The Evolution of Jesus in Early Christianity

a reply to: Raggedyman

Sure...


Lol.

My opinion on things usually follows what the most educated people on the planet think about the subject..


I am not the one who thinks I am so special I have discovered the most important thing in the universe. So I’m right and everyone else is wrong..

I am not the one claiming to know the unknowable..

a reply to: howtonhawky

It isn’t my fault the historical account conflicts with modern Christian doctrine. I think people have a right to know all the data so they can make informed decisions..

a reply to: howtonhawky

A) if he was adopted at the resurrection, then he is still the son of god..

B) those writings are decades to over a century later. AFTER they had time to figure out dogma.

C) it’s got noting to do with interpretation of the scripture. It is a historical question. On a OP that is talking about the historical account..


Your confusing a doctrinal question with a historical one.

If it’s a doctrine question then you have to address it by assuming it is all true. With a history question you do not make that assumption.

I am not sure I would call it an evolution.

The atom, as the Greeks understood it, was a fundamental building block of our world. As science progressed the understanding of the Atom also progress but it's definition didn't evolve. We are still discovering it is not the beginning of creation, not only our world, nor even the Universe, but it is also not itself the beginning (quarks, charms, lepton and now string theory).

It is ignorance of human understanding of something that is so very small like the atom or massive like the universe, that evolves as we cannot yet see it.

I think that understanding a creator is much like either of these (both vastly and incredibly large or fantastically minute) and definitions of which will change with as understanding of our place in this universe changes. Both with the understanding of the ancients (like the Greeks) and with our own experiences in the modern world.

Jesus, much like the Atom makes up the building blocks of creation, is the fundamental building block of Christianity, but there are so many parts to the Atom are they atom, is Jesus the same in our understanding of God?

Of course when we break down the atom we find there are even smaller parts and our understanding changed and grew s when they finally grasped the divinity of the Christ centuries later looking back through scripture.

Somehow I wonder our understanding beyond the atom or the vast universe is it in ad finitum?

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: Akragon

You guys don't follow Jesus at all. You follow Paul's BS 100%.

WOAH... SLow down there chief!!

I have like 4 threads on Paul... and i am not a fan in the least

Check yourself

originally posted by: KansasGirl
a reply to: Akragon

If you want good replies, you ought to post a good summary of the video. All the effort you put into it was "The video speaks for itself." Literally no summary, not even a listing, of the topics or points covered in the video. So I don't think you have any reason to take issue with any of the replies so far.

i didn't have any issues with the replies... Though i do expect certain people to show whenever i make a thread

I was interested in seeing what kind of conversation develops with those that actually watch the video

Plus i was headed to bed

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EasternShadow
I really think you are mid interpreting him. He might literally be the only reason you know about those contradictions because he is who popularized them decades ago.

He wrote the first book pointing out the contradictions and bashing smushing then all together into one book.

That's not true. Bart Erhman was still studying Theology when I learnt all the Bible's contradictions and inconsistencies from Muslim's scholars two decades ago. They also taught me to separate Jesus words from narrative, which is now you called Q source ( Jesus Logia ) to Luke and Matthew. Buddhism and Hinduism teach me something else lacking in Abrahamic religion, which is logic.

I also study Christology through other sources like meditation and received "revelation" in form of logical thinking. That is why I left Catholicism and Christian.

I agree with Barth Erhman regarding Christian's view changed after Jesus resurrection. But, Jesus crucifixion and ressurection were not found on early manuscripts. None of the apostles ( except Mary ) witnessed Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. It was added later, hence, you get contradictions and inconsistencies in all the gospels. Thus, you cannot know what was actually the apostles thinking after the resurrection. They went seperated ways with Peter and Paul conflicting each other due to the gentiles. But we do know the apostles and Paul were willing to die for their faith.

Bart Erhman also said, the early apostles didn't think Jesus was divine being. He forget, Mark, Matthew and John witness Jesus walked on water and they worshipped him. Obviously they did not think he was just a messiah.

In John 14:8-10 Jesus told Philip, "If you see me, you see the father". The apostles already thought Jesus was son of god before the resurrection. Not to mention, Jesus said a lot of controversial things to the Pharisees with regard to his divinity such as, "Before Abraham, I was..." So when Jesus resurrected Lazarus, the Pharisees had enough of this blasphemy.

The story that Jesus evolve from unknown carpenter to messiah to son of god to fully equal god of trinity did not start after resurrection. It started when Jesus was still alive. The actual question is, did the apostles believe in trinity or did it evolved by the gnostics after the dead of all apostles.

a reply to: EasternShadow

The story that Jesus evolve from unknown carpenter to messiah to son of god to fully equal god of trinity did not start after resurrection. It started when Jesus was still alive. The actual question is, did the apostle believe in trinity or did it evolved by the gnostics after the dead of all apostles.

This is not correct... The trinity didn't start until well after all the apostles and Paul were long dead...

There isn't a trace of trinitarian teaching in the gospels save two passages... both of which were additions to the texts

Considering the fact that John is the only gospel to even allude to Jesus being God is very telling... We can't even say truthfully that Jesus made any statement that made himself God... the narrative did... Others in the book did... Jesus did not... and even denied being God in one passage as he corrects a bunch of jews that were after him trying to say that he was claiming to be God... he states specifically that he is "the son of God"... which does not mean God or equal to God in any way shape or form...

There are three passages in John that say Jesus was NOT equal to God... And theres nothing as far as an actual doctrine of equality in any of the gospels... I and My Father are one does not mean equal... or one and the same.

No... the trinity is a much later development in the Jesus movement

One that none of the followers of Jesus would have recognized

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: EasternShadow

This is not correct... The trinity didn't start until well after all the apostles and Paul were long dead...

There isn't a trace of trinitarian teaching in the gospels save two passages... both of which were additions to the texts.

There isn't a trace of trinitarian teaching, I agree. But there are traces of pre-existing Jesus found in Mark, Matthew and Luke. Hence, leading to Arius ( or was it Lucian of Antioch? I still cant find others who propose preexisting Jesus in early christian beside John's gospel ) questioning Jesus' nature.
www.gotquestions.org...
www.eerdmans.com...
trinitynotes.blogspot.my...

originally posted by: Akragon
Considering the fact that John is the only gospel to even allude to Jesus being God is very telling... We can't even say truthfully that Jesus made any statement that made himself God... the narrative did... Others in the book did... Jesus did not... and even denied being God in one passage as he corrects a bunch of jews that were after him trying to say that he was claiming to be God... he states specifically that he is "the son of God"... which does not mean God or equal to God in any way shape or form...

I am very skeptic with John narrative, but I would not dismiss his account entirely, because John had very good credible sources, such as this:

I am persuaded that the fourth Gospel was written by John, the brother of James and son of Zebedee. There are quite a number of reasons for thinking this, and that means that this is going to be a rather long note.

So here’s the short answer:

1. Every scrap of evidence we have from the writings of the early church indicates that the fourth Gospel had always been known to be written by John. And we have lots.

2. A careful examination of the Gospel itself shows that it must have been written by a Jew who was a native of Palestine and an eyewitness of numerous events, including many where only Jesus and the disciples were present. From internal clues, we can pretty safely narrow it down to John.

Now for the long answer.

www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net...

However, I do not believe the gospel of John was written by a single Jews. I think, it was written gradually over time by multiple scribers ( proven by the fact it was the latest in canonical gospels ). Some are under John's direction. Some are not, hence, we get different narrative styles ( notable at the beginning and near the ending of the gospel ), inconsistencies and pericope ( stoning the adulterer ).

originally posted by: Akragon
There are three passages in John that say Jesus was NOT equal to God... And theres nothing as far as an actual doctrine of equality in any of the gospels... I and My Father are one does not mean equal... or one and the same.

Equality is not the case here. The main point is pre-existing Jesus. Like I said, John made multiple contradictions, inconsistencies and a pericope here and there. Therefore, we cannot be certain whether it was John's view or his scribers' view.

originally posted by: Akragon
No... the trinity is a much later development in the Jesus movement

One that none of the followers of Jesus would have recognized

Trinity developed later, but you have to asked where did the idea came from in the first place. Obviously it was derived from the illusion of preexisting Jesus, which lead to Arianism controversial and Nicene's Creed. If the gospels ( including the synoptics gospels ) never hinted preexisting Jesus, then we wouldn't have to deal with Arianism and Nicene's Creed later.

But it did, and now we are left with the "mystery of trinity" no one could explain logically.

So, I ask again, did Jesus really pre-exist or not? To me this the real root problem that lead to trinity in the first place. You have to wonder did Jesus actually said everything correctly in the gospels, considering that not all apostles were with him all the time.

a reply to: EasternShadow

My personal view is that everyone "pre-exists", so that isn't an issue in my book...

Equality is the biggest issue with the trinity because HE never once made the claim of equality with God... in fact is says the complete opposite... and a trinity is three EQUAL beings

Arius wasn't trinitarian... his belief was that Jesus was a divine being but subordinate to the Father, which was his biggest problem with the opposing faction of Christians... so much so that they had him murdered (poisoned) to remove his threat against trinitarian beliefs.

Arius was actually right... and followed the gospels to the word

Reconiling Arius

a reply to: Akragon

Hey ak, the Trinity is a theory, makes it a fact, accordingly

Smile, that was a joke, I didn't really mean it

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

Sure...


Lol.

My opinion on things usually follows what the most educated people on the planet think about the subject..


I am not the one who thinks I am so special I have discovered the most important thing in the universe. So I’m right and everyone else is wrong..

I am not the one claiming to know the unknowable..

Bart Ehrman is not people, he is a person
LOL

The funny thing Josh, you are like a Calvinist, JW or scientologiests, you have hitched your wagon to one theological belief and you can't see anything else from any other perspective, very fundamentalist like

To be honest, I have not heard Ehrman teach anything new, Ehrman for the most teaches many conflicting views, but they are all readily established as historical fact
I do like people who do that
We have had Tertullian, Clement, athanasius, Polycarp and Augustine to name a few church fathers, but you, who do you believe are the people to follow, Ehrman? your kidding
What's funny Josh isnEhrman discusses the church fathers and the people accused of heresy, Ehrmannoffers nothing new to the discussions that the church fathers havnt already proposed or thought about

I do believe Christianity is the most important thing on the planet though I didn't discover it, somebody shared it with me
And as you can see, I don't have all the answers

So sure, you follow the people, a Mr Ehrman, nobody else matters, and that same Ehrman has said nothing new
LOL

a reply to: SR1TX

Small point from the vocabulary police:

for all intensive purposes

should be:

for all intents and purposes

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Actually Jesus performed four important miracles in Mark
Casted out demons
Controlled the weather
Raised the dead
Forgave sin, all recorded all important showing His Power over everything

That's how we know Jesus is God,Ehrman is disingenuous by leaving that out

All recorded and judging by the growth of the gospel,,all seen by eyewitnesses, cost Jesus His life

So,,talk it up, believe what you want about miracles, just don't compare what is recorded with snake oil salesmen and or magicians
Would you die for either, many people died for Christ

Except that there were dozens maybe hundreds of 'miracle workers' wandering around at the time. The ONLY thing that distinguishes Jesus from all those other miracle workers is the Resurrection.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Bart erhman is one of many scholars who research the subject..

He constantly says that what he teaches IS THE MAINSTREAM opinion taught in every major university in the US and Europe..


That the reason he wrote his first book was that all the preachers knew that no scholars think the Bible is even remotely inerrant. Yet countless leave semenary and then start telling their flock it is inerrant.


Erhman isn’t claiming to teach anything new... he is claiming exactly the opposite..


That everyone knows the 4 gospel accounts don’t mesh..

That no one thinks the Virgin birth was part of the original christology.


The only people who don’t know his teachings are the rank and file.. all the scholars and universities teach what he does.

a reply to: EasternShadow

I don’t know how your assuming the miracles were already in circulation during his life when the earliest writings are 30-40 years later...


3 decades is plenty of time for the miracles to be added..


Even if they were not added, that wouldn’t mean there wasn’t a more realistic excuse.

And Paul doesn’t say much on jesus’s Life. So really all the miracles could have been first written down later than that... 60-80.

They don’t really need to be there till Mark, or we don’t know they were in circulation for sure till Mark.

a reply to: EasternShadow

Didn’t think jesus was divine until after his death.. look at the gospels lol.. no one is sure what to think about jesus during his life...

a reply to: JoshuaCox

For the most part I agree.
The virgin birth is not up for debate in any theological college or by any theologian I have ever met
Yes it's hard to believe, no harder than Jesus miracles or rising from the dead.
Though coming from you Josh, to me it's just more of your talk and what you think and want to believe.
Don't assume you know everything and everyone, it's clear you don't

Ehrman has offered nothing new I have heard, yet you worship him

So the 4 gospels don't mesh, who cares, they all point to Jesus, they all match closely, as if they are 4 different views from 4 individuals
If they did mesh you would be complaining they were all cloned
Nothing would help you Josh

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Actually Jesus performed four important miracles in Mark
Casted out demons
Controlled the weather
Raised the dead
Forgave sin, all recorded all important showing His Power over everything

That's how we know Jesus is God,Ehrman is disingenuous by leaving that out

All recorded and judging by the growth of the gospel,,all seen by eyewitnesses, cost Jesus His life

So,,talk it up, believe what you want about miracles, just don't compare what is recorded with snake oil salesmen and or magicians
Would you die for either, many people died for Christ

Except that there were dozens maybe hundreds of 'miracle workers' wandering around at the time. The ONLY thing that distinguishes Jesus from all those other miracle workers is the Resurrection.

Yes but for the most part they are relegated to history and forgotten
Nobody died for those miracle workers, nobody cared much about their message

Nobody follows them today

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EasternShadow

Didn’t think jesus was divine until after his death.. look at the gospels lol.. no one is sure what to think about jesus during his life...

No they didn't know what to think did they
Though many thought He was dangerous though Jesus never hurt anyone. They did think Jesus was a miracle worker, heeler, teacher, many the Messiah, one of the apostles called Jesus God and Finaly Jesus was executed

It's true, they were not sure, what they were sure of was Jesus was not just a man, when Jesus rose from the dead, that's when they recognised Jesus was divine
Why would they think He wasn't divine previously?
Nobody had risen from the dead in such a dramatic style or restored life like Jesus had done

So yes, nobody was sure, even today we are called to have faith because we are still unsure