Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Tassman]

Just to be sure. You are not giving a respectable argument that Christ's resurrection didn't happen. You are only espousing a way that some things may be recorded that didn't happen.

The argument is that the assumption of some scholars that the pre-Pauline Christians may have believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not necessarily indicative that it did in fact happen. Especially as there is no actual record of what the pre-Pauline Christians believed.

[mikewhitney]

The argument is that the assumption of some scholars that the pre-Pauline Christians may have believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not necessarily indicative that it did in fact happen. Especially as there is no actual record of what the pre-Pauline Christians believed.

It is hardly likely that Paul had diverged from the common Christian conception when writing Galatians. He affirms his interactions with James, Peter and the Antioch church. There was no controversy except whether the Gentiles should follow the Mosaic Law. This issue was raised by Pharisees who then came to follow Christ. The controversies appear somewhat in the Book of Acts. This was mostly of a continuation of problems related to the Pharisee view and those found in Hebrews.

We can also find all the non-Pauline letters as additional insights into the nature of Christ written independent of Paul. Being parallels, they find confirmation of Paul's writings and would reasonably encompass the time from Christ throughout the first century. So you tend to be saying apart from this evidence, we have no idea of what was known about Christ in the first century. This is quite a reduction of source material and a stretch of credibility of your theory.

[Tassman]

It is hardly likely that Paul had diverged from the common Christian conception .

There is NO known “common Christian conception” for the earliest decades prior to the Pauline epistles – merely assumptions. There is no actual material available. Christianity has always been an evolving religion and the earliest documentation is Paul's first Thessalonians (c. 50 CE). .

[Tassman]

Ok, let's go with that. There is something there, something available in the letters of Paul and what you call 'subjective' assumptions are the educated assumptions or hypotheses of scholars about the 'something' and what those 'somethings' indicate. And it is a consensus agreement.

Again, such assumptions (among different scholars) based on lifetimes of critical scholarship beats an opinion or a guess by those who don't have that expertise or education or facility with ancient languages or who have not meticulously compared Pau's letters where such 'ancient creeds' are included and have shown that nowhere else does Paul use similar words or phrases.

Having said that, of course there is, therefore, a preponderance of evidence indicating precisely that pre-Pauline followers of Jesus did indeed profess their experience of him risen after his crucification............and it is that experience that galvanizes them into action.


You are not getting the difference: the resurrection of Jesus or Paul's experience of the risen Jesus are ahistorical - they are not events in history but on the 'other side' of history. Historians can't comment or judge them either way - there is nothing to go on. What is historical fact is that the disciples and Paul say they have experienced the Risen Jesus and the historical fact of what they did because of that experience. So, one can either accept their 'witness' or not but what came after there 'experience' is history. I suggest you read Bart Ehrman or any number of biblical historians on this difference.

I’m perfectly happy to accept that the pre-Pauline Christians “experienced” Jesus after his death in an "ahistorical" way, i.e. "not as an event in history". After all, it is a common phenomenon for anyone who has lost someone dear to them to spiritually experience them in this life via the memory and the residual influence they had in their lives. And it’s a reasonable explanation as to why later generations of Christians took these reported experiences to be literal, historical occurrences - especially in a gullible era of signs, wonders and miracles.

Nevertheless, this is NOT how the resurrection is now understood by believers. Today the claim of an historical literal bodily resurrection of Jesus is central to the Christian message as the cornerstone of all claims to divinity and salvific efficacy,

[mikewhitney]

There is NO known “common Christian conception” for the earliest decades prior to the Pauline epistles – merely assumptions. There is no actual material available. Christianity has always been an evolving religion and the earliest documentation is Paul's first Thessalonians (c. 50 CE). .

I just listed all the other writings. Since the Deity of Christ was recognized in Galatians (written 47-48), this is the earliest attestation of the conventional understanding of Christian. Paul was sent from Antioch for this mission so it is hardly likely that Paul differed in his view from the Antioch Jews and Gentiles. You would find controversy raised about this had that happened. Your theory is preposterous.

[thormas]

I’m perfectly happy to accept that the pre-Pauline Christians “experienced” Jesus after his death in an "ahistorical" way, i.e. "not as an event in history". After all, it is a common phenomenon for anyone who has lost someone dear to them to spiritually experience them in this life via the memory and the residual influence they had in their lives. And it’s a reasonable explanation as to why later generations of Christians took these reported experiences to be literal, historical occurrences - especially in a gullible era of signs, wonders and miracles.

Nevertheless, this is NOT how the resurrection is now understood by believers. Today the claim of an historical literal bodily resurrection of Jesus is central to the Christian message as the cornerstone of all claims to divinity and salvific efficacy,

Good, we're getting somewhere.

I don't know how common it is, although I do get that we have memories of that person and their influence continues. However, I know of no one, myself included, who has ever 'spiritually experienced' a dead person. And, to be fair, whether one buys it to not, the disciples seem to be stating something more or different: that Jesus is 'risen.' However, as I said, I have no possible idea of their experience. And, not sure, if it is not a common experience, if this explains the gradual acceptance of their witness?? Further, I think people are just as gullible today even in our era.

I do know what the claim is but I am simply commenting on the report of the disciples and the ancient creeds in Paul. Again, I am not out to justify anything - just having a conversation based on what we have.

[shunyadragon]

Good, we're getting somewhere.

I don't know how common it is, although I do get that we have memories of that person and their influence continues. However, I know of no one, myself included, who has ever 'spiritually experienced' a dead person. And, to be fair, whether one buys it to not, the disciples seem to be stating something more or different: that Jesus is 'risen.' However, as I said, I have no possible idea of their experience. And, not sure, if it is not a common experience, if this explains the gradual acceptance of their witness?? Further, I think people are just as gullible today even in our era.

I do know what the claim is but I am simply commenting on the report of the disciples and the ancient creeds in Paul. Again, I am not out to justify anything - just having a conversation based on what we have.

I believe you have tried to press and justify your view, based on anecdotal evidence from before 50 AD. Yes, the oral testimony of the 'glorified miraculous Jesus' testimony likely extends to his life time, but that does not justify the belief in the Trinity, which is the subject of the thread. It is common to amplify biographies with with the miraculous and divinity of Messianic figures and rulers all throughout the history of the cultures of humanity.

No I do not give a lot of weight to apologists with an agenda, and question the weight of your claim of atheist and secular scholars and historians that would contribute to the debate. Who are these scholars and historians likely not supporting the religious beliefs, but describing what Christians believe as Christianity evolved?
Your selective citation of Ehrman does not reflect his whole view of an evolved Jesus in the eyes of the believers from a human Jesus to a Trinitarian God.

I do believe there was an early simple biography and collection of saying early in Christian history that evolved into the gospels.

[thormas]

I believe you have tried to press and justify your view, based on anecdotal evidence from before 50 AD. Yes, the oral testimony of the 'glorified miraculous Jesus' testimony likely extends to his life time, but that does not justify the belief in the Trinity, which is the subject of the thread. It is common to amplify biographies with with the miraculous and divinity of Messianic figures and rulers all throughout the history of the cultures of humanity.

No I do not give a lot of weight to apologists with an agenda, and question the weight of your claim of atheist and secular scholars and historians that would contribute to the debate. Who are these scholars and historians likely not supporting the religious beliefs, but describing what Christians believe as Christianity evolved?
Your selective citation of Ehrman does not reflect his whole view of an evolved Jesus in the eyes of the believers from a human Jesus to a Trinitarian God.

I do believe there was an early simple biography and collection of saying early in Christian history that evolved into the gospels.

Actually, I'm just following the evidence and don't need much of anything to justify my faith response to God.

We should really do one issue at a time. And the topic, of late, has been the ancient creeds in Paul. Trinity is bit of a different issue, which I am also interested in discussing.

However, I would actually question whether the so-called 'glorified miraculous Jesus' extends to his lifetime.........but that too is another issue.

I do not take (and neither do scholars) the Pauline epistles as biographies which, again, is part of the present topic.

Once again, I have no idea what apologist agenda to which you refer. But, indeed, the weight of scholarship is on my side (or better, I am on their side) and the fact that scholars of different (and even no religious belief) agree indicated that there is no agenda............all are just following the evidence. Such Jewish scholars I usually read are Levine and Fredriksen, an atheist scholar is Ehrman and there are a host of Christian scholars who run the gamut from Catholic to Protestant to Progressive. As for selective citations: well I don't want to overwhelm anyone and discussions like these only require selective or pertinent citations and where they can be found so all can read them if interested and it also shows that one is citing accepted authorities and has nothing to hide. That's why I keep asking for your sources.

At this point I have not been interested in the whole view of an evolved Jesus in Christianity - I am simply starting at the beginning.

I think it is perfectly fine for anyone to have questions about or simply question the idea of Trinity - I am not apologizing/defending it. But that is a separate issue than the ancient creeds in Paul.

What is that early biography and sayings collection in early Christian history?

[shunyadragon]

Actually, I'm just following the evidence and don't need much of anything to justify my faith response to God.

I did not say your faith in God was an issue.

We should really do one issue at a time. And the topic, of late, has been the ancient creeds in Paul. Trinity is bit of a different issue, which I am also interested in discussing.

The topic is drift into another thread.

However, I would actually question whether the so-called 'glorified miraculous Jesus' extends to his lifetime.........but that too is another issue.

Actually, because of the Messianic expectations and human nature at the time I consider it very possible. This is true of Messianic figures in other cultures like Buddhism. Even throughout history up until now, the expectation, appearance of the miraculous in the eyes of the beholder and exaggeration have been apart of our human nature, and there is no reason to believe it was not so during the life of Jesus.

I do not take (and neither do scholars) the Pauline epistles as biographies which, again, is part of the present topic.

Never claimed you believed this. The Bible as a whole is not history, but human records set in history.

Once again, I have no idea what apologist agenda to which you refer. But, indeed, the weight of scholarship is on my side (or better, I am on their side) and the fact that scholars of different (and even no religious belief) agree indicated that there is no agenda............all are just following the evidence. Such Jewish scholars I usually read are Levine and Fredriksen, an atheist scholar is Ehrman and there are a host of Christian scholars who run the gamut from Catholic to Protestant to Progressive. As for selective citations: well I don't want to overwhelm anyone and discussions like these only require selective or pertinent citations and where they can be found so all can read them if interested and it also shows that one is citing accepted authorities and has nothing to hide. That's why I keep asking for your sources.

As far as an apologist agenda, this pretty much a problem with all religion's because their purpose is to justify what they believe.

I am asking for 'citations' of sources that support your claims (?), and one citation from Ehrman foes not support Ehrman's view, to support anything more than his view as a historical perspective of an evolving Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Frederick's books simply describe a historical context of how a Jewish Messianic movement, believing judgement of the world, Resurrection, and the end of the world evolved into a gentile religion with an incarnate God. Nothing here. like Ehrman to justify anything else in an argument. I believe Paul is in large extent responsible for Christianity becoming a Paulist Hellenist Roman gentile religion, which would be a separate thread you alluded to concerning Paul and the history of Christianity.

At this point I have not been interested in the whole view of an evolved Jesus in Christianity - I am simply starting at the beginning.

This is where we are on a different thread topic. OK, but I have to shift gears.

Well, ah . . . it is the beginning, which is the first fifty years, that is basically unknown, beyond the testimony of those that did not know Jesus. I do believe that scholars like Fredrikson and Ehrman cover this well, and acknowledge the limits of our present knowledge.

I think it is perfectly fine for anyone to have questions about or simply question the idea of Trinity - I am not apologizing/defending it. But that is a separate issue than the ancient creeds in Paul.

We are drifting into a third or fourth different topic here.

What is that early biography and sayings collection in early Christian history?

At present it is the hypothetical Book of Q, which evolved in the Gospels including the Gospel of Thomas. This in part based on the history progressive additions over time of the existing gospels, and comparing their origins to an earlier common source. I consider the Gospel of Thomas as legitimate Gospel as the others.

[thormas]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1202002]

I did not say your faith in God was an issue.

Apologies for misunderstanding as I associate view and faith.

[thormas]

I did not say your faith in God was an issue.

The topic is drift into another thread.

Actually, because of the Messianic expectations and human nature at the time I consider it very possible. This is true of Messianic figures in other cultures like Buddhism. Even throughout history up until now, the expectation, appearance of the miraculous in the eyes of the beholder and exaggeration have been apart of our human nature, and there is no reason to believe it was not so during the life of Jesus.

Never claimed you believed this. The Bible as a whole is not history, but human records set in history.

As far as an apologist agenda, this pretty much a problem with all religion's because their purpose is to justify what they believe.

I am asking for 'citations' of sources that support your claims (?), and one citation from Ehrman foes not support Ehrman's view, to support anything more than his view as a historical perspective of an evolving Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Frederick's books simply describe a historical context of how a Jewish Messianic movement, believing judgement of the world, Resurrection, and the end of the world evolved into a gentile religion with an incarnate God. Nothing here. like Ehrman to justify anything else in an argument. I believe Paul is in large extent responsible for Christianity becoming a Paulist Hellenist Roman gentile religion, which would be a separate thread you alluded to concerning Paul and the history of Christianity.

This is where we are on a different thread topic. OK, but I have to shift gears.

Well, ah . . . it is the beginning, which is the first fifty years, that is basically unknown, beyond the testimony of those that did not know Jesus. I do believe that scholars like Fredrikson and Ehrman cover this well, and acknowledge the limits of our present knowledge.

We are drifting into a third or fourth different topic here.



At present it is the hypothetical Book of Q, which evolved in the Gospels including the Gospel of Thomas. This in part based on the history progressive additions over time of the existing gospels, and comparing their origins to an earlier common source. I consider the Gospel of Thomas as legitimate Gospel as the others.

Apologies for misunderstanding the view/ faith part.

Yeah, it is sometimes hard to keep up on the topic of a thread because they do seem to wander but this one, of late, seems to be focused on ancient beliefs in Paul.

Again, ' 'glorified miraculous Jesus' extending to his lifetime seems best for another time.

Agreed on the Bible.

I understand apologist for different religions but just trying to get across that I'm not acting in that capacity here, I am just curious about these topics, presenting scholarly findings and following the 'evidence.' At other points, I have no problem talking about personal beliefs - which for me can evolve.

I think I have been an honest broker about Ehrman's views on this topic as I am quoting from his blog or one of his books. If you think I'm wrong about what he says on this topic, have at it........with citations:+} Again, I follow Ehrman on the evolution of Christology but I was just seeing what he had to say about pre-pauline (and ancient) creeds in Paul. I have no problem having a discussion on the evolution from Jesus through the 4th C and down through today.

Fredriksen offers a wealth of information but I was just mentioning her (a convert to Judaism) as one of the scholars whom I have read quite a bit. I haven't fully checked her on the pre-pauline texts.

I recognize the limitations but Ehrman, Hurtado, Hengel, just to mention a few, state and show there is something 'there' in the Pauline epistles and also in Acts (which I haven't really concentrated on). I do know Fredriksen mentions ancient material in Paul in her book "Jesus of Nazareth' as does Dale Allison in his book 'Contructing Jesus' and even cites Hengel.

Again I am open if you want to switch gears but we should be clear for ourselves and others.

I in the process of considering book by Mark Goodacre of Duke on Q.

[Tassman]

Good, we're getting somewhere.

You think?

I don't know how common it is, although I do get that we have memories of that person and their influence continues. However, I know of no one, myself included, who has ever 'spiritually experienced' a dead person. And, to be fair, whether one buys it to not, the disciples seem to be stating something more or different: that Jesus is 'risen.' However, as I said, I have no possible idea of their experience. And, not sure, if it is not a common experience, if this explains the gradual acceptance of their witness?? Further, I think people are just as gullible today even in our era.

Correct. You don’t have any “possible idea of their experience”. Nobody does because there is no record for 20+ years of what it was – merely assumptions based upon what came later. But for you to argue that, whatever it was, the experience of Jesus’ resurrection was an event that was “ahistorical” or occurred “on the other side of history” is utterly meaningless. History is history – it occurs in time and relates to actual past events.

I do know what the claim is but I am simply commenting on the report of the disciples and the ancient creeds in Paul. Again, I am not out to justify anything - just having a conversation based on what we have.

What we have for the first couple of decades of Christianity is a relatively small group of ill-educated followers in a gullible age of wonders and miracles and assumptions about what they may have believed about their dead leader at the time. This evolved over time into the full panoply of the Christian religion as we now know it – complete with Christological doctrines about the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union and etc. But all grounded in an alleged miracle of a bodily resurrection.

[thormas]

You think?



Correct. You don’t have any “possible idea of their experience”. Nobody does because there is no record for 20+ years of what it was – merely assumptions based upon what came later. But for you to argue that, whatever it was, the experience of Jesus’ resurrection was an event that was “ahistorical” or occurred “on the other side of history” is utterly meaningless. History is history – it occurs in time and relates to actual past events.



What we have for the first couple of decades of Christianity is a relatively small group of ill-educated followers in a gullible age of wonders and miracles and assumptions about what they may have believed about their dead leader at the time. This evolved over time into the full panoply of the Christian religion as we now know it – complete with Christological doctrines about the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union and etc. But all grounded in an alleged miracle of a bodily resurrection.

Definitely, I'm an optimist.

Again, I'll go with the scholars/experts who highlight the ancient creeds, in those letters, which go back to the beginning of the movement. They present a preponderance of evidence that indicates that in Paul and even Acts (yes Acts) there are ancient creeds, presented in language never repeated anywhere else in Paul (or Luke).

And, to be clear, the resurrection of Jesus was ahistorical - it was not something that could be or was observed. Even Paul's experience was only his - no one else knew anything was going on except the guy in front fell off his horse. However, what was historical was the report of the appearances of Jesus Risen - that started everything (probably within months of the crucifixion).

Simply, I have made the case with reference to numerous scholars and, other than expressing your opinion (which is your right), you have not presented anything to refute that scholarship.


Note, you do realize that there is a history of other messianic figures in the same age, by similar people, and there is no exclamation that "He is Risen' ..........and that made all the difference.

[thormas]

.

[shunyadragon]

Definitely, I'm an optimist.

Again, I'll go with the scholars/experts who highlight the ancient creeds, in those letters, which go back to the beginning of the movement. They present a preponderance of evidence that indicates that in Paul and even Acts (yes Acts) there are ancient creeds, presented in language never repeated anywhere else in Paul (or Luke).

And, to be clear, the resurrection of Jesus was ahistorical - it was not something that could be or was observed. Even Paul's experience was only his - no one else knew anything was going on except the guy in front fell off his horse. However, what was historical was the report of the appearances of Jesus Risen - that started everything (probably within months of the crucifixion)

Could be . . . not objectively, and it is a subjective reason to believe, but beyond that it is not convincing to those who do not believe. Most of the scholarchip you have presented is based on apologetic belief, and not convincing beyond that. Yes I disagree strongly with your conclusion based on Ehrman and Fredrikson, since they are more from the historian perspective describing what people believe at different times, and do not make any conclusion as to the 'belief' aspects of Christianity. I may cite more, but their books taken as a whole is my basic argument. Citing early as possible sources was from a historical perspective, and not apologetic.

Simply, I have made the case with reference to numerous scholars and, other than expressing your opinion (which is your right), you have not presented anything to refute that scholarship.

Religious scholarship is heavily subjective and most often it is not refutable, but some believe and some do not.

Note, you do realize that there is a history of other messianic figures in the same age, by similar people, and there is no exclamation that "He is Risen' ..........and that made all the difference.

. . . but only from the traditional Christian perspective. Every diverse religion and belief system has unique beliefs. I do not think this is unique when compared to Judaism, but Christianity puts it in their own context. The expectation of Paul, Apostles, and believers for the Resurrection at that time was not fulfilled.