Loading...In my posts on Christology so far I have argued that different Christians in the early decades of the Christian movement maintained that Jesus had been exalted to a divine status at some point of his existence – at his resurrection, at his baptism, at his birth. I have called this a christology from below, or an “exaltation” christology; it is sometimes called a low christology because it understands Jesus to have started out as a human (down here with us) and to have been raised to a divine status. In this view he was not God from eternity past or a pre-existent being. He was a human being who was taken up to the level of divinity at some point (or, in the case of the Virgin Birth, that he came into existence at a point in time as a person who was partially human partially divine).
But there was another kind of Christology which was also very early – earlier, in fact, than our earliest surviving Christian writer, Paul. This is the view that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being who became a human, did the Father’s will on earth, and then was taken back up into heaven whence he had originally come. If the other view is an “exaltation” Christology, I’ll call this one an “incarnation” Christology. The term “incarnation” literally means something like “being made flesh.” The idea is that a spiritual divine being (however “divine” is understood – more on this later) becomes a human being as a part of the plan of salvation. This is a view that can be considered a Christology “from above” (since the divine being comes from heaven to earth in bodily form) and is more commonly thought of as a “high” Christology, since in it Christ starts out up there, way up there, in fact, with God.
This is a Christology that more people are familiar with, if they are familiar with the Christian tradition, since it is the Christology that came to be dominant in the religion. Eventually (though not at first) it entailed the view that Christ was actually God himself, in some sense, before becoming a human. But I don’t think it started out in that way. I think the earliest form of this incarnation belief is that…
The rest of this post is for blog members. Want to see what comes next? It’s almost certainly not what you heard growing up! Joining the blog is easy and inexpensive. And your entire fee goes to charity. So why not join?
This is the view held by Jehova’s Witnesses.
And the Christadelphians?
1. In Philippians is Paul at least implicitly contrasting Jesus with Satan, a pre-existent angel who presumably did grasp after equality with God, did not humble himself and was consequently cast down out of heaven?
2. When do we see the first genuine Christological controversy in Church history where both sides
were conscious of holding divergent views?
Thanks
1. Intereasting idea. I don’t know if Paul had that view of Satan or not. 2. Certainly by the time of 1 John, where it’s a very big issue. Did Jesus come “in the flesh” or not?
Consider this segment from the Philippians hymn: “…emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man…” Form, likeness, appearance: sounds like something docetic. He was obedient to the “point” of death isn’t the same as saying that He actually suffered and died. Paul clearly seems to think Jesus really did die for our sins, but any evidence the hymn was used to support the docetic view? Seems like docetism was a form of high Christology, but not exactly an incarnation one, as Jesus only “appeared” to be human.
Yeah, it’s a bit tricky that hymn…. Lots of scholars have thought “even death on a cross” is Paul’s addition to emphasize the nature of a very real and painful death for others.
The synchronicity of both! even very different perisan views, Mithraism and Zoroastianism with Judaism and also Christianity is for me VERY interesting. I am almost convinced that the Persian religions (both Mithraism and the later (different , oposite to Mithraism) , Zoroastiranism) influenced on many, and perheps amost every aspects of Greek philosophy, and perhaps also Judaism, and Gnosticism,,,,,,,,and perhaps also the understanding of Jesus as Christ in a Mithraistic influenced Rome at the time of convertion.
The ideology was definitely around in the Roman empire (as it is today with a whole lot of surviving symbols who have a Mitraic origin) . Do you think that the Christology which you mention in this post could have been influenced by the Persian (Mithraism in particular ) views?
NO, I”m afraid I don’t. You wouldn’t know this from what a lot of books today say about Mithraism, but the reality we have VERY little evidence to show us what they believed. Here’s something people don’t know. We don’t have any ancient writing that describes their beliefs. And in fact no writing by a Mithraist that talks about their religion. It’s virtually all deduction, mainly from the abundant number of mithraea that have been discovered (which lack words!)
The persian influence, also into Europe including the first centuries is for me interesting. I agree that there is a lot of speculations and disinformations going around related to this topic, in particular in Mithraism. Still I see also from scholars who show an influence into the Roman society in the first centuries CE. My approache to for me rather complicated system of beleif has been from university scholars and their views, like Mary Boyce` “On Mithra’s part in Zoroastrianism” who also have similarities in the “Vedic pantheon”, even though Mithra might have been incerted in Zoroastrianism. But I agree, the evidence is in many ways suggestive.
Still, even the “persian religion” which some seems to referred to as Mithraism, might be part of Zoroastrianism which are from about 600BC (some claim earlier) at least from which are much more documentet. In any case the potential influence is still intriguing, and from what I’ve read, could have potentials of influence in how and even why the emerging christian theology took the form it took.
If Mithra (symbols found all over the Roman empire, and some claim it had some attraction to the Romans )was, lets say written into the Zoroastrian doctrine as a kind of “intermediator”, and some conceptual equalities with the emerging christianity, triggers questions in my mind at least.
And, btw, thank you for sharing your scholarship. it is much appreciated!
One book that would blow your mind is DAvid Ulansey’s book on mithraism, which argues that it does not even come from Persia!
Thank you. I haven’t read his book(s) but I am aware of there are hypothesis related to Mithraism which is difficult to verify beside suggestive facts, and different to Zoroastrianism where there is at least a lot of written materials.
When it comes to the astrological references, like what I understand the author you refer to suggest, that wouldn’t surprise me at all, like most sacred constructions in the ancient world which used astrological reference, full of astrological symbolism. Mithra was at least «sun god»/”lord of the light” who also (later) found its place in Zoroastrianism, and this deity has a lot of astrological reference to.
Since you refer to this alternative theory, by David Ulansey, there is a kind of “fun fact” related the scull and bone which is a symbol of pirates and poison “Mithradats 4, the poison king”. The flag is by some (even scholars) claimed to be of a Mithraistic origin where the crossing of the bones represent the 23 degree angel from the crossing of the celestial equator by the equilyptic of the sodiac. This crossing represent the realm of time and death,and the scull symbolize Chronos/Saturn which overview this realm, and behind all this is Mtihra supposed to stand outside of the starglobe and shift the entire sphere of the heaven changing from one astrological age to another. I’m definitely not sure if that is true, but this is at least how this story is told.
Well, like you say, there is little hard eveidence in written material related to Mithraism (at least the pre-zoroastrian part) at least when it comest to Mithraism, it is difficult to find good written evidence of the religion but the Mithraism or possible Mithraism/Zoroastrian mythology and symbols are to be found all over southern Europe suggesting it having an influence in the region and to its culture.
I’ve always assumed that Mithraism had a persian origin, or at least into the indo-Aryan era which migh explain that this diety is to be found both in old persian source and also in Vedic culture.
Very true Bart;
– but as a point of pedantry, mithraea did not originally ‘lack words!’; rather the contrary, their walls were typically covered in graffiti So much so, that these walls would regularly be whitewashed, so as to receive yet more text.
These texts are mostly formulaic dedications, or invocations of a wide range of gods; though they also commonly include astrological calendars and initiation lists.
As you say, not very informative on the content of Mithraic beliefs; but they do establish a number of features of Mithraic practice:
– that Mithraism was male-only;
– that many (maybe all) Mithraic figures are to be understood as astrological entities;
– that Mithraists progressed in their practice through a series of grades;
– that entry to each grade was through initiation liturgies; which appear to have involved undergoing some form of (more or less nominal) ‘ordeal’;
– that those initiated then had their names recorded on the walls;
– that Mithraism only happened in a mithraeum, and chiefly in the summer months (unheated subterranean temples not being practical locations for winter/spring festive rites in Northern Europe)
Thanks. Where have you found publications of these graffiti?
The excavations of the Dura Mithraeum were published as preliminary reports VII and VIII (Yale University Press 1939). This only gave a sample of the total of around 230 graffiti found. In 1975 a study of the Dura graffiti by E.D. Francis was included in the papers of the First International Congress of Mithraic studies in Manchester (‘Mithraic Studies’ Vol II pages 424- 445; Manchester University Press 1975). Francis then said that complete publication was expected “in the near future”; but I have not seen it. My comments are from Francis’s original paper.
Interesting. Do you know how they dated the graffiti and whether they ascribed them to contemporary Mithraicists? And, more important, what kinds of things they said? (When I was starting out at UNC I came to know a fellow — very old at the time (he traveled with me to Israel) — who had, during a gap year before going to Yale after high school, back in the 20s — spend time on the Dura dig; he was invovled iwith the discovery of the “manuscript room ” (don’t recall if that’s its technical name. And it turns out that when he was involved at the site, Agatha Christie visited it! She was interested in such things…. He had kept a detailed diary of his time there, and was interested in having me help hom publish it now 60 years later. I tried, but it came to nothing, in part because as kid from the US in the 20s he used certain kinds of language and descriptions that would be offensive to most people today)
The surving graffiti are all found on the walls of the major rebuilding of the mithraeum by Antonius Valentinus, centurio princeps of the vexillations of the IV and XVI legions, then newly arrived in Dura; and dated 209-211 CE. They must be from then to 256CE, when the mithraeum was demolished in the final siege of Dura. Almost all appear to have been written by Mithraists – though it is possible that some dipinti and dedications could be the work of professional writers.
A portion of the north wall of the rebuilt mithraeum appears to have served as the ‘album’ (literally ‘whiteboard’). In any Roman military unit, orders of the day and standard dispositions were written on the ‘album’; and every soldier was expected to take note of them. Surviving from the Dura Mithraeum album are lists of supplies for banquets and rituals, and of regular communal contributions. The counterpart Album at Virunum also listed initiated members (present and deceased).
Otherwise the graffiti are chiefly dedications and invocations written by the initiates themselves – described as syndexioi – commonly introduced with the Mithraic term ‘nama’ (hail); a few with fragments of initiatory liturgical formulae.
OK, for understanding Mithraism itself, the dedications and invocations might help. Do they say anything? E.g., what are the initiatory words?
The ‘manuscript room’ in the Dura principia is the where a cache of some 77 papyri were retrieved. The remains of a much larger mass of papri were discovered a few rooms along; and are now in Yale, but have not proved possible to separate or read.
Almost all the Dura papyri are in Latin (or in Greek in Latin letters), and most are official documents – duty rosters; a festal calendar. Whereas all the graffiti and dipinti in the mithraeum (and almost all elsewhere in Dura) are in Greek script; albeit that names in the Mithraeum are sometimes given in their Latin form.
Mithraic initiates in Dura appear almost all to have been soldiers (or to have military connections), and to have been drawn from all ranks of the military hierarchy (though is likely that commanding officers were offered pro-forma initiate status at an advanced Mithraic grade); and to have included both legionaries and auxiliary Palymyran archers. They include an ‘orthographos’ (likely a tutor in military literacy); and also a ‘scenicus’ (an actor). The latter, Maximus, is recorded as attached to several units over time – both legionary and auxiliary.
Yes, all that is right — or at least is what is normally said. A lot of the military conclusions are drawn by inference, of course, including the locations and the meaning of the hierarchy. Have you read Roger Beck, etc.? It’s been years since I’ve even thought about this stuff.
Interesting, and from what I’ve read I’m not surprised that military personnel were overrepresented, but from what I’ve learned there were also merchants, customs officials and minor bureaucratsas members.
Regaring initiatory word, I’ve understood the initiation process into all the 7 grades (which was oriented to the 7 “planets”/celestial deity which I think also included the sun and the moon too, and where all grades had its symbols). From what I’ve understood is that these initiatory word, was more a question and answer ritual, together with a dinner fest and some bizarre ordeal test where the initiates were exposed to heat, cold or threatened peril.
Re: your second paragraph. We have zero evidence of any of that. It’s the kind of thing people say. But as you know, lots of people don’t think it matters if there are *reasons* or *evidence* for thinking what they do.
Francis, unfortunately, does not quote the liturgical fragments from Dura; but refers to the more complete examples preserved on the walls of the mithraeum below Santa Prisca in Rome.
For example – beneath a dipinto of the Santo Prisca Lion grade procession:
“Receive the incense burners, Father, receive the Lions, Holy One, through whom we offer incense, through whom we are ourselves consumed”.
Which does not tell us much about the content of these Mysteries, unfortunately.
Other Dura fragments refer to the “fiery breath’ of the Mithraic Magi at the initiation of the syndexioi; for which Cumont proposes a restortion as referring to a ‘baptism by fire’. More certain i(in Francis’s view) is Cumont’s restoration of another graffito, in which Mithras is invoked as Master of the four elements – Air, Water, Earth, Fire – which Francis then proposes as underlying the progression of four Mithraic grades; respectively, Raven, Nymph, Soldier, Lion. Hence the astrological significance of grades (explicit in the Santa Prisca graffiti) is proposed as accompanied by an elemental significance.
Thanks. That’s what I expected.
The Mithraic initiates recorded in the graffiti at Dura can be confidently identified as military – specifically in that around half the names are clearly Roman. Rostovstzeff proposed that these persons were regular legionaries; as distinct from the Palymran XX Cohort of auxiliary archers; but Francis points out this does not follow; as many of the names are also found on the duty rosters in the papyri – and these are records of the XX Cohort. Almost certainly, all these men were of Syrian origin; adopting Roman names, either on enlistment or following the Edict of Caracalla of 212 CE.
Nevertheless, being a Mithraist was a self-identification of Romanitas. Although nominally the ‘Persian Mystery’, Mithraism in Dura (from 163 CE to 256 CE an outpost of Rome into Persian territory) was only observed by Romans. It came to Dura from the West, not the East.
A mithraeum could be considered a ‘club for the un-clubbed’. Soldiers were banned in principle from forming collegia; but membership of some sort of burial association (at least) was implied by the provision of death grants. The cult of Mithras, as theoretically ‘ancient’; would serve.
Related to the initiation processes (in my post above) are dealt with in a few papers which I’ve read through my Akademica.edu account. On of those is
https://www.academia.edu/6579202/Mithraism_and_Christianity?email_work_card=view-paper.
Regarding the initiation process, this graduate student referres to late Dr. William Brashear, who were Chief Papyrologist at the Egyptian Museum in Charlottenburg, Berlin, for thirty years, and in his book
A Mithraic catechism from Egypt
https://search.library.brown.edu/catalog?q=Brashear%2C+William+M.&search_field=author
He also point to fragmentary papyrus related to the 4th initiation level (Leo) and its ritual answer and answers.
And like you they seems to stress the lack of good 1. hand evidence, but still referres to fragmentary Egyptian papyrus discovered and the Mithras Liturgy, from 4th century Egypt ((which some scholars question if it is Mithraic, but other think it is))
If you want to see the surviving written materials and judge for yourself you might want to check out Marvin Meyer’s accessible book on The Ancient Mysteries.
I have some difficulty understanding why some scholars claim that Mitraism in the Roman world in the first centuries AD. was a competitor to Christianity despite the fact that we find hundreds of archeological sites in Europe related to Mitraism. I really do not understand the appeal it apparently had. It just seems a little distant and with a theological concepts (Mithraism in itself, not as part of Zoroastianism) are quite difficult to understand.
If Mithra (Mithraism) is understood in relation to Zoroastrianism as one of the eminated 7 archangles (almost like the Archangel Michael) that were among the first eminences of Ahura Mazda in a perfect and pre-material state, it would be much easier to understand. Zoroastrianism had / has in my mind both potentials to influence both Judaism and Christianity, (here too and definitely Gnosticism), something it probably did, and has transcendental concepts about both origin and goals. In relation to this you have in Zoroastrianism have many similar concepts that one could find in Christianity, although it is interpreted much more symbolically in relation to a spiritual meaning, and not as “personified” as part of Christianity has become (some interpretations) .
So, Mithra in a relationship to Zoroastrianism is really easier to understand, instead of Mithraism itself, could easily be seen as a challange/ competitor to the emerging Christianity in the first centuries Roman world..
Does anyone have any views on this?
The reason we have no real idea about its appeal is because we have no real idea what it was about and what happened in it.
You may find that Jan Bremmer’s 2014 book’ ‘Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World’ provides a useful discussion of the questions you raise.
It is an epublication; and can be dowloaded without charge or obligation.
https://b-ok.cc/book/2600685/227beb?dsource=recommend&redirect=175079384
Bremmer spells out what now can be stated with confidence about the beliefs and initiation rituals within the various ‘Mystery Cults’ in the Graeco-Roman world – including those both of Isis and Mithras. Which is not very much for Mithraism; though rather more for the cult of Isis. We do have a well informed (maybe first-hand) literary account of Isis initiation – the ‘Metamorphoses’ of Apuleius – but no equivalent for Mithras.
Bremmer maintains;
“The fact that initiation into the Mysteries could be a costly affair and that the Mithras cult was limited to males,meant that pagan Mysteries were no competition for Christianity on the religious market, as the latter always received young and old, rich and poor, male and female into its fold. Moreover, unlike the Mysteries, Christianity was not esoteric but at first openly proclaimed its message, which was clear to all.”
The Metamorphasis, aka “The Golden Ass” is a *fantastic* book. VERY funny. But gets serious at the end, with the Isis business.
Bart,
Paul talks about the resurrection of the dead in terms of replacing a fleshly body with a spiritual body, implying that we will be given new, more perfect, bodies after death. Yet in John the body of Jesus after resurrection still has the scars and holes from his crucifixion. How would you reconcile these ways of understanding the body of the resurrected? Is Jesus special? Would Paul have had any issue with the description of resurrection in John (which of course postdates him)?
It’s a good question and scholars have pondered it. Both Luke and John want to emphasize that the body that went into the grave is the one that came out, wounds and all; and able to eat, e.g.. Would Paul have agreed? One could imagine him having an explanation, but probably he simply has a different view becuase he’s dealing with a different situation. Luke and John are trying to explain that it REALLY was his physical body, against those who claimed Jesus was raised only spiritually. Paul agreed with them on that point, but had a different idea of what the body wold have been like.
What “different Christians in the early decades of the Christian movement ” thought isn’t that relevant to the New Testament. To the dismay of people like Peter, Paul, James and John, various groups were taking aspects of the Gospel and forming doctrines alien and offensive.
Apostolic doctrine, like Redeemer prophecies of the Tanakh, point to the Messiah as pre-existing, and from the beginning.
Arguing over Paul’s reference to the word ‘angel’ is problematic. There are scholars who take nothing and make it something, for the purpose of taking something and making it nothing.
1st Thess is considered by most scholars to be Paul’s earliest letter.
Pauline epistles – Wikipedia
Here Paul speaks (with ‘deep conviction’) of Jesus as ‘Lord Jesus Christ.’
Lord and Christ.
‘For we believe that Jesus died and rose again’
Paul did not see Christ as a literal ‘angel.’
I recently read or heard a different take on the Philippians passage, to the effect that it was not claiming Jesus to be pre-existant with God in heaven, but rather was making Paul’s first Adam/second Adam comparison. Jesus was “found in the form of God”, just as Adam was created in the “image of God”. But Jesus did not find equality with God something to be grasped for, as Adam did in eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Jesus “emptied himself” and fulfilled the role that the first Adam failed in. I don’t recall where I read this, so I can’t quote it exactly, but it seemed like a sensible reading of that odd wording in Phil. Of course, I don’t read Greek, so maybe it is more clear in the original!
I’ll be posting on that soon.
James Dunn also proposed the ‘Adam/second Adam comparison’ interpretation.
Hurtado responded to Dunn’s interpretation, which I think Hurtado’s response is more plausible in support of a incarnation christology.
Yes, Dunn was picking up on it, but it had been around before him.
That Paul was able to quote the highly polished poem/hymn in Philippians 2, is evident it predates his letter which in turn is one of the earliest NT books – a feature which excites members of the Early High Christology Club (they want the highest christology to be as early as possible, even pressing into the time of Jesus’ ministry). Do you think Paul composed the hymn, or it was something in wide circulation in his circle? Can we say one way or another?
I wonder if an angelic christology originating from Paul rather than Jesus’ apostles owes to the fact that Paul never met Jesus hence never experienced him as a mortal. His first encounter of Jesus is as a supernatural being. In contrast, the apostles lived with Jesus, were acquainted with his family members, and experienced him only as a mortal man.
How has your thesis about Pauline angelic christology been received by scholarship? Larry Hurtado writing in 2014 described this thesis as a “curiosity” (https://www.christiancentury.org/reviews/2014-07/lord-and-god).
Larry described everything that he didn’t agree with as a curiosity. 🙂 I actually got the idea from other scholars, one of whom, Susan Garrett, is one of the best biblical interpreters I know. Nothing particularly curious about it. Paul thinks Christ was a superhuman being who resided with God in heaven before coming to earth. What did Jews call supernatural beings residing with God in heaven who came down to earth? Uh….
Really helpful series of posts, Bart. Keen to see how it proceeds.
Two queries though:
– if both ‘exaltation’ and ‘incarnation’ Christologies are pre-Pauline and early; do we have any reason to infer which may have been formulated earlier? Granted that neither can reasonably be inferred before the resurrection experiences.
– and secondly; what was Paul’s own position; given that he seems to have been happy to quote from both earlier ‘exaltation’ and ‘incarnation’ formulations (as too does Luke)? Do we know of any New Testament writer who might have considered the two expressions of Christology incompatible?
Myself, I am inclined to take 1 Corinthians 15:28, as Paul’s own formulation; the Son is subject to God the Father; but everything else – including every variety of angel and power – will be subject to the Son. “So that God may be all in all”.
The point to notice here is that, even were the pre-existent Christ to have been an angel (which I doubt), through his incarnation he became irrevocably human; so believers who are united with Christ are also united with his death, resurrection and exaltation. Human believers will even judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3).
1. One reason that scholars have long inferred “exaltation” as the earlier view is because (a) it appears in a number of pre-literary traditions in different sources (Paul; Acts); and (2) teh trend in Christology was almost always to *elevate* Christ’s status, not lower it. And so exaltation would be the earlier form. Also, for me, it is the one that makes sense given the beginning of faith in Christ precisely with the belief in his *resurrection* which is a “raising up.” They drew the conclusion. He had been taken up to heaven. I think they had this view right away. 2. I think the Philippians him in many ways encapsullates Paul’s view. Christ was divine being made incarnate; after he did what God sent him to do, God raised him to an even higher state. I don’t think Paul thought there was anything inconsistent in this view. 3. Yes, lots of scholars think there are incommensurate views attested in John (many have claimed parts are docetic), Luke (as I think), and Acts.
The first thing that comes to mind when I go over this series is just how impossible it is to have this conversation with anyone churched. If we have this conversation in front of a church, some one will be leaving. But there it is in the book everyone carries with them to service every Sunday. Like Schweitzer said “two plus two equals five”.
I thought that “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” referred to Jesus’ willingness to take human form not to his desire for equality with god. You have a different interpretation. Why do you think that your interpretation is more correct?
That’s my interpretation too. He became human rather than trying to become equal with God, and the ironic result was that at his exaltation he *did* begin to share teh name/authority of God himself.
Oh Ok. I guess that I misread your post. Good. I like it when we agree. It means that I get things right from time to time.
Or I do!
Christianity would have been a lot more palatable if the exaltation process hadn’t gone so far, so far that we have to swallow the absurdity of the trinity. In the most reliable sources, what Jesus is said to have said about himself never went that far, as you’ve made clear. Paul’s idea was post facto and apparently based on visionary experiences. Paul should have been thrown out of court long ago. And the rest of the exaltations are even worse. And all of this “stretching of the mink” was to rationalize an ignominious death? A failure of the kingdom to appear as advertised? The rational and intellectually honest thing would have been to admit a mistake. Whoops. We bet on the wrong horse. Short of that, a very modest exaltation might have led to a saner, less Jew hating, less intolerant, less fanatical, form of Christianity. Then again, that kind of Christianity might never have become a power in the world, like Rome, and a multi-billion dollar global business, with a profit center in every church.
> “emptied himself”
Is there any Christian understanding (or set of understandings) of what that means? Of what did the pre-existing supernatural Jesus empty himself? Presumably what was left of himself was something able to suffer death in the human manner, otherwise what was the point of the crucifixion?
There’s a whole theology that developed from that phrase, called “kenotic” theology. The idea is that Christ abandoned all the powers and privileges of divinity to become a human, got rid of his ominscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnieverythingelse. He gave it all up to become incarnate.
He abandoned all his powers to become a regular, everyday human, who could perform miracles and raise people from the dead? Doesn’t sound like he gave up much.
I don’t know — seems like living in heaven for all eternity is a good bit to give up in exchange for being tortured to death…
If Jesus is not identical with God but he is equal with him, doesn’t that imply that Paul was de facto a polytheist? He is assuming the existence of two different, yet equal in power, divine beings.
He would rather strenuously deny the charge. Hard to tell how the jury would rule.
If both Paul and Barnabas, during their life-times, were erroneously misunderstood and viewed as gods coming to earth as men, imagine how Jesus would have been perceived by polytheists/pagans witnessing Jesus when performing his miracles during his life-time?
“When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have become like men and have come down to us.” 12 And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.” Acts 14:11-13
I think it’s highly plausible that people with polytheistic cultural mindsets, practices and beliefs witnessing Jesus’ ministry during his life-time or heard about him would have viewed him as some sort of a divine god and they consequently may have spread the misconstrued news about Jesus (the human Jewish Messiah and Prophet) as a god on earth performing mighty works who later ascended (back?) to heaven?
Yup, a terrific story — made more interesting by the fact that in that region there was a myth of Zeus and Hermes visiting earlier!
Dr. Ehrman,
Well then how do you think the author of John came up with jesus being with god from the beginning?
Was it just simply the final form of the “high christology” belief?
Thanks.
I think he inherited it from his tradition. As Christ became more and more exalted, he eventually became co-eternal with God — or at least with him in the “beginning” of the creation. Later he would become “of the same essence/substance” as the Father. Wow.
Dr bart when i see jewish people they very similiar to muslim, woman cover their head, and they wash their hand before pray, and jew pray 3 times a day as muslim pray 5 times a day with almost similar praying movement, and they called their god elli ? Eloah ? Eloi? Or what? In islam its allah ,what in judaism exactly ? and why those jews and muslim similiar prayer and religious command like woman hair covering , and woman and man shouldnt touch each other unless they are related or maried, and they pray couple times a day also death ritual that similiar to each other between islam and judaism is somehow gone with christianity how thats happen please explain and do you agree with taht similairity that i mention
Are you asking what God is called by Jews? Those who speaking English call him God! The biblical term, in Hebrew, is Elohim.
How many forgery in bible and how severe the corruption
I”m not sure what you mean by “forgery,” but I don’t think you mean what I do; and I also don’t know what you mean by “corruption.”
Did the scholar still agree on bible problem and jesus is actually wasnt god? Do you think jew and islam come with same root, and more strict than christian
AGain, I”m afraid I don’t understand your first question. On your second, Christianity came out of Judaism and Islam came out of them both.
im seeing lots of different ideas in these comments,whats the generally agreed interpretation of what Paul thought of jesus in relation to god? what would be a good book to read about new testament christology?
YOu might try the (shorter) book by Larry Hurtado to start. My book on it is called HOw Jesus Became God.
Two thoughts:
1. If Jesus was pre-existent *chosen* before creation (1Peter1:20-21), wouldn’t that make a total scam out of the Adam and Eve sin and salvation story? Why chose a savior unless God already planned what was to come?
2. If Jesus was the Son ‘person’ of the Trinity, could he really *die*? Or even a mere angel, I mean he’s God right? Eternal. I mean, his human body would feel the pain, his heart would stop, but then what? Would he cease to exist? Even for a few days? God?! For one thing he kept telling the disciples he would rise again, so it’s not like he faced death like we mortals. I guess one could thank him for going through all that pain to “redeem” us mere mortals, but it sounds to me like that was the plan all along.
1. 1 Peter doesn’t say what he was destined *for* — so it’s not clear he means that he was fore-ordained to deal with a sin that had not yet happened. But even so, theologians have long differentiated betweenwhat God planned to happen and what he know would have happened. 2. IN Xn theology Christ is God, yes; but he is also fully humans. So he can die. It is not a simple concept, actually, how he could be both at once, fully. It took some very, very smart people to work out the philosophical grounding of it, mainly in the fourth and fifth centuries.
1. Well, so much for *omniscience*. That’s a big prob for Xn theology, being built on the creation story of a primitive tribe. God, after leaving them alone in the garden with a snake, kicks Adam & Eve out for eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, as in *right and wrong*. They didn’t even know they were naked. But wait, God has a plan to fix that, and it just so happens to involve his son.
2. Yes, very smart people to explain how he can die, but not really. And how things can be *preordained* and *foreknown* yet we have free will. If you don’t believe it you go to hell. The ‘ol Catch 22 of Xn theology. Sounds like the forerunners of Qanon. Paul liked it simple: “Therefore God has mercy on those that God wants to have mercy and God hardens those that God wants to harden. One of you might say to me: “Then why does God hold us to blame, because who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a mere human being, to talk back to God? “ (Romans 9: 18-20) See also John 12:39-40.
Pythagoras was believed to be an incarnation of Apollo, i.e. not a brief apparition in flesh, but born as raised as a wise man who secretly was a god.
“Though he was divine by nature, he did not set store upon equality with God, but emptied himself by taking the nature of a servant; born in human guise and appearing in human form,” (James Moffatt translation)
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men;” (KJV)
Think nothing of it.