Jesus wasn't God until 325 AD
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
I don't believe that Barnabas or the Didache were read too often. This alone does not mean that they are insignficant. It seems, though, that many Romans who were not yet Christian did share Christian values. Charges of pedophila and adultry are routinely used by Christians to discount the roman gods. But this argument would be useless if pedophila and adultry were not seen as despicable.
Do you believe that the shepherd of hermes in the second commandment is closer to Jesus' teachings?<blockquote>Practise goodness; and from the rewards of your labours, which God gives you, give to all the needy in simplicity, not hesitating as to whom you are to give or not to give. Give to all, for God wishes His gifts to be shared amongst all. They who receive, will render an account to God why and for what they have received. For the afflicted who receive will not be condemned,3 but they who receive on false pretences will suffer punishment. He, then, who gives is guiltless. For as he received from the Lord, so has he accomplished his service in simplicity, not hesitating as to whom he should give and to whom he should not give. This service, then, if accomplished in simplicity, is glorious with God. </blockquote>It does not seem then that the teachings of the Didache were considered authoritative--I don't consider them to be--but that still does not mean that they contradict the teachings of the Church.
No, I think compared to the other religions of that era Christianity did fairly good in the apologetics. I'm not sure what other word you would give Justin's writing?
Four days ain't so long ... er ....
Jenyar
The thing is that I don't, personally, place a tremendous amount of weight on any one theory about Jesus' archetype. The one I most favor involves influences from the East in pre-Christian Judaism, perhaps during the time spent in Egypt. But there is a grain of truth in the Sol Invictus speculations, there is a grain of truth in Mithra speculations. Elements of Christianity we take for granted are borrowed from other religions.
Christianity--from a perspective without the faith--is borrowed, daresay usurped, from another religion (e.g. Judaism). Nor is the entirety of Judaism original. It's hard sometimes to figure what of the experiences at the heart of Christianity were genuine and what were invoked in the contexts of the day, but at the core is a unique experience; and if at the center of that experience was a single man, he tread lightly despite the size of his footprint in the sand: in all the search for the "historical Jesus," I still have yet to see a contemporary corroborating record. Sure, that's like a needle in a haystack at best, but what puzzles me is Pilate--why do we have no solid non-Biblical record of this apparently-important event? If that experience was a "movement" of people, well, that would make a certain amount of sense to me. But these questions are left by history as a matter of faith.
The first "Christmas" coincides with the winter solstice. Christ's rising didn't happen on Hallowe'en, but Easter, which coincides with fertility festivals celebrating life. There are questions of eastern influence to Judaism via Egypt, which does possibly contribute to the transformation of the messiah archetype.
(Just as an interesting piece of pre-Christian, non-canonical prophecy, have you ever read the War Scroll? Also, just for the heck of it, The Messiah at Qumran.)
And while I would agree that the topic assertion overshoots with the date somewhat, I also think that this is part of the significance of my repeated issues with the debate between Arius and Athanasius at Nicaea. Yes, something unique did happen at Nicaea that cemented aspects of the Jesus archetype that we have inherited in the modern day. Creation ex nihilo became doctrine, but more importantly this supported the controversial assertion that Jesus' divinity was strong and active. In denying Jesus' humanity--and despite the Docetist heresy--Nicaea set in motion a basic conflict which as troubled Christian faith ever since. So much of the figuring of so many important Christian philosophers throughout the centuries may be erroneously-founded. Nearly seventeen centuries of doctrinal development seems to deny Jesus' humanity. And this springs from Nicaea.
In a way, I do agree with the topic assertion. Jesus was a divine human being--whatever that means--before Nicaea. His humanity was reduced and his divinity increased; he did, essentially, become God at Nicaea. My argument, however, relies less on Sol Invictus than it does on Christian doctrine itself.
But that's all a matter of perspective.
Jenyar
Oh, don't worry yourself about that. It's not that I don't think much of the topic point, but ...
I think Medicine Woman might be overstating the significance some, but it's really a matter of interpretations. I tend to read slightly more conservatively than the topic assertion, but that's largely a conditioning issue.
The thing is that I don't, personally, place a tremendous amount of weight on any one theory about Jesus' archetype. The one I most favor involves influences from the East in pre-Christian Judaism, perhaps during the time spent in Egypt. But there is a grain of truth in the Sol Invictus speculations, there is a grain of truth in Mithra speculations. Elements of Christianity we take for granted are borrowed from other religions.
Christianity--from a perspective without the faith--is borrowed, daresay usurped, from another religion (e.g. Judaism). Nor is the entirety of Judaism original. It's hard sometimes to figure what of the experiences at the heart of Christianity were genuine and what were invoked in the contexts of the day, but at the core is a unique experience; and if at the center of that experience was a single man, he tread lightly despite the size of his footprint in the sand: in all the search for the "historical Jesus," I still have yet to see a contemporary corroborating record. Sure, that's like a needle in a haystack at best, but what puzzles me is Pilate--why do we have no solid non-Biblical record of this apparently-important event? If that experience was a "movement" of people, well, that would make a certain amount of sense to me. But these questions are left by history as a matter of faith.
The first "Christmas" coincides with the winter solstice. Christ's rising didn't happen on Hallowe'en, but Easter, which coincides with fertility festivals celebrating life. There are questions of eastern influence to Judaism via Egypt, which does possibly contribute to the transformation of the messiah archetype.
(Just as an interesting piece of pre-Christian, non-canonical prophecy, have you ever read the War Scroll? Also, just for the heck of it, The Messiah at Qumran.)
And while I would agree that the topic assertion overshoots with the date somewhat, I also think that this is part of the significance of my repeated issues with the debate between Arius and Athanasius at Nicaea. Yes, something unique did happen at Nicaea that cemented aspects of the Jesus archetype that we have inherited in the modern day. Creation ex nihilo became doctrine, but more importantly this supported the controversial assertion that Jesus' divinity was strong and active. In denying Jesus' humanity--and despite the Docetist heresy--Nicaea set in motion a basic conflict which as troubled Christian faith ever since. So much of the figuring of so many important Christian philosophers throughout the centuries may be erroneously-founded. Nearly seventeen centuries of doctrinal development seems to deny Jesus' humanity. And this springs from Nicaea.
In a way, I do agree with the topic assertion. Jesus was a divine human being--whatever that means--before Nicaea. His humanity was reduced and his divinity increased; he did, essentially, become God at Nicaea. My argument, however, relies less on Sol Invictus than it does on Christian doctrine itself.
But that's all a matter of perspective.
Last edited: