Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This reply is in two parts due to the complexity of the topics it touches upon.

PART A

The theological development on Jesus' divinity from Paul is mainly clarificational in nature. Paul ascribes full divinity to Jesus, and equality with the Father. As the kenotic hymn in Philippians makes clear, Paul, and the people from which he borrowed the hymn from, believed Jesus submission to the Father was a temporary, and self-imposed affair.

All of the above, with maybe the exception of image, depending on what you mean by the term.

I asked you what you meant by the term. Furthermore the word Nature is from the Latin natura " and while there is some degree of correlation between the Latin and the Greek φύσις , the Greek has a much wider range of definitions.

Not relevant. Mary becoming pregnant through the power of a disembodied Holy Spirit is not analoguous to anthropomorphic gods descending and fathering children by having sexual relations with mortal women.

On the contrary it is exceedingly relevant. The notion of divinities taking various guises and impregnating mortal women, or attempting to do the same by any other non physical human means, definitely has no basis in Judaism.

According to Christian theology and the scriptures, Jesus did not become divine after His death, He already existed eternally as God from the very beginning.

What we have in the NT is not an example of apotheosis and so this is completely irrelevant.

Once again, it is extremely relevant.

From Adela Yarbro Collins , Apotheosis and Resurrection, in The New Testament and Hellenistic JudaismThe understanding of resurrection expressed in the empty tomb story of the gospel of Mark is shaped by Greek and Roman traditions of the translation and apotheosis of human beings. In order to explicate the meaning of resurrection in Mark, it is necessary to place the empty tomb story in the context of the earliest understanding of resurrection in Christian tradition. The oldest Christian text that discusses the resurrection of Jesus in detail is 1 Corinthians 15. [...] Paul's understanding of the resurrection of Jesus does not involve the revival of his corpse. Paul's understanding of resurrection is like that of Daniel 12. Both Daniel 12 and 1 Corinthians 15 express the notion of resurrection in terms of astral immortality. Neither the book of Daniel nor Paul shows any interest in what happens to the physical body. Presumably it decays and has no importance for the resurrected person. This interpretation of Daniel 12 is supported by the description of personal afterlife for the righteous in the book of Jubilees, "And their bones shall rest in the earth, and their spirits shall have much joy" (Jub. 23.22).

The parallels that have been drawn between Jesus death and resurrection and the so-called "dying and rising gods" of the ancient near east have been seriously overblown by atheists on the internet.

so called

Superficial similarities, and that's all we have between the story of Jesus' death and resurrection and these aforementioned stories of dying and rising gods, do not establish dependence and borrowing.

The notion that the concept of dying and rising gods in the ancient near eastern world as being defunct and having no validity is not correct. Some scholars still maintain that such ideas continue to have relevance in the historical and comparative study of religion.

For information:

From the 1930's through the rest of the century, a consensus has developed to the effect that the "dying and rising gods" died but did not return or rise to live again. The present work-which is the first monograph on the whole issue subsequent to the studies by Frazer and Baudissin-is a detailed critique of this position. It is based on a fresh perusal of all the relevant source material from the ancient Near East, Egypt, and the Graeco-Roman world and profits from new finds of great importance. Modem theory in comparative religion and anthropology on the nature of rite and myth informs the discussion. The author concludes that Dumuzi, Baal, and Melqart were dying and rising gods already in pre-Christian times and that Adonis and Eshmun may well have been so too. Osiris dies and rises but remains all the time in the Netherworld. The deities that die and rise do not represent one specific type of god (e.g. the Baal-Hadad type) but are deities of widely divergent origin and character. [See Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection: Dying and Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series, 50, 2001.

By a non-Hellenistic Jew I mean a Jew who had been largely untouched and uninfluenced by Hellenistic thought and culture. In the extent they existed it would have been in rural areas where people rarely travelled to and experienced life in the city.

The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction Brill, 2001.

Citing a footnote from Skarsaune in his book In the Shadow of the Temple, p.75 where he himself quotes Shaye J.D. Cohen we read:

[CITE=Skarsaune, 2002, p.75, footnote 20]
The same point is made vigorously in Shaye J. D. Cohen's recent comprehensive history of Judaism in our period, Maccabees to MishnahB.C.E

The cultural diffusion between the invading Macedonians and the civilisations they conquered is not in dispute and this flowed both ways. It is the extent of Hellenistic ideas permeating the daily lives of the rural peasant communities of Galilee which is being disputed.

Are you attempting to suggest that an itinerant peasant Galilean holy man, such of Jesus of Nazareth, and his followers would have been both cognisant and receptive to Greek ideas of divinity on a level comparable, with someone like Philo of Alexandria? Philo was a Hellenised Jew who spoke only Greek and lived within a completely Hellenised area where that language was the lingua franca.

You seem to be suggesting that the average Jewish peasant from a rural community in Galilee was totally conversant with Greek philosophy, Greek ideas of divinity, and was fluent in the Greek language. I disagree with this contention, and further more there is nothing appreciable to support it.

Anti-"pagan" sentiments among Jews did not mean they were free from, or succeeded in avoiding being influenced by Hellenistic thought.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail That does not read as a description of men who were experts in the finer points of Greek thought and culture.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

PART B

Assuming by "small towns and villages in Galilee and Judaea you mean a village like Bethsaida, presumably to quite a considerable extent. Again, citing Skarsaune:

[CITE=Skarsaune, 2002, pp.40-42]
Perhaps the most impressive evidence for the extent to which Judaism and Hellenism were exposed to each other during the crucial centuries around the birth of Christ comes from the study of the languages used in Israel. A Greek visitor would have had no problem being understood in the streets and shops of Jerusalem.

. . . This [koine greek] is the language employed by several Jewish authors of that time and by the authors of the New Testament. It is the language of the educated elite in all provinces of Alexander's empire, and even became the preferred language of the cultural upper class in Rome itself.

Even more remarkable, perhaps, is that Greek gained a certain foothold as a spoken and written language in Israel among the native Jewish population.

Skarsaune should have qualified that comment. It gained a foothold among certain elements of the native Jewish population mainly the upper classes.

It did not replace Hebrew or Aramaic, but seems to have been used in addition to these two languages.

Archaelogy provides some telling illustrations. Many inscriptions have been found on ossuaries, dating roughly from the 200 years prior to A.D 135. These inscriptions were intended to be read by family members, and one must presume they were written in the language most familiar to the family. Of a total of 194 known inscriptions, 26 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic and 64 percent are inscribed in Greek alone. Other Jewish inscriptions have also been found, written in Greek, which were obviously meant to be understood by the majority of literate people. .

That requires some qualification, I recommend Craig Evans, Jesus and the Ossuaries: What Jewish Burial Practices Reveal about Early Christianity, 2003

It is thus evident that Greek was much in use in Israel during the time that Jesus lived

Israelmuch in use at that period among all strata of society. However, there is a great deal of speculation about the extent of its usage.

and the early church was established

early church This is pure speculation we do not definitely know if these two disciples even existed as real individuals. They are merely characters portrayed within the gospel narratives.

The remark made about Philip in this context ("who was from Bethsaida in Galilee"), seems at first sight rather irrelevant, but might indicate that it was well known that Greek was spoken in Bethsaida.

And again it might not.

Irenaeus might not have used the terminology of later orthodoxy, but nothing he writes is in opposition to later orthodox thought.

[CITE=Jackson Lashier, B.A., M.Div., The Trinitarian Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons, 2011, p.3]

a matter of questions about words and names

Orthodoxy is only a meaningful term if you already believe that the scriptures on which this orthodoxy is to be based are actually true.

Orthodoxy is premised on a particular interpretation of what scripture was believed to reveal. Orthodoxy could only be enforced by Imperial law in order to quell dissensions and ecclesiastical diatribes levied at opponents, and sometimes even riots among the Christian communities, over, once again, nothing more than the interpretation of mere words and names.

Of course, from your perspective, not being a believer, none of the various beliefs and groups that professed adherence to the Christian scriptures, both OT and NT could be considered "orthodox" in any meaningful sort of way

The Old Testament i.e. the Hebrew scriptures, originally had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

. If there existed a "right opinion" it would be the right opinion regardless of what authority it had.

I repeat, again that it had to be enforced by edict.

You still seem reluctant to recognise that the first two and half centuries of your religion were entirely fluid.

With his publication Walter Bauer contended that the early Christian church did not in fact comprise one single orthodoxy in its early centuries. Christianity embodied a large number of divergent forms none of which represented the clear majority theological viewpoint. In some of those early Christian communities what would later be considered heresyheresyhereticalorthodoxyheresy

This point is just plain nonsense, and relies completely on your mistaken assumption that "orthodoxy" is in some way tied up with having the authority to punish someone for professing beliefs that are in variance with establised belief.

[i]plain nonsense[i] [see A.H.M. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe 1948]

The fact that the emperor had the political power to punish those who professed beliefs that differed from what was established as orthodox during the various councils of Christendom

As a point of information, there was no Christendom [a medieval term] in the fourth century. There was a Roman Empire.

does not mean that the emperor was the one who determined which beliefs were orthodox, and which were not.

If we agree that Eusebius of Caesarea is telling the truth, it would appear that Constantine did precisely that at the First Council of Nicaea.

It was the bishops who convened to these councils

No It was not. All these early church councils were convened under Imperial authority.

that came that came to an agreement (excluding a few dissenting voices) on which beliefs were to be considered orthodox, the emperor simply recognized the judgement of the bishops that had convened on the matter.

The Emperor of the time issued the necessary edicts having taken advice from whichever group of powerful prelates happened to have the Imperial ear and favour.

I don't need to post any rebuttals. I'm not objecting to what you wrote in that specific part of your post, I'm simply stating that it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Thank you for your condescension. However, you need to read a little more widely on the early years of the church and the later Roman empire.

These men [i.e. ecclesiastics] resorted on occasion to bribery, corruption, and violence in order to achieve ascendancy for themselves, their cities, and their adherents. Indeed we know that at least one [Sophronius, Bishop of Tella] dabbled in necromancy [albeit he was a little later in the mid fifth century]. Many of these men who would later be considered saints exhibited all the venality that their religion condemned.

And again, this is largely irrelevant to the question of whether orthodoxy existed or not. The issue of authority to demand adherence to a particular belief is largely unconnected from the question of whether that particular belief is orthodox/true or not.

[Christian3]

This would probably be one of those things that appear conceptually similar but are functionally different?.....
Since Jesus is not God---but a human being, the symbolism, likely, functions in a different way....?....

I don't understand what you are saying.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

1 Corinthians 7: 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

[37818]

Don't forget Porphyry, Celsus, and Julian.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Interesting. Do you have some specific arguments which they wrote to point out?

The works of Celsus and Porphyry were burned by the early Christian church and the Emperor Julian's Contra Galilaeos [Against the Galileans] was anathematised after his death and the text lost. The work, like Celsus' On The True Doctrine, is only known in fragments from Christian writers who quoted it.

Porphyry's works were even more successfully destroyed by the Christian church, where even Christian writers who incorporated sections of Porphyry's polemic had their works burned in order to eliminate what one critic, the bishop Apollinarius, called the "poison of his thought."

The Christian church in its early centuries really was the IS/Daesh of the ancient world.

[Trucker]

The works of Celsus and Porphyry were burned by the early Christian church and the Emperor Julian's Contra Galilaeos [Against the Galileans] was anathematised after his death and the text lost. The work, like Celsus' On The True Doctrine, is only known in fragments from Christian writers who quoted it.

Porphyry's works were even more successfully destroyed by the Christian church, where even Christian writers who incorporated sections of Porphyry's polemic had their works burned in order to eliminate what one critic, the bishop Apollinarius, called the "poison of his thought."

The Christian church in its early centuries really was the IS/Daesh of the ancient world.

Would you please quote us the Christian Scriptures authorizing these Christian terrorist and the atrocities you allege???

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Would you please quote us the Christian Scriptures authorizing these Christian terrorist and the atrocities you allege???

Search out the books of the heretics . .. in every place,wherever you can, either bring them to us or burn them in the fire". Book burning of course has a long "tradition" in Christianity.

[mikewhitney]

Search out the books of the heretics . .. in every place,wherever you can, either bring them to us or burn them in the fire". Book burning of course has a long "tradition" in Christianity.

Oh. That's why your crusade against Christians -- because of the name you take on here. You want to avenge her death by killing Christianity and denying your Creator's existence.

The problems you are complaining against are those common among all of humanity. Sometimes Christian leaders have not gotten free of the culture and the human misuse of power.

And the Jewish and Gentile burning of their own books is not an evil sign of censorship in Acts 19. It was their own property they burned and this was material that kept them in bondage. They would have continued supporting ungodly magic practices by preserving their books.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Oh. That's why your crusade against Christians -- because of the name you take on here. You want to avenge her death by killing Christianity and denying your Creator's existence.

Where did I write that? You have a remarkably fertile imagination.

However, the fact is that in its early centuries Christianity destroyed artefacts, literature, and sometime people. Lynch mobs are hardly a new phenomenon. Nor is violence premised on bigotry, hatred, and intolerance.

For the early Christian religious fanatics [of which there were many] anything that was deemed in their minds to be "heretical", or tainted with "pagan idolatry", or "demonology" was destroyed.

And the Jewish and Gentile burning of their own books is not an evil sign of censorship in Acts 19.

What has that to do with events of the fourth century and later?

[DesertBerean]

The works of Celsus and Porphyry were burned by the early Christian church and the Emperor Julian's Contra Galilaeos [Against the Galileans] was anathematised after his death and the text lost. The work, like Celsus' On The True Doctrine, is only known in fragments from Christian writers who quoted it.

Porphyry's works were even more successfully destroyed by the Christian church, where even Christian writers who incorporated sections of Porphyry's polemic had their works burned in order to eliminate what one critic, the bishop Apollinarius, called the "poison of his thought."

The Christian church in its early centuries really was the IS/Daesh of the ancient world.

Not really responsive...he asked for examples.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Not really responsive...he asked for examples.

Well if you really want to know. They all wrote polemical pieces against Christianity. Christians were mocked and derided for worshipping a man who had been executed as a common criminal. Porphyry and Celsus regarded Christianity as a religion that appealed to house slaves and the lower orders and whose adherents were uneducated, irrational, deluded, and intolerant. Julian regarded Christians as apostates from Judaism and was less than flattering towards the Jewish god. He also ridiculed the Christians for denying the Greek and Roman gods and for believing literally what the Jewish texts said.

All in all we know that what they wrote was highly unflattering to Christians and their beliefs.

Anyone who is interested can find sites online dealing with all three writers and there are several academic works available.

[Trucker]

Search out the books of the heretics . .. in every place,wherever you can, either bring them to us or burn them in the fire". Book burning of course has a long "tradition" in Christianity.

Please quote us the Christian Scriptures that would authorize such actions.

[Christian3]

[JimL]

Seeing as you just quoted the passage attributed to him..........