the doctrine very clearly. We can see it in John, Colossians and Philippians at least, and it is embryo on other gospel statements by Jesus. I'm not too fussed exactly when it happened, but I don't see the evidence being as clearcut "the other way" as some of the suggestions here. Neither (apparently) does Hurtado, and others.
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Jul 7, 2012 17:11:39 GMT
sankari:
No. Why do you ask?
So what god did the people in the New Testament believe they were praying to when they prayed to Jesus?
Zeus?
No they don't. You will search the NT in vain for any passage where Jesus is unambiguously identified and worshipped as the God of Israel.
If the New Testament records Jews praying to Jesus, then it is obviously implied they believe they are praying to a god, as you just said, and this god would be the one they are familiar with - the God of Israel.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 8, 2012 2:22:30 GMT
On Stephen's vision, if X is said to be at the right hand of Y, then X is not Y. We find the same distinction throughout the New Testament; Jesus is consistently distinguished as other than God. I think there is confusion because the word "God" is used in two ways - the being God and the nature of God (as in Philippians 2:6). The first is what you are describing here, and of course Jesus was different to his Father. What we see here is Jesus and God depicted as two completely different beings. Whatever we call that, it's not the trinity and it's not the way mainstream Christians who believe Jesus is God, speak about Jesus and God. Since the New Testament depicts God and Jesus as separate beings, if Jesus is a being with the same God nature as God then you have polytheism. No. The same way they developed all kinds of wacky ideas like original sin and the Immaculate Conception; they just made it up as they went along. A couple of novelties get popular, they're developed over time, and there you have it. The Greeks treated Jesus as a demi-god because to them that's exactly what he looked like; they didn't share the Jewish concept of agency. From there it wasn't difficult to develop the idea of Jesus as God, and then retrofit the Bible to the complicated and impossibly illogical conclusion of the trinity.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 8, 2012 2:23:02 GMT
If the New Testament records Jews praying to Jesus, then it is obviously implied they believe they are praying to a god, as you just said, and this god would be the one they are familiar with - the God of Israel. So they believed Jesus was the Father?
|
|