This is bugging me. Paul clearly thinks Jesus was the son of God and Lord(what exactly does Paul believe? His Christology is confusing) who pre existed in some sense but the disciples were with Christ the whole time and didn’t believe he was God (which makes sense because if he did go around saying he was God during his lifetime the least that would happen is Jesus+disciples get stoned to death by the Jews and story over.)
So how on earth did that interaction between Paul and disciples go down? Did the disciples he met worship Christ by this time (which is weird…because they were never told to worship Jesus..)??
If James and Peter worshiped Christ by the time Paul met them then doesn’t this mean pretty much every single Christian without exception worshipped Christ at this early period? How on earth did Ebionites exist afterwards? Why would there be later disagreement in Cristology if the very leaders of the Christian movement after Christ soon worshipped him?
If James and Peter didn’t worship Christ by the time they met Paul then the story gets strange…REALLY strange….because then the biggest thing they would disagree about and the only point of disagreement we would know about is Paul vs. Disciples: Who is Jesus? Not a discussion on the law or salvation but the biggest issue of all….is there any record of a discussion between Paul and the disciples as to the nature of Christ?
Part of me thinks the answer may be to obvious to be asked but I don’t feel like I will find it just reading and not talking to anyone because I am clearly missing something!!! Somebody help me…..I think my next question is WHEN did Jesus worship begin….
Thank you for your help. This curiosity is burning me on the inside and I have know.
Unfortunately your insides will continue to burn. 
We don’t know what the disciples believed. We don’t know how they viewed Jesus. None of the books of the NT attributed to any of them (Matthew, John , 1 and 2 Peter, etc) were actually written by them (none are believed to have been literate). All are pseudepigraphic. As such all we really know are what others tells us their views were. Paul, on the other hand, lays out his views very clearly especially in Romans so we know clearly what he believed: Christ died for our sins and was resurrected. I think all scholars are in the same boat as you. They would love to know what the disciples taught and what the very earliest churches believed. Starting by the end of the 1st century and very early 2nd century we start seeing the first writings by Apostolic Fathers so we know how Christian beliefs had started to coalesce by that time, but my personal belief is that what Jesus taught and what he himself believed is far different from what Christians believe today. But, alas, we’ll probably never know that for certain.
G:
Gotta agree! I’m inclined to think much of the turn the other cheek, render unto Caesar, Don’t resist evil, stuff came later when Christians wanted to get a long with Rome. I suspect Jesus may have attracted revolutionaries (Judas being one) and in the face of
their leader being put to death for treason, we get Do not resist evil etc
Just a side note, as ** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I admire Bart Ehrman, but no one told me to do it and voila, a mystery is born. No one told me to eat breakfast this morning ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Did Angels dress me before I opened the front door? On my way to the car? before I got out of the car and walked into the office!? I think I have a verifiable miracle here!
MMahmud you should read Prof Ehrman’s latest book, HOW JESUS BECAME CHRIST. He deals with a lot of your questions.
What always hung me up was that it seemed impossible that strict first century Jewish monotheists could believe in the divinity of a human being. What Prof Ehrman demonstrates is that there were degrees of divinity, levels of divinity. I think the earliest strand in the tradition was a form of what’s called “adoptionism”; the belief that Jesus was a righteous human being who because of his righteousness was exalted by God after his death. The proof of this exaltation was the resurrection; validated by the visions of the disciples (or some of them; it wouldn’t have had to have been all of them to get the movement started). No way the earliest disciples would have believed Jesus was equal to God the Father but that wouldn’t be necessary to think he was divine. (This would explain the Ebionites. They were followers of disciples who retained the old view of Jesus as a righteous human being.)
As to how the earliest followers of Jesus viewed Paul, gmatthews I think you’re right. They didn’t leave any literary artifacts although there are interesting hints in the NT. The winners write the history. It’s as simple as that. Paul and his churches won the battle of ideas. Paul considered himself fully qualified to speak for Jesus. And left writings.
Perhaps the “party of James” considered Paul a troublemaker and at the Jerusalem Council blew him off; Yeah Paul you go deal with the Gentiles and we’ll take care of Israel. Maybe they thought they had gotten rid of him. Look at it from their point of view. They thought Jesus’ message was primarily to the Jews and that Jesus would return soon to set up his earthly kingdom. They would never have imagined that a Pauline church would still be waiting two thousand years later!
spiker said
G:
Gotta agree! I’m inclined to think much of the turn the other cheek, render unto Caesar, Don’t resist evil, stuff came later when Christians wanted to get a long with Rome. I suspect Jesus may have attracted revolutionaries (Judas being one) and in the face of
their leader being put to death for treason, we get Do not resist evil etc
Just a side note, as ** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I admire Bart Ehrman, but no one told me to do it and voila, a mystery is born. No one told me to eat breakfast this morning ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Did Angels dress me before I opened the front door? On my way to the car? before I got out of the car and walked into the office!? I think I have a verifiable miracle here!
Don’t really see how breakfast is comparable…I mean think about it….
You were told to eat breakfast and dress up as a child. The disciples were never told to worship Christ. So they had the learn it from somewhere. If by the time they met Paul the divinity of Christ wasn’t even in question that means they came to some weird sort of agreement….
Which is absolutely profound. Like the story of the Jews who worshiped the cow while Moses was absent, it may be in the absence of Christ the disciples started to exalt and worship Christ. Not a miracle of course(I wasn’t hinting at any “verifiable miracle”…dunno where you got that), but definitely profound. It means by the time Paul and Disciples got into tiffs over secondary issues, they had literally screwed up in the worst possible way(First Commandment!!!!-Jesus would not approve.)
Somebody tell me I ain’t alone here. This is absolutely amazing.
Actually I have a theory(an uneducated layman’s theory of course) on the type of divinity Paul believed in. I think it is similar to the divinity the author(s) of John believed in terms of pre-existence but the authors of John seem to suggest Jesus is literally God.
I think these subjects need to be explored:
Usage of the terms Lord and Son of God by Romans and Jews, similarities and differences.
Various ideas of pre-existence.
How exactly the monotheistic early followers of Christ reacted to those who first started to worship him. This is the big one. I think it is absolutely amazing how that must have went down-“we both knew Jesus but now you say he is divine!!!!”
Stephen said
MMahmud you should read Prof Ehrman’s latest book, HOW JESUS BECAME CHRIST. He deals with a lot of your questions.What always hung me up was that it seemed impossible that strict first century Jewish monotheists could believe in the divinity of a human being. What Prof Ehrman demonstrates is that there were degrees of divinity, levels of divinity. I think the earliest strand in the tradition was a form of what’s called “adoptionism”; the belief that Jesus was a righteous human being who because of his righteousness was exalted by God after his death. The proof of this exaltation was the resurrection; validated by the visions of the disciples (or some of them; it wouldn’t have had to have been all of them to get the movement started). No way the earliest disciples would have believed Jesus was equal to God the Father but that wouldn’t be necessary to think he was divine. (This would explain the Ebionites. They were followers of disciples who retained the old view of Jesus as a righteous human being.)
As to how the earliest followers of Jesus viewed Paul, gmatthews I think you’re right. They didn’t leave any literary artifacts although there are interesting hints in the NT. The winners write the history. It’s as simple as that. Paul and his churches won the battle of ideas. Paul considered himself fully qualified to speak for Jesus. And left writings.
Perhaps the “party of James” considered Paul a troublemaker and at the Jerusalem Council blew him off; Yeah Paul you go deal with the Gentiles and we’ll take care of Israel. Maybe they thought they had gotten rid of him. Look at it from their point of view. They thought Jesus’ message was primarily to the Jews and that Jesus would return soon to set up his earthly kingdom. They would never have imagined that a Pauline church would still be waiting two thousand years later!
I will get to reading the book! I have started to and I know think I know how it could have happened I just don’t know how the argument ensued!!! Because the monotheists almost certainly were shocked at the early followers who started worshipping Christ!!! And somehow they managed to keep their monotheistic faith (with Christ as messenger of God and Messiah) going.
Yet what hints do we have of an early conflict about his divinity?
The disciples were never told to worship Christ.
So eating breakfast, even though you claim it’s not comparable is the example you use to validate your point?
I also noted no one told me to admire Bart Ehrman- if your concern were what could be compared, this is much closer your question.
It is often said that apples and oranges aren’t comparable, but they are both fruit, both can be described as round, you can make juice with them etc. In this case, you make the assumption that people can’t do things without being told. So the question is about uninstructed behavior, not whether worship and eating are alike. But they are both examples of things people do without being told.
Your confusing, being told to do something with being told HOW to do something People not only learn things on the fly-completely independent of some teacher. After all, who taught the first teacher? Who told the animals to eat?
Which is absolutely profound. Like the story of the Jews who worshiped the cow while Moses was absent
Profound!? Seriously!? So without instruction, people started worshiping a cow!? How could they without being told! but then moses got back and straightened them out?
“No, no not the cow! YAWEH, up there!!” Can’t you guys do anything right! Good thing I came back and TOLD them to do it or we wouldn’t be able to invent McDonalds and stuff!
“How exactly the monotheistic early followers of Christ reacted to those who first started to worship him. This is the big one. I think it is absolutely amazing how that must have went down-“we both knew Jesus but now you say he is divine!!!!”
Isn’t this an example of them being told to? Were they monotheistic? Were the early followers around when people started saying Jesus was God?
(I wasn’t hinting at any “verifiable miracle”…dunno where you got that)
Uhm well let’s use the magic of CONTEXT
I wrote “Did Angels dress me before I opened the front door? On my way to the car? before I got out of the car and walked into the office!? I think I have a verifiable miracle here! “
with a little contextual magic and some pixie dust we get what’s called sarcasm. What you want to SUGGEST has nothing to do with it. See this was an example of uninstructed spontaneous behavior which you seem to find PROFOUND for some reason.
MMahmud said
This is bugging me. Paul clearly thinks Jesus was the son of God and Lord(what exactly does Paul believe? His Christology is confusing) who pre existed in some sense but the disciples were with Christ the whole time and didn’t believe he was God (which makes sense because if he did go around saying he was God during his lifetime the least that would happen is Jesus+disciples get stoned to death by the Jews and story over.)
So how on earth did that interaction between Paul and disciples go down? Did the disciples he met worship Christ by this time (which is weird…because they were never told to worship Jesus..)??
If James and Peter worshiped Christ by the time Paul met them then doesn’t this mean pretty much every single Christian without exception worshipped Christ at this early period? How on earth did Ebionites exist afterwards? Why would there be later disagreement in Cristology if the very leaders of the Christian movement after Christ soon worshipped him?
If James and Peter didn’t worship Christ by the time they met Paul then the story gets strange…REALLY strange….because then the biggest thing they would disagree about and the only point of disagreement we would know about is Paul vs. Disciples: Who is Jesus? Not a discussion on the law or salvation but the biggest issue of all….is there any record of a discussion between Paul and the disciples as to the nature of Christ?
Part of me thinks the answer may be to obvious to be asked but I don’t feel like I will find it just reading and not talking to anyone because I am clearly missing something!!! Somebody help me…..I think my next question is WHEN did Jesus worship begin….
Thank you for your help. This curiosity is burning me on the inside and I have know.
MMahamud
Let me apologize for the sarcasm. And let’s back up a bit.
You write
Paul clearly thinks Jesus was the son of God and Lord(what exactly does Paul believe? His Christology is confusing) who pre existed in some sense but the disciples were with Christ the whole time and didn’t believe he was God.
Stephen was right, you ought to read How Jesus Became God. On page 4(HUBG) Ehrman writes
“Moreover, when put in these black and white terms,” (discussing the modern understanding of divinity as categorically distinct) “it is relatively easy to say, as I used to say before doing the research for this book, that the early Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke….” portray Jesus as a human but not as God” Infact, he goes on to argue that this isbecause scholars answer the question of high or low christology on the basis of this idea of human and divine as categorically distinct.
If looked at from he vantage point of a continuum of divinity from human to divine and vice versa you can see a high christology in the synoptics. I hope I haven’t screwed up Bart’s argument here,but I think that is accurate.
Now I still do not understand the whole being told to concern even as a matter of being taught
how. But let me try and communicate what I think is the case:
You meet someone who is going around talking about How life should be lived. You agree with alot of what he says. After talking to him for awhile, you start to look at things differently.
You come to admire (or in Dunn’s description, have faith in) this person. You spend alot of time with him and his friends. Maybe after spending alot of time with them and exchaning opi
ons about him and what he says with the other people in the group you admire
him even more.
At some point he is killed. Some time later, one of his close friends swears he saw this person
alive. Soon others make similar claims. You come to believe he is alive. This would certainly alter your estimation of him quite a bit. So what part of your thinking wass changed because someone TOLD you. Conversly, what about Paul and the apostles, cant be the result of spontaneous impressions or insights?
“If James and Peter worshiped Christ by the time Paul met them then doesn’t this mean pretty much every single Christian without exception worshipped Christ at this early period?”
Why? Why would Peter and Paul’s understanding mean that ” pretty much every single Christian without exception worshipped Christ at this early period?” As G pointed out there were disagreements of all kinds from early on about Jesus and his relationship to god. The earliest seems to be that he was exalted, you might say he got a promotion of sorts; he became God’s right hand man.
It seems the question you want to consider is what made people start thinking that view was inadequate? Was it simply monotheism? Was there some other consideration?
MMahmud said
This is bugging me. Paul clearly thinks Jesus was the son of God and Lord(what exactly does Paul believe? His Christology is confusing) who pre existed in some sense but the disciples were with Christ the whole time and didn’t believe he was God (which makes sense because if he did go around saying he was God during his lifetime the least that would happen is Jesus+disciples get stoned to death by the Jews and story over.)
So how on earth did that interaction between Paul and disciples go down? Did the disciples he met worship Christ by this time (which is weird…because they were never told to worship Jesus..)??
If James and Peter worshiped Christ by the time Paul met them then doesn’t this mean pretty much every single Christian without exception worshipped Christ at this early period? How on earth did Ebionites exist afterwards? Why would there be later disagreement in Cristology if the very leaders of the Christian movement after Christ soon worshipped him?
If James and Peter didn’t worship Christ by the time they met Paul then the story gets strange…REALLY strange….because then the biggest thing they would disagree about and the only point of disagreement we would know about is Paul vs. Disciples: Who is Jesus? Not a discussion on the law or salvation but the biggest issue of all….is there any record of a discussion between Paul and the disciples as to the nature of Christ?
Part of me thinks the answer may be to obvious to be asked but I don’t feel like I will find it just reading and not talking to anyone because I am clearly missing something!!! Somebody help me…..I think my next question is WHEN did Jesus worship begin….
Thank you for your help. This curiosity is burning me on the inside and I have know.
MMahmud
Paul thinks Jesus was the son of God.
The disciples were with Christ the whole time and didn’t believe he was God.
Steefen
The way you are setting up your argument, it does not produce a discrepancy.
You need to state and quote scripture where Paul thinks Jesus is God. Pre-existence does not mean God. There are plenty of reincarnated human beings who pre-existed. That does not make them God. That makes them old souls.
What I see follows.
Paul thinks Jesus was the son of God. (So you say, please quote scripture.)
Did the disciples think he was the son of God? (I ask to test alignment or discrepancy.)
Matthew 16:16, Peter says Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God.
So far we do not have a discrepancy.
Next, did Jesus teach his disciples publicly or secretly that he pre-existed? Obviously if it were secretly, we would not know; but, without explicitly knowing the secrets (there are secret gospels, is it there) is there an implicit argument that can be made?
Steefen said
MMahmud said
This is bugging me. Paul clearly thinks Jesus was the son of God and Lord(what exactly does Paul believe? His Christology is confusing) who pre existed in some sense but the disciples were with Christ the whole time and didn’t believe he was God (which makes sense because if he did go around saying he was God during his lifetime the least that would happen is Jesus+disciples get stoned to death by the Jews and story over.)
So how on earth did that interaction between Paul and disciples go down? Did the disciples he met worship Christ by this time (which is weird…because they were never told to worship Jesus..)??
If James and Peter worshiped Christ by the time Paul met them then doesn’t this mean pretty much every single Christian without exception worshipped Christ at this early period? How on earth did Ebionites exist afterwards? Why would there be later disagreement in Cristology if the very leaders of the Christian movement after Christ soon worshipped him?
If James and Peter didn’t worship Christ by the time they met Paul then the story gets strange…REALLY strange….because then the biggest thing they would disagree about and the only point of disagreement we would know about is Paul vs. Disciples: Who is Jesus? Not a discussion on the law or salvation but the biggest issue of all….is there any record of a discussion between Paul and the disciples as to the nature of Christ?
Part of me thinks the answer may be to obvious to be asked but I don’t feel like I will find it just reading and not talking to anyone because I am clearly missing something!!! Somebody help me…..I think my next question is WHEN did Jesus worship begin….
Thank you for your help. This curiosity is burning me on the inside and I have know.
MMahmud
Paul thinks Jesus was the son of God.
The disciples were with Christ the whole time and didn’t believe he was God.Steefen
The way you are setting up your argument, it does not produce a discrepancy.
You need to state and quote scripture where Paul thinks Jesus is God. Pre-existence does not mean God. There are plenty of reincarnated human beings who pre-existed. That does not make them God. That makes them old souls.
What I see follows.
Paul thinks Jesus was the son of God. (So you say, please quote scripture.)
Did the disciples think he was the son of God? (I ask to test alignment or discrepancy.)
Matthew 16:16, Peter says Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God.So far we do not have a discrepancy.
Next, did Jesus teach his disciples publicly or secretly that he pre-existed? Obviously if it were secretly, we would not know; but, without explicitly knowing the secrets (there are secret gospels, is it there) is there an implicit argument that can be made?
So,Paul believes Jesus is the son of God in the way Jews used the term? Like the non divine sense but just to express some sort of close relationship?
How is Peter’s declaration (Jesus is Christ, son of the Living God) different from all of what Paul is saying?
Here is a good list of what Paul said about Jesus Christ. The person who wrote it is asking what Paul meant, also.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen said
How is Peter’s declaration (Jesus is Christ, son of the Living God) different from all of what Paul is saying?Here is a good list of what Paul said about Jesus Christ. The person who wrote it is asking what Paul meant, also.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Well the main difference is that we have Paul’s own expression of his views but only views attributed to Peter by others. Also note that the examples of Paul’s writings at the link you provided do not distinguish writings most scholars do not find authentically Pauline.
Stephen said
Steefen said
How is Peter’s declaration (Jesus is Christ, son of the Living God) different from all of what Paul is saying?Here is a good list of what Paul said about Jesus Christ. The person who wrote it is asking what Paul meant, also.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Well the main difference is that we have Paul’s own expression of his views but only views attributed to Peter by others. Also note that the examples of Paul’s writings at the link you provided do not distinguish writings most scholars do not find authentically Pauline.
exactly
Authentic Letters
Romans
1 Cor
2 Cor
Galatians
Phillippians
Thessalonians
Philemon
“Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’” Galatians 4:6
The Galatians quote coming from an “authentic” letter of Paul gives Paul’s position that Jesus was a son of God.
Peter’s statement as given does not create a discrepancy with Paul’s statement in Galatians.
MMahmud:
If James and Peter didn’t worship Christ by the time they met Paul then the story gets strange…REALLY strange….because then the biggest thing they would disagree about and the only point of disagreement we would know about is Paul vs. Disciples: Who is Jesus?
Steefen
I think they could do things in Jesus’ name. I highly doubt they did the Communion remembrance given Lev. 17: 10.
Explain how Paul worshiped Jesus. He was devoted, yes. Did he put Jesus ABOVE the Father?
Is your problem resolved now? If not, what is left?
Steefen said
Authentic LettersRomans
1 Cor
2 Cor
Galatians
Phillippians
Thessalonians
Philemon
“Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’” Galatians 4:6
The Galatians quote coming from an “authentic” letter of Paul gives Paul’s position that Jesus was a son of God.
Peter’s statement as given does not create a discrepancy with Paul’s statement in Galatians.
MMahmud:
If James and Peter didn’t worship Christ by the time they met Paul then the story gets strange…REALLY strange….because then the biggest thing they would disagree about and the only point of disagreement we would know about is Paul vs. Disciples: Who is Jesus?
Steefen
I think they could do things in Jesus’ name. I highly doubt they did the Communion remembrance given Lev. 17: 10.
Explain how Paul worshiped Jesus. He was devoted, yes. Did he put Jesus ABOVE the Father?
Is your problem resolved now? If not, what is left?
Ok so Paul didn’t worship Jesus he just exalted him highly maybe like some special spirit who is above the angels and humans? Some exceptionally beloved being of God?
I think the problem is that we don’t really know exactly what Paul was teaching to the communities he founded. In his letters, it’s clear that there was a lot of confusion after he left as to the nature of the resurrection of the dead, how much of the Jewish law actually had to be followed if any, how to behave morally until end, etc.. So if he was staying with them as long as Acts claims, it’s strange that these communities were confused about such basic things. It may just be that he was teaching people to believe in the Jewish God and to accept that Jesus had died trying bring the good word(that God’s justice will prevail when the end comes) to the world, that he had died for them. This seems to have been his big point, Christ Crucified. This isn’t such a radical view. It’s important to note, that dying for someone doesn’t mean dying in place of them. It just means that he died for a cause and that cause was humanity. The idea of a substitutionary sacrifice as is widespread in Christian thought today doesn’t come from Paul, it comes from Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. Paul didn’t have this view.
Anyways, who knows what he actually discussed with Peter&James when he met them and how much of his theology he actually shared with them. If he gave off the impression that he viewed Jesus as one specially chosen by God who became his son after the resurrection, he probably didn’t raise any eyebrows as that’s most likely what the Jamesian community believed as well.
I did used to wonder why the heck James and the disciples at Jerusalem didn’t do more to combat Paul’s views about Jesus’ divinity. However, reading Paul’s own letters and the writings of the apostolic fathers like Ignatius, it would seem that they did try. Paul complains about other preachers who taught a different “gospel” than his own and he makes clear that he has major disagreements with Peter&James. Then 50 years or so later when Ignatius is writing, he still talks about people coming to Christian communities who are trying to pull people back to a Jewish form of the religion. So it’s pretty clear that the Jewish Christians did in fact try to counter the movement Paul started. If we actually had any of their writings we could actually know how much they differed from Paul, but of course we don’t.
Another thing, you should read “The First Paul” by Crossan&Borg. They do a really good job of putting Paul and his letters within their 1st century Roman world and pulling him out from under centuries of post-Reformation ideology.
RAhmed said
I think the problem is that we don’t really know exactly what Paul was teaching to the communities he founded. In his letters, it’s clear that there was a lot of confusion after he left as to the nature of the resurrection of the dead, how much of the Jewish law actually had to be followed if any, how to behave morally until end, etc.. So if he was staying with them as long as Acts claims, it’s strange that these communities were confused about such basic things. It may just be that he was teaching people to believe in the Jewish God and to accept that Jesus had died trying bring the good word(that God’s justice will prevail when the end comes) to the world, that he had died for them. This seems to have been his big point, Christ Crucified. This isn’t such a radical view. It’s important to note, that dying for someone doesn’t mean dying in place of them. It just means that he died for a cause and that cause was humanity. The idea of a substitutionary sacrifice as is widespread in Christian thought today doesn’t come from Paul, it comes from Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. Paul didn’t have this view.Anyways, who knows what he actually discussed with Peter&James when he met them and how much of his theology he actually shared with them. If he gave off the impression that he viewed Jesus as one specially chosen by God who became his son after the resurrection, he probably didn’t raise any eyebrows as that’s most likely what the Jamesian community believed as well.
I did used to wonder why the heck James and the disciples at Jerusalem didn’t do more to combat Paul’s views about Jesus’ divinity. However, reading Paul’s own letters and the writings of the apostolic fathers like Ignatius, it would seem that they did try. Paul complains about other preachers who taught a different “gospel” than his own and he makes clear that he has major disagreements with Peter&James. Then 50 years or so later when Ignatius is writing, he still talks about people coming to Christian communities who are trying to pull people back to a Jewish form of the religion. So it’s pretty clear that the Jewish Christians did in fact try to counter the movement Paul started. If we actually had any of their writings we could actually know how much they differed from Paul, but of course we don’t.
Another thing, you should read “The First Paul” by Crossan&Borg. They do a really good job of putting Paul and his letters within their 1st century Roman world and pulling him out from under centuries of post-Reformation ideology.
I just got through a big chunk of How Jesus became God and I have to say…it is nothing short of amazing. It addresses this a lot.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)