What do others think about the original Christology of Jesus? There is evidence that suggests Jesus was considered to be just a man, not one and the same as God. The cry of dereliction from the cross, for instance, does not seem to show a divine figure calmly anticipating resurrection. Similarly, the prayer in the garden of Gethsemane shows Jesus to be in despair, in disagreement with God and petitioning to God, not simply being the self-same with God. Also, the way Jesus constructs The Lord’s Prayer gives evidence to his belonging to humanity (Our Father, etc.). Any thoughts?
“Originally”, there was no concept of the Trinity. It was a later construct to combat accusations that Christians were polytheists, or at the very least, the method used to help Christians rationalize God and Jesus being one. The concept of the Trinity came to a head a century or two after Jesus when so-called modalists vigorously asserted that God existed in different “modes”: God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit, hence the name of the supporters of the assertion. The closest we come to finding proto-support for modalism is in the Gospel of John where the author puts words on the lips of Jesus, “the Father and I are one”.
I can’t put my hands on Bart’s “How Jesus Became God” at the moment, but he covers the modalists in his book. I believe he also points to a passage in Isaiah where God says something along the lines of “there is no other besides me”.
The word “Trinity” is never used in the Bible and in fact is not known to have been used to represent the modern interpretation of the Trinity prior to the 200s when an early church father used the term.
In so many ways, to me at least, it is clear that Mark was the earliest Gospel and represented the earliest written representation of Jesus and to me this is another example. I put emphasis on ‘written representation’ because I don’t want to suggest that Mark represents the oldest parts of the Christ mythos in his Gospel. As you say, john76, Mark’s Jesus certainly views himself as distinct from his “Father”, at least in the Passion.
I’ve always wondered if some of the disputes between Paul and the Jerusalem community might have been exacerbated by their different Christologies. Perhaps there was more to it than just their views of the proper relations to gentiles. I wonder if Cephas or James ever really had a good idea of what Paul actually thought? I suppose we’ll never know. We only have Paul’s side of it. And Acts is pretty much a whitewash of the whole controversy.
Your amusing trivia for the day is that Tertullian, the church father who first used the term “Trinity,” was excommunicated. Not for the Trinity, but for something else, but still excommunicated. Look at the link below for the Catholic encyclopedia entry on to Tertullian and you will also see an advertisement for the new movie “Risen.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Isaiah 44:6 with God declaring: “I am the first and the last; and beside me there is no other.”
mark was not trinitarian but did he think that power could be passed on from one god to the other?
“i am; and you will see the Son of Man (Himself) sitting on the right hand of power, “
so he clearly does not have power yet and will have power later on.
so did mark think there were powers besides gods power?
Stephen said
I’ve always wondered if some of the disputes between Paul and the Jerusalem community might have been exacerbated by their different Christologies. Perhaps there was more to it than just their views of the proper relations to gentiles. I wonder if Cephas or James ever really had a good idea of what Paul actually thought? I suppose we’ll never know. We only have Paul’s side of it. And Acts is pretty much a whitewash of the whole controversy.
A close reading of Galatians, in my opinion, makes it clear there must have been more to it than a disagreement of Gentiles. Paul’s christology doesn’t reflect the Gospels. In Galatians 2 he calls the disciples “so-called” leaders who contributed nothing to him. I think he felt like he needed their approval though. Next he says he made up with them them, or Peter in particular who blessed his mission to the Gentiles and then immediately there after describes how he rebuked Peter. I think there must have been more than just issues over Gentiles, Paul seems really angry. On the other hand, though, according to the Gospels Jesus had no interest in non-Jews and their salvation (as far as his apocalyptic mission went at any rate).
A close reading of Galatians, in my opinion, makes it clear there must have been more to it than a disagreement of Gentiles. Paul’s christology doesn’t reflect the Gospels. In Galatians 2 he calls the disciples “so-called” leaders who contributed nothing to him. I think he felt like he needed their approval though. Next he says he made up with them them, or Peter in particular who blessed his mission to the Gentiles and then immediately there after describes how he rebuked Peter. I think there must have been more than just issues over Gentiles, Paul seems really angry. On the other hand, though, according to the Gospels Jesus had no interest in non-Jews and their salvation (as far as his apocalyptic mission went at any rate).
Ironies abound. If Paul had not won the argument then it’s likely Christianity would never have developed beyond an insular Jewish sect that would have ultimately vanished like others must have. But by winning the argument Paul insured that there was a gap between the beliefs of the developing church and the beliefs of the original disciples. So much so that by the end of the first century groups like the Ebionites whose beliefs seem to have most closely resembled those of the original disciples were considered heretics!
Greg Matthews said
“Originally”, there was no concept of the Trinity. It was a later construct to combat accusations that Christians were polytheists, or at the very least, the method used to help Christians rationalize God and Jesus being one. The concept of the Trinity came to a head a century or two after Jesus when so-called modalists vigorously asserted that God existed in different “modes”: God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit, hence the name of the supporters of the assertion.
Modalism, The modern claim comparing the trinity to water, ice and steam?
There’s another issue discussed in the book, I forget the word, but it means something that is of the same substance as God (his wisdom) but it takes on a life of its own.
equality with God
what does “equality” mean?
this meaning
equal
the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality
: not changing : the same for each person
or this meaning
: the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.
Kazibwe Edris said
equality with God
what does “equality” mean?
this meaning:
equal
the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality
: not changing : the same for each personor this meaning:
: the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.
Your two definitions, if you read them carefully, are equal to each other. No need to post two different interpretations of the same definition. One does not exclude the other.
spiker said
Greg Matthews said
“Originally”, there was no concept of the Trinity. It was a later construct to combat accusations that Christians were polytheists, or at the very least, the method used to help Christians rationalize God and Jesus being one. The concept of the Trinity came to a head a century or two after Jesus when so-called modalists vigorously asserted that God existed in different “modes”: God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit, hence the name of the supporters of the assertion.
Modalism, The modern claim comparing the trinity to water, ice and steam?
There’s another issue discussed in the book, I forget the word, but it means something that is of the same substance as God (his wisdom) but it takes on a life of its own.
Hypostasis?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)