Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[thormas]

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.



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


. . . 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.

Respectfully, you're simply wrong with the apologist mantra. There are a host of scholars, all in agreement, with diverse religious backgrounds. There is no evidence that they are apologists.

Both these scholars are also biblical scholars - since historians of Christianity also cover the NT (and also the OT) - which these two do. And both of them, in addition to Vermes, Johnson, Hurtado, Hengel, Allison (just to mention 7) agree on the ancient creeds in Paul. So I await your citations. And, your argument is questionable given the subjects of their books, blogs and videos.

Of course it is refutable: I just included where Ehrman and Hurtado (who often agree) are at odds over 'Jesus as an angel' in Paul. And Hurtado gave a mixed review (mostly favorable I believe) to a Fredriksen book. These people are not shy in their disagreements and the scholarly community is one that all are measured by.

I'm simply saying that the historians and biblical scholars tell us about other Jewish messianic figures who are known but nothing ever came of them after their untimely deaths/executions. Not talking outside of Judaism.

I totally agree that their expectation was not fulfilled........that's why we see a change in those expectations.

[shunyadragon]

Respectfully, you're simply wrong with the apologist mantra. There are a host of scholars, all in agreement, with diverse religious backgrounds. There is no evidence that they are apologists.

I did not say all scholars are a apologists. Ehrman and Fredrikson are not apologist.

Both these scholars are also biblical scholars - since historians of Christianity also cover the NT (and also the OT) - which these two do. And both of them, in addition to Vermes, Johnson, Hurtado, Hengel, Allison (just to mention 7) agree on the ancient creeds in Paul. So I await your citations. And, your argument is questionable given the subjects of their books, blogs and videos.

Of course it is refutable: I just included where Ehrman and Hurtado (who often agree) are at odds over 'Jesus as an angel' in Paul. And Hurtado gave a mixed review (mostly favorable I believe) to a Fredriksen book. These people are not shy in their disagreements and the scholarly community is one that all are measured by.

I disagree it is too subjective.

I'm simply saying that the historians and biblical scholars tell us about other Jewish messianic figures who are known but nothing ever came of them after their untimely deaths/executions. Not talking outside of Judaism.

Too consider reality in terms of the universal you have to consider more than just Judaism and Christianity.

I totally agree that their expectation was not fulfilled........that's why we see a change in those expectations.

I consider it an important issue if we are going to address the is of the Ressurection.

[thormas]

I did not say all scholars are a apologists. Ehrman and Fredrikson are not apologist.

I disagree it is too subjective.

Too consider reality in terms of the universal you have to consider more than just Judaism and Christianity.

I consider it an important issue if we are going to address the is of the Ressurection.

Well, there we go since the ones I read (partial list given) are not.

Well, it's not and you have not established that - simply made a subjective statement, i.e. opinion.

Ok, but my discussion is limited to J and C.

I didn't say it was unimportant.

[mikewhitney]

I did not say all scholars are a apologists. Ehrman and Fredrikson are not apologist.

Both these scholars are also biblical scholars - since historians of Christianity also cover the NT (and also the OT) - which these two do. And both of them, in addition to Vermes, Johnson, Hurtado, Hengel, Allison (just to mention 7) agree on the ancient creeds in Paul. So I await your citations. And, your argument is questionable given the subjects of their books, blogs and videos.



I disagree it is too subjective.



Too consider reality in terms of the universal you have to consider more than just Judaism and Christianity.



I consider it an important issue if we are going to address the is of the Ressurection.

The Son and the Father are the universal. So it is ignorant to put aside that critical point.

[Tassman]

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.

The only early creed in Paul I’m aware of is 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, which I’ve already covered several times. This is merely a statement of beliefs, not objective historical reporting, and Jesus’ appearances are in the same category as the “appearance” in Paul’s Damascene vision. Namely, a subjective experience no different in essence to the subjective experiences modern-day Christians of Jesus in their lives.

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.

Indeed. It’s the reporting of the subjective “appearances of Jesus Risen” NOT evidence of the appearances themselves. There is no historical record of that. Nor is there any indication of Jesus as a person of the Trinity or simultaneously ‘fully god and fully man’ as found in later Christian doctrine.

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.

No “difference” at all. Whatever the beliefs are they are still merely subjective beliefs.

[thormas]

The only early creed in Paul I’m aware of is 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, which I’ve already covered several times. This is merely a statement of beliefs, not objective historical reporting, and Jesus’ appearances are in the same category as the “appearance” in Paul’s Damascene vision. Namely, a subjective experience no different in essence to the subjective experiences modern-day Christians of Jesus in their lives.


Indeed. It’s the reporting of the subjective “appearances of Jesus Risen” NOT evidence of the appearances themselves. There is no historical record of that. Nor is there any indication of Jesus as a person of the Trinity or simultaneously ‘fully god and fully man’ as found in later Christian doctrine.


No “difference” at all. Whatever the beliefs are they are still merely subjective beliefs.

I have no real argument with most of what you've said. My point, at least one of those points, is that there is a creed in 1 Cor. that presupposed that the listeners already knew it and that the majority of scholars say is an ancient belief/creed that Paul received from earlier Christians. That's it.

It is historical that this was the Christian belief and there is nothing to dispute that. Paul, then, was reporting (repeating) that historical belief. 'Objective' historical reporting of any religious belief or even an atheistic belief is simply stating that X or Y is the particular belief................statements for or against God are not provable, if that is what you're talking about.

Again, all we can talk about is what is or is not Christian belief and, based on scholarly research, assert whether some Pauline statements are older than his writings and thus pre-date Paul. If you're looking for evidence of the resurrection, of risen appearances, of Jesus exalted by God or God himself - you're in the wrong business:+}

Okay, then name those other executed messianic figures (without research). Not many (probably any except specialist in that area) can because the difference is the belief in and the movement that sprang from the resurrection and exaltation of this particular messianic figure, named Jesus,

Now, as for 'indications' that Jesus is fully God and fully man, you will be surprised to discover that there are also ancient creeds in Paul (i.e. that predate him in Christianity) that indeed express the belief that Jesus is a pre-existent being who became human.

[thormas]

Also added to another thread in this section:

In Paul, we find numerous passages that present Jesus as a divine, even a pre-existent, being who then humbles himself and is born a human. And, the majority of scholars accept that some of what is included by Paul in his Phil. epistles (The Christ Poem), is actually an older creed/belief accepted and known in earlier 'Christian' groups.

There is some back and forth that Jesus is understood to be an angel of God, perhaps even the Angel of the Lord (Ehrman hold this view), whereas other scholars (for example, Hurtado) focus on the definite pre-existence of Jesus with God, his choice to humble himself and then his exaltation as a result of that humbling and sacrifice.

So, seemingly as early as the first decade after the crucifixion, there is already an amazingly high Christology, repeated by Paul, in early Christianity. It remains a bit vague, in the poem, who Jesus is as a pre-existent divine being. There are also other references to Jesus as pre-existent divine being in other Pauline epistles.

However, it is interesting to at least ask, how, if Jesus is God, he can be 'highly exalted' by God the Father........what is higher than already being God?

The Christ Poem is discussed at length in Ehrman's 'How Jesus Became God' and in Hurtado's 'How on Earth Did Jesus Become God.'

[Tassman]

I have no real argument with most of what you've said. My point, at least one of those points, is that there is a creed in 1 Cor. that presupposed that the listeners already knew it and that the majority of scholars say is an ancient belief/creed that Paul received from earlier Christians. That's it.

It is historical that this was the Christian belief and there is nothing to dispute that. Paul, then, was reporting (repeating) that historical belief. 'Objective' historical reporting of any religious belief or even an atheistic belief is simply stating that X or Y is the particular belief................statements for or against God are not provable, if that is what you're talking about.

Again, all we can talk about is what is or is not Christian belief and, based on scholarly research, assert whether some Pauline statements are older than his writings and thus pre-date Paul. If you're looking for evidence of the resurrection, of risen appearances, of Jesus exalted by God or God himself - you're in the wrong business:+} .

It is entirely likely that the so-called ‘little creed’ of 1 Cor 15 reflects the pre-Pauline beliefs of Jesus’ early followers. But this in no way indicates that these beliefs were true. This was a non-scientific era whereby magic and miracles were taken for granted. Roman emperors were deified and miracle-workers were commonplace, e.g. Apollonius of Tyana – an exact contemporary of Jesus.

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman relates that in the introduction to his textbook on the New Testament, he describes an important figure from the first century without first revealing he is writing about the stories attached to Apollonius of Tyana:

“Even before he was born, it was known that he would be someone special. A supernatural being informed his mother that the child she was to conceive would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. He was born miraculously, and he became an unusually precocious young man. As an adult he left home and went on an itinerant preaching ministry, urging his listeners to live, not for the material things of this world, but for what is spiritual. He gathered a number of disciples around him, who became convinced that his teachings were divinely inspired, in no small part because he himself was divine. He proved it to them by doing many miracles, healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. But at the end of his life he roused opposition, and his enemies delivered him over to the Roman authorities for judgment. Still, after he left this world, he returned to meet his followers in order to convince them that he was not really dead but lived on in the heavenly realm. Later some of his followers wrote books about him.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo...ons_with_Jesus

[mikewhitney]

It is entirely likely that the so-called ‘little creed’ of 1 Cor 15 reflects the pre-Pauline beliefs of Jesus’ early followers. But this in no way indicates that these beliefs were true. This was a non-scientific era whereby magic and miracles were taken for granted. Roman emperors were deified and miracle-workers were commonplace, e.g. Apollonius of Tyana – an exact contemporary of Jesus.

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman relates that in the introduction to his textbook on the New Testament, he describes an important figure from the first century without first revealing he is writing about the stories attached to Apollonius of Tyana:

“Even before he was born, it was known that he would be someone special. A supernatural being informed his mother that the child she was to conceive would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. He was born miraculously, and he became an unusually precocious young man. As an adult he left home and went on an itinerant preaching ministry, urging his listeners to live, not for the material things of this world, but for what is spiritual. He gathered a number of disciples around him, who became convinced that his teachings were divinely inspired, in no small part because he himself was divine. He proved it to them by doing many miracles, healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. But at the end of his life he roused opposition, and his enemies delivered him over to the Roman authorities for judgment. Still, after he left this world, he returned to meet his followers in order to convince them that he was not really dead but lived on in the heavenly realm. Later some of his followers wrote books about him.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo...ons_with_Jesus

That did not at all sound like the account of Jesus. Your thinking would have to be syncretic to some mystical religions that focus on some vague concept of spirituality. Then the discussion of this divinity does not match with that which seems to derive from scripture.

I could see how a teenager might see too much similarity but someone who has a better understanding of Christianity would not be tricked by this.

[Tassman]

That did not at all sound like the account of Jesus. Your thinking would have to be syncretic to some mystical religions that focus on some vague concept of spirituality. Then the discussion of this divinity does not match with that which seems to derive from scripture.

You’ve completely missed the point. I’m not making an argument about Apollonius of Tyana vis-a-vis Jesus, per se. It’s an argument of how, in the gullible, superstitious, non-scientific era prior to the Enlightenment, the existence of magic and miracles was taken for granted as possible - as per Jesus’ resurrection in the 1 Cor 15 Little Creed. Apollonius was merely another example to illustrate this. Another is Alexander the Great who believed he was truly the son of Zeus - and so on. There are many such instances of such pre-scientific magical thinking.

[mikewhitney]

You’ve completely missed the point. I’m not making an argument about Apollonius of Tyana vis-a-vis Jesus, per se. It’s an argument of how, in the gullible, superstitious, non-scientific era prior to the Enlightenment, the existence of magic and miracles was taken for granted as possible - as per Jesus’ resurrection in the 1 Cor 15 Little Creed. Apollonius was merely another example to illustrate this. Another is Alexander the Great who believed he was truly the son of Zeus - and so on. There are many such instances of such pre-scientific magical thinking.

No wonder I missed it. Just because people can be gullible does not mean there is any application of this to scripture.

Your actual point reminds me how gullible people are to believe stuff just because the media or government says it is based on science.

[thormas]

It is entirely likely that the so-called ‘little creed’ of 1 Cor 15 reflects the pre-Pauline beliefs of Jesus’ early followers. But this in no way indicates that these beliefs were true. This was a non-scientific era whereby magic and miracles were taken for granted. Roman emperors were deified and miracle-workers were commonplace, e.g. Apollonius of Tyana – an exact contemporary of Jesus.

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman relates that in the introduction to his textbook on the New Testament, he describes an important figure from the first century without first revealing he is writing about the stories attached to Apollonius of Tyana:

“Even before he was born, it was known that he would be someone special. A supernatural being informed his mother that the child she was to conceive would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. He was born miraculously, and he became an unusually precocious young man. As an adult he left home and went on an itinerant preaching ministry, urging his listeners to live, not for the material things of this world, but for what is spiritual. He gathered a number of disciples around him, who became convinced that his teachings were divinely inspired, in no small part because he himself was divine. He proved it to them by doing many miracles, healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. But at the end of his life he roused opposition, and his enemies delivered him over to the Roman authorities for judgment. Still, after he left this world, he returned to meet his followers in order to convince them that he was not really dead but lived on in the heavenly realm. Later some of his followers wrote books about him.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo...ons_with_Jesus

I have no problem with that (if I understand your point correctly). Simply, as I have said and you agree, there is no way to ultimately determine religious beliefs........of any kind be it a belief about God, specific religious figures or the belief that there is no God. I think I remember that move by Ehrman, I'll have to read it again.

[Tassman]

Just because people can be gullible does not mean there is any application of this to scripture.

Your actual point reminds me how gullible people are to believe stuff just because the media or government says it is based on science.

“Gullible people” are credulous, i.e. easily persuaded to believe something without supporting evidence. - whether scientific or religious.

[Tassman]

I have no problem with that (if I understand your point correctly). Simply, as I have said and you agree, there is no way to ultimately determine religious beliefs........of any kind be it a belief about God, specific religious figures or the belief that there is no God. I think I remember that move by Ehrman, I'll have to read it again.

Indeed. As you say “there is no way to ultimately determine religious beliefs” because they are by their very nature subjective. Whether they be Alexander the Great believing that the god Apollo spoke to him via the Delphic Oracle, assuring him that he was invincible. Or the early followers of Jesus believing that he appeared to them after he was executed and buried.

In neither case could these experiences be shown to be true. But, in both instances, the world was transformed. Alexander conquered the known world, changing it forever. And Christianity grew into one of the great religions. ALL based upon unverified subjective beliefs.

[mikewhitney]

“Gullible people” are credulous, i.e. easily persuaded to believe something without supporting evidence. - whether scientific or religious.

On the other hand, nobody has the full scientific knowledge to assess what he or she believes. Primarily people accept the idea that various specialties have contributed accurately to the things we take for granted. It is difficult to look to truth beyond what the culture thinks.