Why do some Americans believe weird things?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There most certainly was 'the church' HA. It is spoken of clearly in the epistles and Revelation and Acts. In the epistles we see clearly the appointing of elders, we see offices like pastor, elder, deacon, and teacher.

You are referring to those small groups established by Paul.

The early followers of Jesus were not Christians as you understand it. We know virtually nothing of this group because anything that was written down [assuming its members could write] was lost after 70 CE.

However, we can assume that pious Jews did not believe their leader was an anthropomorphic deity, given that such a belief would contravene the first two commandments.

You are thinking of the Jerusalem Movement/Church led by James. We know from Paul's authentic letters that there was a lot of tension between him [a Johnny come lately] to that Jewish sect and those in charge of it after the death of Jesus. I recommend you read Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus. It is a hefty tome coming in at over 1000 pages but it is very interesting. You could also read Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That is your opinion HA - and you are entitled to it - but it is not my own.

No that is not my opinion that is historical fact. Orthodox Christianity - i.e. what Christians must believe was enforced by Imperial edict. Furthermore, without the conquests of Alexander of Macedon and the introduction of Hellenism and its culture into the ancient near east, Christianity would never have existed.

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis comments on 'true myth'? The issue here is that just because you find similarities in form doesn't mean there is necessarily a similarity in origin. A bat looks superficially like a bird. It has wings, two legs, and flies about. But a bat is not a bird, they have very different histories and origins.

I have read some Lewis but not his theological texts.

[oxmixmudd]

You are referring to those small groups established by Paul.

The early followers of Jesus were not Christians as you understand it. We know virtually nothing of this group because anything that was written down [assuming its members could write] was lost after 70 CE.

However, we can assume that pious Jews did not believe their leader was an anthropomorphic deity, given that such a belief would contravene the first two commandments.

You are thinking of the Jerusalem Movement/Church led by James. We know from Paul's authentic letters that there was a lot of tension between him [a Johnny come lately] to that Jewish sect and those in charge of it after the death of Jesus. I recommend you read Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus. It is a hefty tome coming in at over 1000 pages but it is very interesting. You could also read Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity.

No - we can't assume that HA. Paul was a jewish man. The early disciples were in fact Jewish men and women. The assumption that they could not or would not have believed what Paul taught about the Christ is nothing more than that - an assumption. The letter of James, the book of Revelation (John), the letters of Peter all affirm the deity of Christ HA. Whatever differences there were between Paul and the disciples, they were not that.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No - we can't assume that HA. Paul was a jewish man.

Where does Paul write he is a Jew? He may have been Jewish but he never refers to himself as a Jew.

The early disciples were in fact Jewish men and women.

Do you imagine observant Jews believed their lately deceased leader was an anthropomorphic deity?

The assumption that they could not or would not have believed what Paul taught about the Christ is nothing more than that - an assumption.

They didn't. Read Paul's letters critically.

The letter of James, the book of Revelation (John), the letters of Peter all affirm the deity of Christ HA. Whatever differences there were between Paul and the disciples, they were not that.

You are assuming much later Christian theological constructs and beliefs were there at the beginning in the 40s CE. They were not.

Even Paul never directly equates Jesus with God the Father.

[Cow Poke]

You are referring to those small groups established by Paul.

Because those "small groups" contained believers, and believers are "the church". Jesus was even referring to "the church" in Matt 18:17 - "the church" - the body of believers - ekklēsia - the assembly.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Lol. You still don't get it, which is funny.

I am glad you find it amusing.

The source is irrelevant to the modern beliefs.

Well that is certainly true given the original Hebrew source makes no mention of a "virgin".

The original meaning really is irrelevant to the current teachings and beliefs of modern followers. Take a look at the numerous protestant sects. They ALL have different takes on the teachings. So, the original meaning "muddy" or not is entirely irrelevant to the fact that they teach something NOW and people believe that teaching, NOW. .

So what precisely are you trying to suggest? Are you making a comparison between later [post sixteenth century] Western Christianity and the various beliefs within disparate Christian sects in the religion's early centuries? If so, we are in agreement.

[Cow Poke]

Where does Paul write he is a Jew? He may have been Jewish but he never refers to himself as a Jew.

Scripture Verse: 2 Cor 11:22 (KJV)

Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.

© Copyright Original Source

[CivilDiscourse]

I am glad you find it amusing.

Well that is certainly true given the original Hebrew source makes no mention of a "virgin".

So what precisely are you trying to suggest? Are you making a comparison between later [post sixteenth century] Western Christianity and the various beliefs within disparate Christian sects in the religion's early centuries? If so, we are in agreement.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating a fact. This entire thing is based on a modern christian stating what they believed. This was based on what they were taught.

The original text is so far removed from their teachings that it's original meaning is irrelevant to their beliefs as stated. I.E. It's a red herring.

[Mountain Man]

(3) Matthew clearly interprets Isaiah 7:14 in a manner consistent with Mary's state as declared in the gospels, a young maiden who has not known a man. Incidentally, this also means at the very least the EARLY church, which means early, Jewish Christians (not some later group) treated Isaiah 7:14 as Messianic, as a prophecy about the coming Messiah.

With regards to prophecies referenced in the New Testament, it was the practice of the time to look in scripture for historical parallels to present events, so in the case of the Isaiah reference in the gospels, the gospel writers saw a virgin giving birth and saw the Isaiah parallel as a sign that it was a divine event, so even if Isaiah did use an ambiguous word or phrase that could mean anything from a virgin to simply a young woman, that makes no difference to how the prophecy was used in the New Testament, nor does it change the fact that Mary is clearly described as a woman who had never had intercourse.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In one thread we have HA arguing that the Gospels argue for physically attacking Jews

Please do not deliberately be mendacious. Where have written any such thing?

I pointed out that anti-Judaism has its roots in the NT texts and there are many academics who concur with that statement. It was Christians who then decided to turn those verses into the persecution of, and violence towards, Jews.

Or are you in denial about the persecution by the Christian church and its adherents of the Jewish people? A "tradition" that many have argued led ultimately to such places such Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Buchenwald.

Perhaps that explains the post 1945 volte face towards the Jewish people by many Christians. Is it a form of expiation?

[oxmixmudd]

Where does Paul write he is a Jew? He may have been Jewish but he never refers to himself as a Jew.

? Philippians 3 for one:

Source: Philippians

... though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

© Copyright Original Source

Do you imagine observant Jews believed their lately deceased leader was an anthropomorphic deity?

They didn't. Read Paul's letters critically.

Not in the Greek sense - no. They believed Christ was the 'son of man', the Messiah, God in the Flesh. They believed the one God became a man and lived a perfect sinless life, died, rose from the dead, and ascended back to the Father. The believed Christ was the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures, which includes references to Him being divine.

You are assuming much later Christian theological constructs and beliefs were there at the beginning in the 40s CE. They were not.

Even Paul never directly equates Jesus with God the Father.

The distinction between Christ and the Father is real, and so they would never be said to be 'the same' in that sense by any believer HA. The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit are distinct individuals but one God. The Father knows when Christ will return, but Christ himself does not. The Holy Spirit is that of God which continually dwells with us a brings the revelation of God to us. And yes, THAT concept was not fully fleshed out until later. But these attributes and persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit show themselves all across the new testament writings. And here is where your reasoning about Jewish Theology does come into play. No observant Jew would have accepted these three aspects of God clearly referenced in the NT as somehow implying something different that what they would have repeated from birth: "Hear O Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is one" or shma israel, adonai elohenu, adonai echad (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד).

So they understood what was later codified as the trinity without necessary articulating it in that later form. "God is one" is fundamental to the Hebrew faith. And so all the teachings in the NT about Christ, the Father, the Holy Spirit must be understood in THAT light, not the light of Greek polytheism.


The understanding of Christ as God is clear all over in the writings of the new testament, and in the gospels themselves, which - though you've not acknowledge the point yet - were written within the 1st century. When John quotes Jesus as saying "Before Abraham was, I am" the reference is very clearly to the tetragrammaton. The hebrew name for God, a form of 'to be'. The "I am that I am" spoken to Moses. And the Jewish leaders were in fact incensed by that reference and all it implies.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating a fact. This entire thing is based on a modern christian stating what they believed. This was based on what they were taught.

So they are brainwashed? Is that what you are suggesting? They cannot accept facts that contradict what they have been taught?

Without the mistranslated text found in the Septuagint that "belief" would not exist. Therefore how can that text be a red herring?

[CivilDiscourse]

So they are brainwashed? Is that what you are suggesting? They cannot accept facts that contradict what they have been taught?

Without the mistranslated text found in the Septuagint that "belief" would not exist. Therefore how can that text be a red herring?

Are you trying to change their beliefs?

[Cow Poke]

? Philippians 3 for one:

Source: Philippians

... though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

© Copyright Original Source

...

I'm always amused at the two claims I often hear...
a) Paul never claimed to be a Jew
2) Jesus never claimed to be God (and the Bible never says He is/was)

[oxmixmudd]

Please do not deliberately be mendacious. Where have written any such thing?

I pointed out that anti-Judaism has its roots in the NT texts and there are many academics who concur with that statement. It was Christians who then decided to turn those verses into the persecution of, and violence towards, Jews.

Or are you in denial about the persecution by the Christian church and its adherents of the Jewish people? A "tradition" that many have argued led ultimately to such places such Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Buchenwald.

Perhaps that explains the post 1945 volte face towards the Jewish people by many Christians. Is it a form of expiation?

As I've tried to say several times HA, the teachings found in scripture do not anywhere encourage a hatred or violence towards the Jews, or anyone for that matter. They record violent acts by jewish leaders against the Christ and against early Christians - but this is simply the history. The Christian scriptures teach that was are to love our enemies, we are to turn the other cheek, we are to walk a second mile, and so on. Paul himself wished that he could die and be accursed if it would bring his own people (the Jewish people) to a knowledge of Christ. No person following the scriptures can ever find justification for hatred or violence against others of the sort that became the Christian persecution of the Jews. And so what must be concluded is that these things happened IN SPITE of what our own scriptures teach, not because of what they teach.