In the current threat I am building up to the question of where the Trinity came from. It was not the original Christian teaching. How then did it emerge as the “orthodox” view?
I have started with the key issue, which is complicated enough on its own terms. How, why, and when did the followers begin to call Jesus God? That has been the posts up till now. The reason it matters for the thread is that calling Jesus God made Christians try to figure out how he could be God and God could be God yet there be only one God. The Spirit later got thrown into the mix as well, as we will see.
But first I want to continue talking about the development of the view of Christ as God — a very important development (THE most important development, one could argue) in early “Christology” (= the understanding of Christ). That is the entire topic of my fuller treatment in my book How Jesus Became God (on which also I made a Great Courses 24-lecture course, by the same title). While I was writing the book, I completely changed my mind about something significant: whether the earliest Gospel writers, Mark, Matthew, and Luke thought of Jesus as God. I will devote two posts to that issue now.
So far I have argued that there were two separate streams of early Christology (this too has been a major shift in my thinking, and is closely related to the one I will be discussing momentarily). The first Christologies were almost certainly based on the idea of “exaltation.” Christ, as a human being, came to be exalted to the right hand of God, where he was made to share in God’s status as a reward for his faithfulness. The earliest Christians – the earthly disciples themselves (or at least some of them: we have no way of knowing if they all “converted” to believe this about Jesus) –thought that this happened at Jesus’ resurrection, where God “made him” the Son of God (and thus the Lord, the messiah to come, the Son of Man, and so on). Later there were Christians who thought this exaltation occurred at his baptism, so that he was the Son of God for his entire ministry.
Blog members can read the rest of this post, in which I discuss why people today (without knowing it) have such difficulty understanding how ancient people understood the word “God.” They didn’t think like we do about it. Want to see what I mean? Join the blog
Didn’t the Gnostic Christians believe that every human had a divine spark thus blurring the line between god and man even more? How did Gnostic views of divine and human nature intersect with other Christian variations in the first couple of centuries of the early church?
Most Gnostics appeared to have thought that only *some* people had the divine spark; the proto-orthodox church fathers objected that this was too deterministic: one was saved regardless of action, but by possession of the spark.
What’s the current threat?
I’m not sure what you’re asking.
You start this post with the statement. Check it out 😊.
The answer to Henriette’s question is: threat is a misspelling of thread.
I never understood the Trinity. How can Jesus be God AND the Son of God at the same time? That’s like saying he was his own son.
Does the idea that divinity was a spectrum solve this problem? I don’t think so because even if Jesus was God on a lower level, he is still the same God as the Father (according to the Trinity theory, the same God comprised 3 persons). So the claim that Jesus was God and the Son of God at the same time still wouldn’t make any sense.
This is very confusing. I don’t see how you can reconcile the idea that Jesus was God, the Son of God, and that the Trinitarian God was ONE God.
I hope I’m making sense Bart…
What’s your take on this?
That’s what my current thread is on. It will take me a very long time to get to the end of it! So keep reading.