Clouseau

[QUOTE=torquemada;4494592]It's just as difficult now. Is atheism a different religion, or a denial of Christianity?

There is no such thing as Jewish Christianity, for one thing, and getting the wrong prophet is not close, it's disastrous.

It says it reveres Jesus, but it disagrees with just about everything the Bible says he said, and everything he stood for. Patronizing cant, if you ask me.

Like Catholics do, yes, who also deny the sacrifice of Christ. 'Mary' is the easy way to 'heaven', that involves no nasty repentance and dangerous faith. That's why a pope kissed a Koran.

Pope torquemada decides who is Christian, eh?

enoch007

[QUOTE=Clouseau;4494584][QUOTE=enoch007;4494509] No, not really. I originally responded to a quote from Torquemada and I still agree with his premise. If you wish to discount the connections between Islam and Judiasm/Christianity and wish to deny outright there was any such thing as the Jewish Christian Chruch (so who was that that Paul conferred with about extending the ministry to the gentiles, the Egyptian-Christians???), is there any other religion you would maintain Islam had a closer kinship with? Would it be the worshippers of Baal, for example?

And BTW, you quoted me as asking about the "crosses-thing". That was not me, but yourself.

Clouseau

[QUOTE=enoch007;4494704][QUOTE=Clouseau;4494584]It's a real mess. Changing the subject won't make it better.

It wasn't deliberate, and I don't know how it happened. I don't suppose anyone but you noticed.

Amaleq13

I noticed and it is due to excessive embedded quotes without the correct closing tags.

Really, guys, you don't have to embed quotes of the entire discussion with each post. Just quote the most recent comment and rely on the old scroll bar if you need to review how the conversation got where it is.

Fortuna

Enoch,

That certainly is an interesting thought. The Roman imperial cult certainly did deify their emperors, and some emperors deified members of their family (i.e. Trajan).

I find this interesting because there is no such tendency or tradition (that of deification) within Judaism. I know of no attempts to deify Mosche, Abram or any of the prophets or fathers. The concept of deification is not just foreign to Judaism, but is completely contrary to its strict monotheism which iss at the very core of Judaism. (at least , to that of our rabbinival Judaism, and it would seem to second temple Judaism and probably (or less so) to Joshiah's revivalist Yawehism). So, for sure, the idea of deification is contrary to Judaism. Does anyone know of any such tendency of deification within any sect of Judaism ? (besides that of Christianity of course)? I know of none.

So, perhaps you have identified a source of the deification of Jesus. OTOH, the idea of Roman deification of a treasonous criminal seems contra to conventional roman deification (usually reserved for emperors and their families). Of course, what you have presented is merely the suggestion of it, and it certainly seems foriegn to Judaism. So now iy trmains to connect the dots.


Certainly not. But, Roman Christianity certainly did create the Christian bible. And one of the first compilations was that which Constantine commissioned (50 I believe) for his new churches in the East.(according to Eusibius). As far as I am aware, none of those survive, thoght some have suggested that Codex Vaticanus might be either one of those or a dervative.

If we read Eusibius's History of the church, he presents to us that the selection of the canon, specifically the NT gospels, traces back to the late second century with bishop Iraneous of Lyon who suggested that since "there are 4 corners of the earth abd 3 winds there should be 4 gospels". Eusibius traces the Roman Christian orthodoxy at least back that . Yet just a few decades earlier, we had Marcion with his list, and we had Valentinus and his texts that werre indeed very different. And the Gnostic Christians had very different texts.

Many have written summaries of the selection of the NT canon, and as far as I could tell, it was the idea of provenance and agreement with Roman Christian beliefs that determined what got picked.

Others have suggested that the texts selected fro the NT were the "golden oldies" all along. The problem with that view seems to be that we all view it through Eusibius's Church history. So, are we merely seing the orthodoxy that he wanted us to see ? We know that there were texts that wee just as or much more popular. According to Dr Elaine Pagels, one of the most (if not the most) popular early Christian texts (and I think she bases this on the # of reports of it and the shere # of copies found) was "Acts of Paul and Thecla" ( which interestingly contains the bogus 3rd Corinthians, which has an interesting story in itself. What I found suspicious about this was that, although 3 Cor was stated to be bogus, the authorities never question the historocity of Thecla).

Not at all. I would say that he has brought up a compelling thought.

Where then would you say that the idea of Jesus's deification originated ? It does not seem to originate within Judaism, but from a Roman or Hellenistic context, would you not agree ?

Clouseau

I look forward to reading the compelling book you write on the subject.

It's your idea. Where's your compelling reason?

enoch007

Instead of simply deriding the now three posters who have tried to query you on your thoughts on this matter, why not try answering some of the questions or postulating alternative answers to the issues raised. Snide derision as argument becomes tedious after awhile.

enoch007

Thanks for your thoughts and the additonal information.

No Robots

It is beyond question that the idea of Christ's divinity comes from Paul, was derived from Paul; this is how Church orthodoxy understood Paul. But, for the more orthodox Paul, the right thinking Paul who understood himself, this divinity of Christ is the mystical divinity of the man Christ, "born of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3)—Brunner, Our Christ.

enoch007

If it originated with Paul, is there then no actual record of a Christian Church in Jerusalem headed by, who? Peter or one of the other disciples? I was under the impression that a debate was carried out between the Jewish Christians and Paul about a ministry to the Gentiles, that this was recorded in Acts 13th and 15th Chapter. Was it that the Jerusalem Church accepted some other status for Jesus (messianic without being divine, etc)?