PDA

View Full Version : REL:More Evidence Jesus was Worshipped as Divine by Early Chruch. DEBATE



FlaGator
10-10-2008, 09:25 PM
Just a heads up here: this thread is open to debate for those who either support or refute the basic premise outlined in the original post. This thread is not a place for profanity, unmerited disrespect, or insults. Disagreeing or rebutting is fine.

Ground-breaking Dig Backs Jesus' Divinity.
Mark Hadley | 8 October 2008

The Life of Jesus film crew has gained rare access to an archaeological find that cements historical evidence early Christians worshiped Jesus as divine.

Dr John Dickson, the series’ host and co-founder of the Centre for Public Christianity, will guide viewers through the remains of an ancient prayer hall unearthed at Megiddo in central Israel.

“The inscriptions on the mosaic floor are remarkable,” Dr Dickson says.

“One of them names a benefactor called Gaianus who is described as a centurion. Another mentions a woman called Akeptous who ‘…offered this table in memorial of the God Jesus Christ’.”

The inscriptions cast more doubt on claims made by prominent atheists and popular authors that Jesus’ divinity was an invention by the fourth century church.

“Here is extraordinary physical evidence from the century before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea that Christians, including Roman officials, were worshipping Jesus as divine,” Dr Dickson explains.


Read More Here (http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/sydneystories/ground_breaking_dig_backs_jesus_divinity/)

megimoo
10-11-2008, 12:30 AM
Just a heads up here: this thread is open to debate for those who either support or refute the basic premise outlined in the original post. This thread is not a place for profanity, unmerited disrespect, or insults. Disagreeing or rebutting is fine.

Ground-breaking Dig Backs Jesus' Divinity.
Mark Hadley | 8 October 2008

The Life of Jesus film crew has gained rare access to an archaeological find that cements historical evidence early Christians worshiped Jesus as divine.

Dr John Dickson, the series’ host and co-founder of the Centre for Public Christianity, will guide viewers through the remains of an ancient prayer hall unearthed at Megiddo in central Israel.

“The inscriptions on the mosaic floor are remarkable,” Dr Dickson says.

“One of them names a benefactor called Gaianus who is described as a centurion. Another mentions a woman called Akeptous who ‘…offered this table in memorial of the God Jesus Christ’.”

The inscriptions cast more doubt on claims made by prominent atheists and popular authors that Jesus’ divinity was an invention by the fourth century church.

“Here is extraordinary physical evidence from the century before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea that Christians, including Roman officials, were worshipping Jesus as divine,” Dr Dickson explains.


Read More Here (http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/sydneystories/ground_breaking_dig_backs_jesus_divinity/)Some knew that he was the son of GOD from the very beginning and no matter what evidence that you present some will not believe !If the very rocks and stones testified to his divinity they would still refuse to believe.

wilbur
10-12-2008, 02:33 PM
From the article:



The inscriptions cast more doubt on claims made by prominent atheists and popular authors that Jesus’ divinity was an invention by the fourth century church.


Hm has anyone really made a serious claim that the divinity concept of Christ was simply invented in the fourth century?

I'm sure there were lots of people who believed that, long before the Nicene Creed came around. Christianity was pretty diverse back then, just as it is today. Gnostics definitely believed in the divinity of Jesus, and they of course predate the council of nicea.

FlaGator
10-12-2008, 04:48 PM
From the article:



Hm has anyone really made a serious claim that the divinity concept of Christ was simply invented in the fourth century?

I'm sure there were lots of people who believed that, long before the Nicene Creed came around. Christianity was pretty diverse back then, just as it is today. Gnostics definitely believed in the divinity of Jesus, and they of course predate the council of nicea.

I think that Dawkins has made this claim in his book the God Delusion. I've also encountered the argument from other sources but don't recall which ones.

hampshirebrit
10-12-2008, 05:32 PM
Just a heads up here: this thread is open to debate for those who either support or refute the basic premise outlined in the original post. This thread is not a place for profanity, unmerited disrespect, or insults. Disagreeing or rebutting is fine.

Then allow me to rebut, if not out-and-out disagree with your point, while not either profaning, disrespecting, or insulting it.

Does it matter if some 4th century person thought the Nazarene was holy or not? I doubt it.

But I suspect that what we think on the matter, today, has more bearing than what anyone sixteen centuries dead thought.

With the extra sixteen centuries of accumulated knowledge, I dare say that we probably have a better idea than some bog-hopper from 399AD did.

And personally, I doubt the divinity of anyone, since I do not believe in the possibility of divinity in anything, anyway.

I've looked at Jesus, and having looked, I honestly think that he is one lesser deserving of such a man-made accolade.

And I know that my opinion on this issue is important only to me, and I also know that it will last zero seconds beyond my last breath.

And I also know, even so, that a lot of people will not like that, but they can file it under "T".

MrsSmith
10-12-2008, 06:39 PM
He was recognised as the Son of God before His death, adding greatly, I'm sure, to the fear and confusion of the disciples and early Christians before His resurrection. There was no question in their minds after that, and no question in many minds after Pentecost.

megimoo
10-12-2008, 08:16 PM
From the article:



Hm has anyone really made a serious claim that the divinity concept of Christ was simply invented in the fourth century?

I'm sure there were lots of people who believed that, long before the Nicene Creed came around. Christianity was pretty diverse back then, just as it is today. Gnostics definitely believed in the divinity of Jesus, and they of course predate the council of nicea.

"Gnostics definitely believed in the divinity of Jesus,"
They Definitely didn't believe Jesus Christ was co_substantial with GOD therefore not Divine !

Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
...........................................
"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.

megimoo
10-12-2008, 08:21 PM
Then allow me to rebut, if not out-and-out disagree with your point, while not either profaning, disrespecting, or insulting it.

Does it matter if some 4th century person thought the Nazarene was holy or not? I doubt it.

But I suspect that what we think on the matter, today, has more bearing than what anyone sixteen centuries dead thought.

With the extra sixteen centuries of accumulated knowledge, I dare say that we probably have a better idea than some bog-hopper from 399AD did.

And personally, I doubt the divinity of anyone, since I do not believe in the possibility of divinity in anything, anyway.

I've looked at Jesus, and having looked, I honestly think that he is one lesser deserving of such a man-made accolade.

And I know that my opinion on this issue is important only to me, and I also know that it will last zero seconds beyond my last breath.

And I also know, even so, that a lot of people will not like that, but they can file it under "T".
At the very least you are dependable/predictable Brit !

megimoo
10-12-2008, 08:40 PM
Just a heads up here: this thread is open to debate for those who either support or refute the basic premise outlined in the original post. This thread is not a place for profanity, unmerited disrespect, or insults. Disagreeing or rebutting is fine.

Ground-breaking Dig Backs Jesus' Divinity.
Mark Hadley | 8 October 2008

The Life of Jesus film crew has gained rare access to an archaeological find that cements historical evidence early Christians worshiped Jesus as divine.

Dr John Dickson, the series’ host and co-founder of the Centre for Public Christianity, will guide viewers through the remains of an ancient prayer hall unearthed at Megiddo in central Israel.

“The inscriptions on the mosaic floor are remarkable,” Dr Dickson says.

“One of them names a benefactor called Gaianus who is described as a centurion. Another mentions a woman called Akeptous who ‘…offered this table in memorial of the God Jesus Christ’.”

The inscriptions cast more doubt on claims made by prominent atheists and popular authors that Jesus’ divinity was an invention by the fourth century church.

“Here is extraordinary physical evidence from the century before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea that Christians, including Roman officials, were worshipping Jesus as divine,” Dr Dickson explains.


Read More Here (http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/sydneystories/ground_breaking_dig_backs_jesus_divinity/)

.......................................
The Arian Heresy led to the The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea in Bithynia convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine with over three hundred twenty bishops from all over Christendom in 325 AD to clarify Christs teachings to the whole church produced this credo,The Nicene Creed !
........................................
The Credo (Latin for "I Believe)
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.
.................................................. ..
Anathema (Greek)-- literally, placed on high, suspended, set aside).
...............................................
The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria.
....................................
Arianism (4th Century)The Arian Heresy
.............................................
Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.

Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.

FlaGator
10-12-2008, 08:59 PM
Then allow me to rebut, if not out-and-out disagree with your point, while not either profaning, disrespecting, or insulting it.

Does it matter if some 4th century person thought the Nazarene was holy or not? I doubt it.

But I suspect that what we think on the matter, today, has more bearing than what anyone sixteen centuries dead thought.

With the extra sixteen centuries of accumulated knowledge, I dare say that we probably have a better idea than some bog-hopper from 399AD did.

And personally, I doubt the divinity of anyone, since I do not believe in the possibility of divinity in anything, anyway.

I've looked at Jesus, and having looked, I honestly think that he is one lesser deserving of such a man-made accolade.

And I know that my opinion on this issue is important only to me, and I also know that it will last zero seconds beyond my last breath.

And I also know, even so, that a lot of people will not like that, but they can file it under "T".

So to stay with in context of the point of the OP, you uphold the premise that Christ was not thought divine by believers until the 4ths century? Since that was the only point the article attempted to make and you stated that you were rebutting the article, I must assume you don't agree with it. I don't understand the reason you responded with all the other information on Christ's actual divinity since it was not the point of the story. Why the strong defense of your atheism when it was not under attract? Just one argument that some atheists use was being discredited and that is the argument that the divinity of Christ was something conjured up by 4th century theologians and not one of the original tenets of belief.

megimoo
10-12-2008, 09:53 PM
So to stay with in context of the point of the OP, you uphold the premise that Christ was not thought divine by believers until the 4ths century? Since that was the only point the article attempted to make and you stated that you were rebutting the article, I must assume you don't agree with it. I don't understand the reason you responded with all the other information on Christ's actual divinity since it was not the point of the story. Why the strong defense of your atheism when it was not under attract? Just one argument that some atheists use was being discredited and that is the argument that the divinity of Christ was something conjured up by 4th century theologians and not one of the original tenets of belief.
Their point apparently is that The Emperor Constantine during the council of Nicaea forced the world to accept Christianity by edict ! Atheists are always on the defensive and will constantly try to discredit any of GODS works as either nonexistent or acts of nature .

hampshirebrit
10-12-2008, 09:54 PM
So to stay with in context of the point of the OP, you uphold the premise that Christ was not thought divine by believers until the 4ths century? Since that was the only point the article attempted to make and you stated that you were rebutting the article, I must assume you don't agree with it. I don't understand the reason you responded with all the other information on Christ's actual divinity since it was not the point of the story. Why the strong defense of your atheism when it was not under attract? Just one argument that some atheists use was being discredited and that is the argument that the divinity of Christ was something conjured up by 4th century theologians and not one of the original tenets of belief.

It wasn't really a strong defense. I don't really think my corner needs defending, any more than yours does against mine.

For what it's worth, I think you defend your corner well, with dignity and respect for the other side, and I thank you for that.

I don't think your god exists and I really wish you didn't believe in him

You think that he does and you wish that I did believe.

We will, neither of us, ever win this argument, will we?

I reckon we both think we have each other's interests at heart, and that alone is good enough for me.

FlaGator
10-12-2008, 10:37 PM
It wasn't really a strong defense. I don't really think my corner needs defending, any more than yours does against mine.

For what it's worth, I think you defend your corner well, with dignity and respect for the other side, and I thank you for that.

I don't think your god exists and I really wish you didn't believe in him

You think that he does and you wish that I did believe.

We will, neither of us, ever win this argument, will we?

I reckon we both think we have each other's interests at heart, and that alone is good enough for me.

Let's just say that if my beliefs are factual then we'll both have our answers. If your beliefs are correct then it won't matter because we'll be dead, Pascal's Wager...

wilbur
10-12-2008, 10:50 PM
Their point apparently is that The Emperor Constantine during the council of Nicaea forced the world to accept Christianity by edict ! Atheists are always on the defensive and will constantly try to discredit any of GODS works as either nonexistent or acts of nature .

Orthodox Christianity was defined there, yes.

People tend to think of Christianity as fairly homogeneous during ancient times.. and that the original belief system was "corrupted" more and more as time goes on. Truth is, it was disparate and diverse as it is today... there was no orthodoxy until the council of nicea. There was no coherent set of universal Christian doctrine till the fourth century, and questions about Jesus' divinity were actually up for debate. I can only assume if atheists make the argument about the divinity were making arguments along those lines... that the divinity wasn't 'official' until then (as decided by committee).. but many Christians definitely believed it before then. But its funny to think, gnosticism really could have just as easily come out on top, instead of what we now refer to as orthodoxy.

Even among the gnostic sects there was a very wide range of beliefs... and yes they did believe Jesus was divine. They were a dualistic version of Christianity, believing the God of the old testament was an evil devious God (not an unreasonable belief if you actually read the OT).... the old testament was his false gospel. Jesus was the "good" God incarnate, who's purpose was to save mankind from the evil deity.

megimoo
10-13-2008, 12:17 AM
Orthodox Christianity was defined there, yes.

People tend to think of Christianity as fairly homogeneous during ancient times.. and that the original belief system was "corrupted" more and more as time goes on. Truth is, it was disparate and diverse as it is today... there was no orthodoxy until the council of nicea. There was no coherent set of universal Christian doctrine till the fourth century, and questions about Jesus' divinity were actually up for debate. I can only assume if atheists make the argument about the divinity were making arguments along those lines... that the divinity wasn't 'official' until then (as decided by committee).. but many Christians definitely believed it before then. But its funny to think, gnosticism really could have just as easily come out on top, instead of what we now refer to as orthodoxy.

Even among the gnostic sects there was a very wide range of beliefs... and yes they did believe Jesus was divine. They were a dualistic version of Christianity, believing the God of the old testament was an evil devious God (not an unreasonable belief if you actually read the OT).... the old testament was his false gospel. Jesus was the "good" God incarnate, who's purpose was to save mankind from the evil deity
.
You sound to me to be very confused about Jewish and Christian religious history willie.There will always be disputes in anything more than one human is involved in because it's in the nature of mankind to question things.

"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers."Not the old testament. Again Mixing the pagan with the Christian .willie what's the mater with you, does Lucifer have you by the ears?

Willie try to follow this reasoning ?In the Christian church in 325 AD there were many new poorly educated presbiters and new priests associated with many different bishops of many seas (Effectively a bishops area of responsibility's).As new priests were influenced by various prevalent pagan religions and beliefs some tried to merge the pagan with the Christian to gain more converts,big mistake.


"There was no coherent set of universal Christian doctrine till the fourth century, and questions about Jesus' divinity were actually up for debate. I can only assume if atheists make the argument about the divinity were making arguments along those lines... that the divinity wasn't 'official' until then (as decided by committee).. but many Christians definitely believed it before then. "

The whole reason for the council in the first place was to define "universal Christian doctrine" and Christian dogma andApproximately 250 to 318 of the most learned and faithful bishops and prelates did just that .The Creed is a testament of belief and if you read it you will find the testament of the bishops who underwrote it .OK so Far?

The Credo (Latin for "I Believe)
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.
.................................................. ..
Anathema (Greek)-- literally, placed on high, suspended, set aside).
...............................................
The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria.

Willie pay attention to this part .
One Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father.
That means Willie that Jesus Christ Is one with the father of all .Cosubstantial,(Of One Substance ) !

(One substance,part of,indivisable from the same spirit as GOD the father )

"(as decided by committee)" yes by a committee of Approximately 250 to 318 bishops .

The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria.

"They were a dualistic version of Christianity, believing the God of the old testament was an evil devious God (not an unreasonable belief if you actually read the OT)...."

Again from the Gnostics ."Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers."Again mixing pagan and Christian !Not the old testiment.

Again You should try with an unjaundiced eye to understand what you read.

wilbur
10-13-2008, 12:50 AM
.
You sound to me to be very confused about Jewish and Christian religious history willie.There will always be disputes in anything more than one human is involved in because it's in the nature of mankind to question things.

"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers."Not the old testament. Again Mixing the pagan with the Christian .willie what's the mater with you, does Lucifer have you by the ears?


Sorry Megs, you appear to be the confused one here. Their views on matter stem from their dualistic view... that the evil deity trapped humanity, along with their eternal divine nature, into the materialistic realm. Jesus was a divine being, the supreme deity, who came to give man special knowledge (gnosis) on how to attain salvation from the material realm. The good/evil status of matter has nothing to do with whether they believed Jesus to be divine or not. Some thought that he wasn't "typical" matter, and other did... their views varied, but the common thread seems to be that he was divine (God).



Willie try to follow this reasoning ?In the Christian church in 325 AD there were many new poorly educated presbiters and new priests associated with many different bishops of many seas (Effectively a bishops area of responsibility's).As new priests were influenced by various prevalent pagan religions and beliefs some tried to merge the pagan with the Christian to gain more converts,big mistake.


Orthodox Christianity is no different. Hopelessly intertwined with with all kinds of greek/roman philosophy and pagan traditions.



The whole reason for the council in the first place was to define "universal Christian doctrine" and Christian dogma andApproximately 250 to 318 of the most learned and faithful bishops and prelates did just that .The Creed is a testament of belief and if you read it you will find the testament of the bishops who underwrote it .OK so Far?


I'm not really disagreeing with this, other than to say there was no real homogeny in pre-nicea Christianity. That was the whole point of the council. I am not really disagreeing with the OP, other than to point out, even without the finding of this mosaic, that it was already well known that many people believed in the divinity of Jesus well before the 4th century. That and I've never really heard any atheists suggesting otherwise... cept maybe those who take the da vinci code too seriously.



Again You should try with an unjaundiced eye to understand what you read.

Practice what you preach!