So how do Christ-mythers explain this...

[Shiny]

If Jesus Christ never existed then wouldn't the Christians be called out on their bluff and wouldn't we see writings of those calling them out on it? I mean you had Celsus call out Jesus illegiitimancy as a child of Tiberius Pantera, but I haven't seen anything in antiquity about non-existence. It actually helps the argument with enemy attestation, I think.

But really it just begs the question, how would the Christians ever keep up such a fraud? And especially to die for it as well?

It just shocks me that there are those who seriously think Christ never existed.

There is just not good enough arguments/evidence to suggest such a thing. It's like trying to debunk the Resurrection account because if you remove one part of the evidence it all comes down like a Jenga set IMO.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

If Jesus Christ never existed then wouldn't the Christians be called out on their bluff and wouldn't we see writings of those calling them out on it? I mean you had Celsus call out Jesus illegiitimancy as a child of Tiberius Pantera, but I haven't seen anything in antiquity about non-existence. It actually helps the argument with enemy attestation, I think.

But really it just begs the question, how would the Christians ever keep up such a fraud? And especially to die for it as well?

It just shocks me that there are those who seriously think Christ never existed.

There is just not good enough arguments/evidence to suggest such a thing. It's like trying to debunk the Resurrection account because if you remove one part of the evidence it all comes down like a Jenga set IMO.

Brother, you know and understand my personal conviction, there is NO historical Jesus.  Christians died as martyrs because of their personal and direct relationship with Him, not because of their firm assertion of his historical reality.  Jesus Christ is not Abraham Lincoln, He is God Almighty.  The historiography of Jesus Christ is 100% irrelevant, however should know that it is also largely shallow and unsubstantiated.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Shiny]

But can't "historical" be "personal" as well though? I mean isn't it wrong to say he didn't enter into our reality, historically?

I just feel there is a really good argument to be made for Christ's existence based on the history.

And I hate to be Isa's toady (PtA's word, not mine but I love it) and I wish I could search for the post he made, but the evidence for Christianity is perfect.

[HabteSelassie]

But can't "historical" be "personal" as well though? I mean isn't it wrong to say he didn't enter into our reality, historically?

I just feel there is a really good argument to be made for Christ's existence based on the history.

And I hate to be Isa's toady (PtA's word, not mine but I love it) and I wish I could search for the post he made, but the evidence for Christianity is perfect.

Personal is not mutually exclusive to historical, but yes, historical is exclusive to personal. I do not have a personal or direct relationship with actual historical persons such as Abraham Lincoln or Genghis Khan.  Did they exist? There is indeed plenty of verifiable, tangible, and accurate primary source materials and artifacts which attest to their historicity.  With Jesus Christ, I am firmly convinced this is not the case.  There are a few 1st and 2nd century references, but even of these, we have no real primary sources (i.e. actual copies from the period to verify) rather they are later speculations.  You KNOW that I believe Jesus Christ was real, but that is not because of any historical accuracy, rather because like Apostle Paul our Lord knocked me off my high horse and revealed Himself by Theophany. 

This is my opinion, folks are always free to debate such, but they are going to have to put out some material evidence to back this up and we can critique the legitimacy, accuracy, and integrity of this evidence in a strictly academic/scholastic standard.  To this scrutiny, I for one feel that the evidence for Jesus becomes inconclusive.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Shiny]

One more thing, speaking of historiography. You should check out Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, which is outstanding and right up their with NT Wright's book.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Resurrection-Jesus-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

One more thing, speaking of historiography. You should check out Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, which is outstanding and right up their with NT Wright's book.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Resurrection-Jesus-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196

I hope its better than it sounds.  A good historiography of miracles by definition would be a study of how Christian interpretations of the miracles of the Gospel narratives evolved and changed across time, including the additions and embellishments of oral traditions, legends, as well Canonical text like Saint's biographies and other Church texts.  From an academic standpoint, it seems to be a bit absurd to suggest that you can ever prove either miracles OR the Resurrection, because such things are by definition supernatural and Divine, and I'd bet serious historians are snickering a bit at a text like this

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Shiny]

But can't "historical" be "personal" as well though? I mean isn't it wrong to say he didn't enter into our reality, historically?

I just feel there is a really good argument to be made for Christ's existence based on the history.

And I hate to be Isa's toady (PtA's word, not mine but I love it) and I wish I could search for the post he made, but the evidence for Christianity is perfect.

Personal is not mutually exclusive to historical, but yes, historical is exclusive to personal. I do not have a personal or direct relationship with actual historical persons such as Abraham Lincoln or Genghis Khan.  Did they exist? There is indeed plenty of verifiable, tangible, and accurate primary source materials and artifacts which attest to their historicity.  With Jesus Christ, I am firmly convinced this is not the case.  There are a few 1st and 2nd century references, but even of these, we have no real primary sources (i.e. actual copies from the period to verify) rather they are later speculations.  You KNOW that I believe Jesus Christ was real, but that is not because of any historical accuracy, rather because like Apostle Paul our Lord knocked me off my high horse and revealed Himself by Theophany. 

This is my opinion, folks are always free to debate such, but they are going to have to put out some material evidence to back this up and we can critique the legitimacy, accuracy, and integrity of this evidence in a strictly academic/scholastic standard.  To this scrutiny, I for one feel that the evidence for Jesus becomes inconclusive.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Let's agree on one thing, Habte, that the New Testament is not a historical document. Now I know they are written to be biographical, but they transcend history. It is strictly a religious document and I think orthonorm said this once, a catechism document for Christians (maybe I misphrased him).

However you don't necessarily need primary sources to prove the historical Jesus. You have to approach it in different ways and not necessarily by written documentation. You have to explain the birth of Christianity without using those sources, which can be second-hand accounts or written decades after the Resurrection. And yes it does need an explanation, historically. Jesus Christ is the very center of all of human history and his influence is undeniable. No one comes close to having that much impact historically. Again it needs an explanation outside of faith.

[Shiny]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

One more thing, speaking of historiography. You should check out Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, which is outstanding and right up their with NT Wright's book.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Resurrection-Jesus-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196

I hope its better than it sounds.  A good historiography of miracles by definition would be a study of how Christian interpretations of the miracles of the Gospel narratives evolved and changed across time, including the additions and embellishments of oral traditions, legends, as well Canonical text like Saint's biographies and other Church texts.  From an academic standpoint, it seems to be a bit absurd to suggest that you can ever prove either miracles OR the Resurrection, because such things are by definition supernatural and Divine, and I'd bet serious historians are snickering a bit at a text like this

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Nobody can prove the Resurrection, I'll agree there. However looking at the evidence, what is the best explanation that we can give. There's only one, that Christ really did rise from the dead.

But yes it's really great.

[Jonathan Gress]

You might want to check out this article, which purports to show that the Resurrection is true because the probability of subsequent events occurring if the Resurrection didn't occur is much smaller than the probability of them occurring if the Resurrection did occur.


http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Mcgrew-McGrew-The-Argument-from-Miracles.pdf

[Shiny]

And wait a sec, you don't consider Luke-Acts a primary source, Habte?

[Melodist]

But can't "historical" be "personal" as well though? I mean isn't it wrong to say he didn't enter into our reality, historically?

Incarnation.

[Shiny]

But can't "historical" be "personal" as well though? I mean isn't it wrong to say he didn't enter into our reality, historically?

Incarnation.

So what are you positing then?

[Melodist]

So what are you positing then?

Chistianity isn't just a theory, philosophy, theology, or personal connection, but is based on the historical reality of God becoming a man, dieing, being raised from the dead, etc. These things really happened and they happened inside of human history as a part of human history. Otherwise, all the theory, philosophy, theology, personal connections, etc cease to be objectively real. I don't mean this to deny the universality of salvation or that Christ became a human to personally self-identify with every human, only to affirm that there is a historical Jesus, which I believe is the Jesus found in the NT and preached by the Church.

[Shiny]

So what are you positing then?

Chistianity isn't just a theory, philosophy, theology, or personal connection, but is based on the historical reality of God becoming a man, dieing, being raised from the dead, etc. These things really happened and they happened inside of human history as a part of human history. Otherwise, all the theory, philosophy, theology, personal connections, etc cease to be objectively real. I don't mean this to deny the universality of salvation or that Christ became a human to personally self-identify with every human, only to affirm that there is a historical Jesus, which I believe is the Jesus found in the NT and preached by the Church.

Sorry if my comprehension is lacking right now, but I think you agree with me. But yes I agree with everything that is said here.

[Melodist]

Sorry if my comprehension is lacking right now, but I think you agree with me. But yes I agree with everything that is said here.

I was agreeing with you.

[Shiny]

I was thinking St. Athanasius was going to be handy for this topic soon enough.

[NicholasMyra]

Bart Ehrman's refutation of Christ Mythicism is my personal favorite, because it properly offends everybody.

"Jesus couldn't have been an invented deity because his earliest followers didn't think he was God."

lol

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

However you don't necessarily need primary sources to prove the historical Jesus.

By the definitions and standards of academic or scholarly history, yes, that is EXACTLY what you need, primary source materials.

You might want to check out this article, which purports to show that the Resurrection is true because the probability of subsequent events occurring if the Resurrection didn't occur is much smaller than the probability of them occurring if the Resurrection did occur.


http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Mcgrew-McGrew-The-Argument-from-Miracles.pdf

How purely academic historians would argue this would be the cultural and historical impact of the BELIEF in the Resurrection, but belief of something is not evidence of its reality.  Currently 25% of Americans believe our President is a Muslim because of his last name, while during the election the primary concern was his controversial Christian pastor??  Belief is not historicity, and there is indeed truth to belief, and I feel even MORE truths underlying myths, but we can't necessarily hold them to be evidence of historical facts.

And wait a sec, you don't consider Luke-Acts a primary source, Habte?

No, the oldest copies we have are from the 4th century, that is 300 years removed from the actual events.  

So what are you positing then?

Chistianity isn't just a theory, philosophy, theology, or personal connection, but is based on the historical reality of God becoming a man, dieing, being raised from the dead, etc. These things really happened and they happened inside of human history as a part of human history. Otherwise, all the theory, philosophy, theology, personal connections, etc cease to be objectively real. I don't mean this to deny the universality of salvation or that Christ became a human to personally self-identify with every human, only to affirm that there is a historical Jesus, which I believe is the Jesus found in the NT and preached by the Church.

I am not denying the actual existence of Jesus Christ, I know Him quite personally as being real then and now.  What I am denying is any secular, non-Theophany revealed evidence of Jesus Christ existing aside from Faith.  We of course know Him to be real and true, and flesh and blood, but we do not have tangible historical evidence of this fact.  We believe this because we know Him, if we don't know Him, we really are believing in fiction.

The burden of proof is on the arguer, so if y'all are arguing that there is secular, non-faith based primary source evidence of a historical Jesus Christ, by all means please prove me wrong

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[LBK]

When Augustus reigned alone upon earth, the many kingdoms of men came to end: and when You were made man of the pure Virgin, the many gods of idolatry were destroyed. The cities of the world passed under one single rule; and the nations came to believe in one sovereign Godhead. The peoples were enrolled by the decree of Caesar; and we, the faithful, were enrolled in the name of the Godhead, when You, our God, was made man. Great is Your mercy: glory to You. (Vespers Doxastikon, Nativity of the Lord)

Now, if records have survived of that census ....

[lord doog]

What I am denying is any secular, non-Theophany revealed evidence of Jesus Christ existing aside from Faith.  We of course know Him to be real and true, and flesh and blood, but we do not have tangible historical evidence of this fact.  

What about the historical writings of Flavius Josephus?

[Cyrillic]

Now, if records have survived of that census

Not much government records have been found. Even Augustus' Res Gestae was lost until the 16th century.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

What I am denying is any secular, non-Theophany revealed evidence of Jesus Christ existing aside from Faith.  We of course know Him to be real and true, and flesh and blood, but we do not have tangible historical evidence of this fact.  

What about the historical writings of Flavius Josephus?

The oldest manuscripts for Josephus come from the 6th century.  That is FIVE HUNDRED years removed from the actual events.  The majority of manuscripts are from the 12-14th centuries and are part of the same European Jewish revival which birthed the later versions of the Hebrew Scriptures which were used for the King James Version.



stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Nicene]

Easy. Constantine being the most evil and powerful man on earth gathered every single historical text and included references about Christianity into them and then gave them back to their original owners while forging the entirety of the Ante Nicene fathers and the bible.

While none of them have ever said this, I have had a few say Constantine made bible.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Easy. Constantine being the most evil and powerful man on earth gathered every single historical text and included references about Christianity into them and then gave them back to their original owners while forging the entirety of the Ante Nicene fathers and the bible.

While none of them have ever said this, I have had a few say Constantine made bible.

In part, this premise is true.  Not necessarily the part about Constantine, but the reality that many manuscripts have been destroyed.  In the Ethiopian experience, many scholars wrongfully assert that the Solomonic legends were added or embellished during the era of Zara Yacob.  It is a fact of Ethiopian history that a sheer majority of the texts, writings, and manuscripts which our Church has to day originated in the 13th-15th centuries.  HOWEVER, this shouldn't suggest that they were magically invented at this time as many scholars loftily assert.  Rather, different eras of strife and political divisions, as well as internal Church struggles with various indigenous and exogenous heresies results in the destruction of much of Ethiopian historical documents and artifacts.  During the "Gudith raids" was the first wave of this process.  Gudit (or Judith) may actually have  never even existed (I believe she did) rather the stories of her campaigns are a collective and symbolic narrative to explain a century of Christian persecution and political destruction which culminated in the ascendancy of the Zagwe dynasty (some call a Solomonic pretender, others say a Solomonic side branch).  Then again in the 16th century under the Turkish and Somali invasions, literally THOUSANDS of Churches were burned, looted, and destroyed.  In Ethiopia at this time (as in MANY Tropical regions) Churches were by and large the ONLY stone structures, which  meant that they were also the majority of libraries and archives.  To destroy Churches was to try to erase the evidence of history.  However, embedded in the collective memory of the Ethiopian people, Tradition survived and was revived and restored in the Gonderine Restoration.  Let us also not forgot the Catholic controversies which tried to wipe out Orthodox in Ethiopia and replace it with Latinism.  In Gonder, just like under Zara Yacob two centuries earlier, many Ethiopian courts and churches were rebuilt and the literature redrafted. 

This should not suggest that Ethiopia lost all her treasures, after all she is a vast and mountainous place, absolutely criss-crossed by mountains and river valleys, making even MODERN travel strenuous and difficult.  In many flung parishes and monasteries we find some of the oldest coinage from places as far away as India and China, we even find ancient texts lost to the outside world, and not just Christian, but philosophies and histories too. 

Sometime historians have wrongfully labelled Ethiopia a "living museum" but nothing could be further from the truth, she is not a museum, rather this ancient history which she preserves is alive, dynamic, and active.  It is not uncommon for Ethiopians at the Bunna Bet to get into a heated and detailed argument about a local or regional history that is hundreds of years removed as if it literally happened yesterday

Much like in the Pacific Islands, Ethiopia as a less material civilization has focused instead much of her efforts on oral history, language, and cultural development which is why in the collective imagination of even the most rural folks is a in-depth understanding of the continuity of history.  It used to be the same in Medieval Europe where any old peasant woman knew every symbol, motif, and gossip about events even a thousand years before their time

Materialism robs us of spiritual and cultural energy, which is particularly why I feel that fasting culture is so critical in Orthodox, to combat this.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Asteriktos]

There is just not good enough arguments/evidence to suggest such a thing.

How many books by the mythicists have you read?

[orthonorm]

Bart Ehrman's refutation of Christ Mythicism is my personal favorite, because it properly offends everybody.

"Jesus couldn't have been an invented deity because his earliest followers didn't think he was God."

lol

Awesome.

[Kerdy]

Sorry if my comprehension is lacking right now, but I think you agree with me. But yes I agree with everything that is said here.

I was agreeing with you.

I agree as well.  His actual, historical existence indeed matters.

[Severian]

Christians are so dumb. If Jesus really existed, how come we haven't found His body yet? DUH!

[NicholasMyra]

Bart Ehrman's refutation of Christ Mythicism is my personal favorite, because it properly offends everybody.

"Jesus couldn't have been an invented deity because his earliest followers didn't think he was God."

lol

Awesome.

Sssh. We don't want to accidentally attract any Messianic Jews. They'll start a whole website selling Gospel to the Hebrews tees and write blogs on spiritual sonship using the Orthodox Jewish Bible as a source.

[Severian]

Bart Ehrman's refutation of Christ Mythicism is my personal favorite, because it properly offends everybody.

"Jesus couldn't have been an invented deity because his earliest followers didn't think he was God."

lol

How could anyone read the early Fathers (Sts. Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito, etc.) and make this claim?

[orthonorm]

Bart Ehrman's refutation of Christ Mythicism is my personal favorite, because it properly offends everybody.

"Jesus couldn't have been an invented deity because his earliest followers didn't think he was God."

lol

How could anyone read the early Fathers (Sts. Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito, etc.) and make this claim?

Probably by reading the Bible.

Crazy, I know.

[Shiny]

Bart Ehrman's refutation of Christ Mythicism is my personal favorite, because it properly offends everybody.

"Jesus couldn't have been an invented deity because his earliest followers didn't think he was God."

lol

How could anyone read the early Fathers (Sts. Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito, etc.) and make this claim?

Probably by reading the Bible.

Crazy, I know.

Even the parts that Jesus claims divinity or John 1:1? Then again Arius probably used the same verses to prove his heresy so yeah.

But I thought it was common knowledge of the early Christians that Jesus was God and it was never brought up so much until someone challenged it.

[Severian]

@Orthonorm The Bible also teaches that Christ is God, so the same still applies.

In all seriousness though, how can anyone read ancient Patristics and come to the conclusion that the earliest Christians didn't believe Christ was God? Their testimony is so clear!

[Shiny]

In all seriousness though, how can anyone read ancient Patristics and come to the conclusion that the earliest Christians didn't believe Christ was God? Their testimony is so clear!

No idea, but also look at those that never really had to argue Christ was God because it was already assumed!

Or that is my understanding, open to be corrected of course.

And Habte, I'll try and respond with some substance later when I get home for my trip and I can look up some sources.

[NicholasMyra]

Bart Ehrman's refutation of Christ Mythicism is my personal favorite, because it properly offends everybody.

"Jesus couldn't have been an invented deity because his earliest followers didn't think he was God."

lol

How could anyone read the early Fathers (Sts. Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito, etc.) and make this claim?

By early, Dr. Ehrman means like ~30-60 A.D. at the latest. Although in his pop books I think he likes to push the dates for canonical stuff forward and non-canonical stuff back.

[NicholasMyra]

Probably by reading the Bible.

Crazy, I know.

No, no, no.

You are just not understanding the spiritual meaning of Mark.

[Severian]

Bart Ehrman's refutation of Christ Mythicism is my personal favorite, because it properly offends everybody.

"Jesus couldn't have been an invented deity because his earliest followers didn't think he was God."

lol

How could anyone read the early Fathers (Sts. Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito, etc.) and make this claim?

By early, Dr. Ehrman means like ~30-60 A.D. at the latest. Although in his pop books I think he likes to push the dates for canonical stuff forward and non-canonical stuff back.

But the Apostolic Fathers, like Sts. Ignatius and Polycarp, were pupils of the Apostles themselves and they taught that Christ was God. So what's the deal?

[orthonorm]

@Orthonorm The Bible also teaches that Christ is God, so the same still applies.

In all seriousness though, how can anyone read ancient Patristics and come to the conclusion that the earliest Christians didn't believe Christ was God? Their testimony is so clear!

Yes, it is clear that every disciple proclaimed Jesus was both the Christ and God from the get go.

I suggest you read the Bible. Start with my old friend Mark. And please let me know when His followers confess His divinity.

As they say, you must give the devil his due (and you should since those serving him most closely are the first to begin to understand Jesus' person).

BTW, given that you are a little unclear on Scripture, I would dial back the shock on others not being so up on Patristics.

[orthonorm]

Probably by reading the Bible.

Crazy, I know.

No, no, no.

You are just not understanding the spiritual meaning of Mark.

Due to lag, my post came in after yours . . .

[Severian]

@Orthonorm The Bible also teaches that Christ is God, so the same still applies.

In all seriousness though, how can anyone read ancient Patristics and come to the conclusion that the earliest Christians didn't believe Christ was God? Their testimony is so clear!

Yes, it is clear that every disciple proclaimed Jesus was both the Christ and God from the get go.

I suggest you read the Bible. Start with my old friend Mark. And please let me know when His followers confess His divinity.

As they say, you must give the devil his due (and you should since those serving him most closely are the first to begin to understand Jesus' person).

BTW, given that you are a little unclear on Scripture, I would dial back the shock on others not being so up on Patristics.

Some books may not be as explicit as others, but the NT (when looked at as a whole) teaches Christ's Deity.

And as always, I really appreciate the condescending tone of your post. Thank you.

[William]

@Orthonorm The Bible also teaches that Christ is God, so the same still applies.

In all seriousness though, how can anyone read ancient Patristics and come to the conclusion that the earliest Christians didn't believe Christ was God? Their testimony is so clear!

Yes, it is clear that every disciple proclaimed Jesus was both the Christ and God from the get go.

I suggest you read the Bible. Start with my old friend Mark. And please let me know when His followers confess His divinity.

As they say, you must give the devil his due (and you should since those serving him most closely are the first to begin to understand Jesus' person).

BTW, given that you are a little unclear on Scripture, I would dial back the shock on others not being so up on Patristics.

Some books may not be as explicit as others, but the the NT (when looked at as a whole) teaches Christ's Deity.

And as always, I really appreciate the condescending tone of your post. Thank you.

Try using the word liberal to describe something sometime. 

[orthonorm]

@Orthonorm The Bible also teaches that Christ is God, so the same still applies.

In all seriousness though, how can anyone read ancient Patristics and come to the conclusion that the earliest Christians didn't believe Christ was God? Their testimony is so clear!

Yes, it is clear that every disciple proclaimed Jesus was both the Christ and God from the get go.

I suggest you read the Bible. Start with my old friend Mark. And please let me know when His followers confess His divinity.

As they say, you must give the devil his due (and you should since those serving him most closely are the first to begin to understand Jesus' person).

BTW, given that you are a little unclear on Scripture, I would dial back the shock on others not being so up on Patristics.

Some books may not be as explicit as others, but the the NT (when looked at as a whole) teaches Christ's Deity.

And as always, I really appreciate the condescending tone of your post. Thank you.

God condescended to man. We are called to be like God. What can I say?

Sorry, but getting hysterical about Patristics ain't gonna win in discussions with folks who know their Scripture better than you.

This is a case when listening to the other side might have merit.

Then you can argue from their approach to prove your own. Tossing out Church Father this Church Father that, ain't gonna hunt.

However, understanding the structure of a text like Mark (which undoubtedly they will be primarily arguing from) and why it is structured how it is might actually provide a more convincing case.

The Church Fathers would approve. After all, in the end the best Patristics are those which merely make more clear of what lies within Scripture.

[Severian]

^I see your point. But, I wasn't trying to be hysterical or anything. I am just perplexed when people allege that the earliest Christians did not teach Christ's Divinity. That was the charge I was addressing, not whether or not the Bible teaches Christ's Divinity.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

And Habte, I'll try and respond with some substance later when I get home for my trip and I can look up some sources.

That is all I can ask

@Orthonorm The Bible also teaches that Christ is God, so the same still applies.

In all seriousness though, how can anyone read ancient Patristics and come to the conclusion that the earliest Christians didn't believe Christ was God? Their testimony is so clear!

Yes, it is clear that every disciple proclaimed Jesus was both the Christ and God from the get go.

I suggest you read the Bible. Start with my old friend Mark. And please let me know when His followers confess His divinity.

As they say, you must give the devil his due (and you should since those serving him most closely are the first to begin to understand Jesus' person).

BTW, given that you are a little unclear on Scripture, I would dial back the shock on others not being so up on Patristics.

Some books may not be as explicit as others, but the the NT (when looked at as a whole) teaches Christ's Deity.

And as always, I really appreciate the condescending tone of your post. Thank you.

God condescended to man. We are called to be like God. What can I say?

Sorry, but getting hysterical about Patristics ain't gonna win in discussions with folks who know their Scripture better than you.

This is a case when listening to the other side might have merit.

Then you can argue from their approach to prove your own. Tossing out Church Father this Church Father that, ain't gonna hunt.

However, understanding the structure of a text like Mark (which undoubtedly they will be primarily arguing from) and why it is structured how it is might actually provide a more convincing case.

The Church Fathers would approve. After all, in the end the best Patristics are those which merely make more clear of what lies within Scripture.

  Don't diss my homie Severian like that, it ain't cool yo 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[NicholasMyra]

I am just perplexed when people allege that the earliest Christians did not teach Christ's Divinity.

Divinity? All early Christians [middle first century] thought he was divine; that is, he was of God and had a special relationship to God. What that meant was a completely different story, and the Gospel of John represents a coalescing of that thought.

What did "Son of God" mean in the Old Testament?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: So how do Christ-mythers explain this...