"From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians"

[Liquesce]

Has anyone watched / is anyone watching this? Online here. Given some of the recent discussions involving Christian origins and early Christianity, just wondering if anyone had any thoughts / comments / criticisms.



.

[1littlebit]

thats really interesting! Early Christianity is fascinating. you know what i have always kind of wondered? when did jesus become both human and divine. son of g-d and g-d all at the same time?

he never said he was g-d. and if the early Christians were Jews who thought Jesus was the messiah they would not have believed that he was human and divine.. b/c that is not even possible according to Jewish beliefs i don't think. the Jewish messiah would be human... and just human... so when did that g-d thing happen and why?

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

when did jesus become both human and divine. son of g-d and g-d all at the same time?

The concept must have developed very quickly. The idea was accepted at the latest by the time the Christian scriptures were written, since they are full of references to Jesus being both human and divine. Consider the first chapters of the Gospel of John, which reprises Genesis and concludes, "The Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," or "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy) or references to "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," to name just a few.

he never said he was g-d.

He is quoted in Christian scripture as saying it many times: "I and the Father are one." "Who has seen me has seen the Father." "Before Abraham was, I am."

and if the early Christians were Jews who thought Jesus was the messiah they would not have believed that he was human and divine.

The great majority of them did not believe it, in fact, and according to the New Testament Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming to be divine.

[1littlebit]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

The concept must have developed very quickly. The idea was accepted at the latest by the time the Christian scriptures were written, since they are full of references to Jesus being both human and divine. Consider the first chapters of the Gospel of John, which reprises Genesis and concludes, "The Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," or "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy) or references to "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," to name just a few.].

by the time which christian scriptures were written?

[TzippityDoulah]

1littlebit-
John 14:10
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
(you can read on more of course and it gos into more detail.) blueletterbible.com has it incase you don't have NT handy.

He says other things through out the NT like this too. There are some who translate this as the father being one with the son, and some that translate this as the father being similar but seperate from the son. but it isn't something jst tacked on at the end by some people wanted Jesus to be the Father. both sides have their reasons for thinking the way they do.


Liquesce-

I don't have that video, but I have two very large boks written on early christianity til today which are SO interesting. I think it shoud be taught in churches, but it rarely is. if you ask most people about christianity in a historical context they have very litte info on it. my husband and I are trying to correct that in our family so our kids DO know and can make better educated decisions as they grow. I hate for anyone to believe in something *only* b/c their parents did. they should know a lot about it too...

granted you could read/watch 100 difference books and get 100 different takes, but you gotta start somewhere. any time you look into history it's this way. I try not to get all my info form one source, historically speaking.

[BMG580]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

thats really interesting! Early Christianity is fascinating. you know what i have always kind of wondered? when did jesus become both human and divine. son of g-d and g-d all at the same time?

he never said he was g-d. and if the early Christians were Jews who thought Jesus was the messiah they would not have believed that he was human and divine.. b/c that is not even possible according to Jewish beliefs i don't think. the Jewish messiah would be human... and just human... so when did that g-d thing happen and why?

First, I've seen this documentary and it was interesting. I have read several of John Dominic Crossan's books as well, even though I don't agree with many of his ideas they are interesting to say the least.

Second, if you do some reading on the Arian heresy, that should clear up some of your questions about Jesus and the early Church's belief in his divinity. For brevity's sake I am linking a Wiki article, though I haven't read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

I have read this book and I thought it well-done:

http://www.amazon.com/When-Jesus-Bec.../dp/0156013150

[lolar2]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

by the time which christian scriptures were written?

The Gospel of John and some of the epistles. And Revelation. As far as the other gospels, Acts, and some of the other epistles, it's arguable.

[RomanGoddess]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

and if the early Christians were Jews who thought Jesus was the messiah they would not have believed that he was human and divine.. b/c that is not even possible according to Jewish beliefs i don't think. the Jewish messiah would be human... and just human... so when did that g-d thing happen and why?

I disagree. The early Christians, in their strict monotheism, could not have believed that Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit were anything BUT one God. The alternative would have been to believe that Jesus was some kind of revered demi-god.

The gospel of John describes Jesus as "the only-begotton son of God". Note that the word used is begotten, NOT created. To beget means literally to bring forth from yourself. You can't bring forth something that is not literally of your nature. Giraffes beget giraffes. Elephants beget elephants. Humans beget humans. And almighty God can only beget... almighty God. Since you can't have TWO almighty Gods, by definition, they must be two persons but one and the same God.

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by RomanGoddess

I disagree. The early Christians, in their strict monotheism, could not have believed that Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit were anything BUT one God. The alternative would have been to believe that Jesus was some kind of revered demi-god.

The early Christians were most likely Jews - depending on how early you're talking. BUT Judaism has a concept of "b'tzelem Elohim," which means we were all created in G-d's image. So yes, they would have believed that Jesus was modeled after G-d. As much as Thomas and the rest were, too. At least the Jews among them probably would have thought that. Demi-gods don't even enter into it, for the Jews. Not possible. And as far as I know, Jesus didn't talk about the trinity. So I don't think they even had a concept of father, son, and spirit.

Originally Posted by RomanGoddess

The gospel of John describes Jesus as "the only-begotton son of God". Note that the word used is begotten, NOT created. To beget means literally to bring forth from yourself. You can't bring forth something that is not literally of your nature. Giraffes beget giraffes. Elephants beget elephants. Humans beget humans. And almighty God can only beget... almighty God. Since you can't have TWO almighty Gods, by definition, they must be two persons but one and the same God.

Really? G-d isn't capable of begetting whatever He wants? I find that hard to believe. I don't think G-d is bound to laws of logic, and I think that argument is a bit flimsy. I understand the difference between creating and begetting, but it seems like semantics to me.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by RomanGoddess

I disagree. The early Christians, in their strict monotheism, could not have believed that Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit were anything BUT one God. The alternative would have been to believe that Jesus was some kind of revered demi-god.

That's true, and it does seem like early Christians did believe Jesus was God, but there was a lot of confusion about what that meant for a long time. It took them hundreds of years to work out the formula used today, and there were all sorts of weird permutations in the meantime. Ultimately they were rejected because they either denied the divinity of Christ (often by making him a kind of demi-god), the humanity of Christ, or resulted in making the divisions in the Trinity too flimsy. No one ever really went in for polytheism though.

No one really thought much about the Holy Spirit at all, he just kind of rode on Jesus coat-tails.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by smeisnotapirate

Really? G-d isn't capable of begetting whatever He wants? I find that hard to believe. I don't think G-d is bound to laws of logic, and I think that argument is a bit flimsy. I understand the difference between creating and begetting, but it seems like semantics to me.

But we use different words to express different things, don't we? Using any human words about God is at best not perfect, since God's activities are not like ours. But the idea is really to express a qualitatively different kind of relationship between the Father and the Son and God and creation. If begetting means we produce something the same as ourselves, then by definition if God begets he must be begetting God.

But your idea about god not being bound by the rules of logic reminds me of the old question; can god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

As far as the original post's question goes, the Christian answer has generally been that he was both god and man from the time he was born.

[Suzukimom]

Thanks for this. I've been looking it over and we're going to use it as a starting point for our Sunday discussions about religion with our teens Sunday morning.

[Suzukimom]

We only watched the first 20 minutes but suprisingly, my kids liked it. Ds is a history buff and liked learning about the circumstances in which Jesus was born. They thought it was interesting that there was no middle class, that Jesus could have been an artisan carpenter who traded in the hotbed of radicals (I forget the name - Sephorsis?) and spoke three languages.


We used the discussion guide linked at the bottom of the webpage and discussed what character qualities leaders of movements had. They came to a realization that Jesus was not just a religious leader but likely a nationalistic leader too.

[Kidzaplenty]

:

[mammal_mama]

I think I will try to start watching this with my family tonight! It looks really interesting.

I'm a Trinitarian -- I believe God IS relationship, He IS family, in and of Himself, and that's why He is love. I didn't come up with this without hearing the ideas of other people on the subject, though.