OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 08:11:17 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Anyone Read Geza Vermes' "Christian Beginnings"?  (Read 1066 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Posts: 351



« on: October 08, 2013, 10:01:49 PM »

I just finished going through it. His essential argument is as follows:

1. Jesus was a Charismatic messenger of God who did not see himself as divine.
2. The earliest Christians did not see Christ as divine. This can be seen in the Didache and synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
3. Paul shifted emphasis from Christ's message to Christ himself, the first step in altering Christ from a prophet of God to the Son of God.
4. Gentile, primarily Hellenistic influence, brought with it platonic concepts that further moved Christianity towards seeing Christ as the eternal, divine logos.
5. At the council of Nicea, Constantine was persuaded by bishops like Athanasius to adopt and promote the idea of homoousious.
6. The rest is history.
7. Christians should return to seeing God as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God.

In light of this argument, I was wondering if any of you have read the book, and if so what you thought of his arguments.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2013, 10:04:42 PM »

I just finished going through it. His essential argument is as follows:

1. Jesus was a Charismatic messenger of God who did not see himself as divine.
2. The earliest Christians did not see Christ as divine. This can be seen in the Didache and synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
3. Paul shifted emphasis from Christ's message to Christ himself, the first step in altering Christ from a prophet of God to the Son of God.
4. Gentile, primarily Hellenistic influence, brought with it platonic concepts that further moved Christianity towards seeing Christ as the eternal, divine logos.
5. At the council of Nicea, Constantine was persuaded by bishops like Athanasius to adopt and promote the idea of homoousious.
6. The rest is history.
7. Christians should return to seeing God as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God.

In light of this argument, I was wondering if any of you have read the book, and if so what you thought of his arguments.

Who needs the book when you have you.

The argument is sound. The conclusions one draws from it depends on how one understands revelation.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2013, 10:07:47 PM »

I haven't read the book, so I can't really address the argument.  I do have a question about this point:

7. Christians should return to seeing God as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God.

Why? 

Does the author address this?   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2013, 10:16:02 PM »

I just finished going through it. His essential argument is as follows:

1. Jesus was a Charismatic messenger of God who did not see himself as divine.
2. The earliest Christians did not see Christ as divine. This can be seen in the Didache and synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
3. Paul shifted emphasis from Christ's message to Christ himself, the first step in altering Christ from a prophet of God to the Son of God.
4. Gentile, primarily Hellenistic influence, brought with it platonic concepts that further moved Christianity towards seeing Christ as the eternal, divine logos.
5. At the council of Nicea, Constantine was persuaded by bishops like Athanasius to adopt and promote the idea of homoousious.
6. The rest is history.
7. Christians should return to seeing God as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God.

In light of this argument, I was wondering if any of you have read the book, and if so what you thought of his arguments.
I have not read this book and based off of what you posted I never will.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2013, 10:20:18 PM »

I just finished going through it. His essential argument is as follows:

1. Jesus was a Charismatic messenger of God who did not see himself as divine.
2. The earliest Christians did not see Christ as divine. This can be seen in the Didache and synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
3. Paul shifted emphasis from Christ's message to Christ himself, the first step in altering Christ from a prophet of God to the Son of God.
4. Gentile, primarily Hellenistic influence, brought with it platonic concepts that further moved Christianity towards seeing Christ as the eternal, divine logos.
5. At the council of Nicea, Constantine was persuaded by bishops like Athanasius to adopt and promote the idea of homoousious.
6. The rest is history.
7. Christians should return to seeing God as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God.

In light of this argument, I was wondering if any of you have read the book, and if so what you thought of his arguments.
I have not read this book and based off of what you posted I never will.

Most people already have in another package. What's the point?

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2013, 10:20:50 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2013, 10:21:13 PM »

I just finished going through it. His essential argument is as follows:

1. Jesus was a Charismatic messenger of God who did not see himself as divine.
2. The earliest Christians did not see Christ as divine. This can be seen in the Didache and synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
3. Paul shifted emphasis from Christ's message to Christ himself, the first step in altering Christ from a prophet of God to the Son of God.
4. Gentile, primarily Hellenistic influence, brought with it platonic concepts that further moved Christianity towards seeing Christ as the eternal, divine logos.
5. At the council of Nicea, Constantine was persuaded by bishops like Athanasius to adopt and promote the idea of homoousious.
6. The rest is history.
7. Christians should return to seeing God as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God.

In light of this argument, I was wondering if any of you have read the book, and if so what you thought of his arguments.
Mr. Vermes was ordained a Roman Catholic priest, but later on joined a liberal jewish synagogue.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2013, 10:25:13 PM »

I just finished going through it. His essential argument is as follows:

1. Jesus was a Charismatic messenger of God who did not see himself as divine.
2. The earliest Christians did not see Christ as divine. This can be seen in the Didache and synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
3. Paul shifted emphasis from Christ's message to Christ himself, the first step in altering Christ from a prophet of God to the Son of God.
4. Gentile, primarily Hellenistic influence, brought with it platonic concepts that further moved Christianity towards seeing Christ as the eternal, divine logos.
5. At the council of Nicea, Constantine was persuaded by bishops like Athanasius to adopt and promote the idea of homoousious.
6. The rest is history.
7. Christians should return to seeing God as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God.

In light of this argument, I was wondering if any of you have read the book, and if so what you thought of his arguments.
Mr. Vermes was ordained a Roman Catholic priest, but later on joined a liberal jewish synagogue.
That explains a lot.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2013, 10:31:32 PM by Kerdy » Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,713



« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2013, 10:57:03 PM »

I just finished going through it. His essential argument is as follows:

1. Jesus was a Charismatic messenger of God who did not see himself as divine.
2. The earliest Christians did not see Christ as divine. This can be seen in the Didache and synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
3. Paul shifted emphasis from Christ's message to Christ himself, the first step in altering Christ from a prophet of God to the Son of God.
4. Gentile, primarily Hellenistic influence, brought with it platonic concepts that further moved Christianity towards seeing Christ as the eternal, divine logos.
5. At the council of Nicea, Constantine was persuaded by bishops like Athanasius to adopt and promote the idea of homoousious.
6. The rest is history.
7. Christians should return to seeing God as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God.

In light of this argument, I was wondering if any of you have read the book, and if so what you thought of his arguments.

1-3 are wrong. Christ thinking He was divine was clear from Mark 14:61-62, Matthew 21:15-16, Matthew 22:41-45, Matthew 16:16-20, Mark 2:28, Matthew 27:43 and their corresponding parallel synoptics. If Christ affirmed in Matthew that He is the Son of God, there is no way Paul did that. Furthermore, St. Paul's writings predate the Gospels and the Didache, so his usage of the Gospels and the Didache is anachronistic.

4 is partially true, the concept of a Logos was also common among pre-Christian Jews like Philo of Alexandria and some of the Deuterocanonical books like the Wisdom of Solomon or Sirach.

5. St. Constantine just called the council, he personally didn't do a single thing.

7. Too late now!
« Last Edit: October 08, 2013, 11:12:48 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"[The Lord] shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3)
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 734


Out of This World


« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2013, 11:03:39 PM »

I can't see anything novel in this assertion. Liberal scholars have been trying to reduce Christ to a prophet and His Church to a politically-motivated accident for some time now. Am I wrong?
Logged
Gamliel
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 1,993



« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2013, 11:55:39 PM »

^.  No.  I have seen this argument in a lot of other writings.
Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 734


Out of This World


« Reply #10 on: October 09, 2013, 01:36:43 AM »

^.  No.  I have seen this argument in a lot of other writings.

I mean, if you want to go back far (and you can go even earlier, I'm sure), Islam makes the same claims about Christ being a prophet but not the Son of God. This is not new ground on which these scholars are treading!
Logged
Hinterlander
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 516


« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2013, 08:08:53 AM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 5,938


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2013, 08:16:51 AM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

Meaning what exactly?  Fruits of the spirit?  Joy, love, peace, etc.  Or Protestants are spirutual mangoes and Orthodox are spiritual pineapples?
Logged

Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2013, 08:39:03 AM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

One thing's for sure: we've got the fruits of our Fathers.

As for our own, "comparison brings death to the soul".
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 08:41:06 AM by Romaios » Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,713



« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2013, 08:43:40 AM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

Meaning what exactly?  Fruits of the spirit?  Joy, love, peace, etc.  Or Protestants are spirutual mangoes and Orthodox are spiritual pineapples?

Yeah, what does that mean? Protestants could be the best Christians in the whole world (which they are not!) but what would that prove if Orthodox were the worst Christians in the world and Protestants were "the best."

That doesn't negate in any way, the truth of the Orthodox Faith.
Logged

"[The Lord] shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3)
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2013, 08:58:24 AM »

I just finished going through it. His essential argument is as follows:

1. Jesus was a Charismatic messenger of God who did not see himself as divine.
2. The earliest Christians did not see Christ as divine. This can be seen in the Didache and synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
3. Paul shifted emphasis from Christ's message to Christ himself, the first step in altering Christ from a prophet of God to the Son of God.
4. Gentile, primarily Hellenistic influence, brought with it platonic concepts that further moved Christianity towards seeing Christ as the eternal, divine logos.
5. At the council of Nicea, Constantine was persuaded by bishops like Athanasius to adopt and promote the idea of homoousious.
6. The rest is history.
7. Christians should return to seeing God as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God.

In light of this argument, I was wondering if any of you have read the book, and if so what you thought of his arguments.

1-3 are wrong. Christ thinking He was divine was clear from Mark 14:61-62, Matthew 21:15-16, Matthew 22:41-45, Matthew 16:16-20, Mark 2:28, Matthew 27:43 and their corresponding parallel synoptics. If Christ affirmed in Matthew that He is the Son of God, there is no way Paul did that. Furthermore, St. Paul's writings predate the Gospels and the Didache, so his usage of the Gospels and the Didache is anachronistic.

4 is partially true, the concept of a Logos was also common among pre-Christian Jews like Philo of Alexandria and some of the Deuterocanonical books like the Wisdom of Solomon or Sirach.

5. St. Constantine just called the council, he personally didn't do a single thing.

7. Too late now!

Good answer. How does Vermes deal with Christ's self-affirmation as divine, or does he completely ignore those bits?
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 6,908



« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2013, 10:13:01 AM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

I think trying to compare two different groups of people is going to get you all sorts of false conclusions.  There are too many variables.  Rather, it is better to compare one's self without the Church to one's self with the Church.  Are you or I a better or worse person because of the Church?
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,618


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2013, 10:22:58 AM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

More like plums to e turned into palinka.
Meaning what exactly?  Fruits of the spirit?  Joy, love, peace, etc.  Or Protestants are spirutual mangoes and Orthodox are spiritual pineapples?
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 5,938


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2013, 10:36:04 AM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

More like plums to e turned into palinka.
Meaning what exactly?  Fruits of the spirit?  Joy, love, peace, etc.  Or Protestants are spirutual mangoes and Orthodox are spiritual pineapples?

Are you saying Orthodoxy is a healthy fruit and Protestantism makes you drunk? Grin
Logged

Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 3,940


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2013, 11:12:16 AM »

Or Protestants are spirutual mangoes and Orthodox are spiritual pineapples?

Now, that would sure make for a prickly situation...
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Posts: 351



« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2013, 11:56:00 AM »

Good answer. How does Vermes deal with Christ's self-affirmation as divine, or does he completely ignore those bits?
Vermes doesn't deny that Christ made claims to be the Son, or a son of God. He focuses on terminology, arguing that in light of the Charismatic Jewish tradition that preceded Jesus, and how the term "son of God" was used within it, he argues that when Christ refers to himself as "son of God" it does not mean what contemporary orthodox Christianity thinks it does. Rather than meaning the unique, divine Son of God who is co-eternal with the Father, Vermes argues that "son of God" means a servant of God who acts as a messenger. Vermes sees Jesus as another Moses or Elijah, whom he thinks also could have been called sons of God.

Regardless of what one believes I think this is a valid point. Jesus affirming that he is the Son of God, or a son of God, does get one to the contemporary orthodox Christian understanding of what "Son of God" means. Is he the Son of God as Jehova's Witnesses understand? as Mormons understand? as Gnostics understand? as orthodox Christianity understands? To get to a more specific point more is required, and I think the Christian tradition has done a decent job of providing such information.
Logged
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Posts: 351



« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2013, 12:01:06 PM »

I haven't read the book, so I can't really address the argument.  I do have a question about this point:

7. Christians should return to seeing God as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God.

Why? 

Does the author address this?   
Sorry, that was a typo on my part. Point #7 should be  "Christians should return to seeing Jesus as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God."

His main thesis is that Jesus did not see himself as coeternal or consubstantial with the Father. He didn't see himself as divine in any way shape or form. In light of this, Vermes argues that Christianity should reform itself to see Jesus not as God incarnate, but a messenger of God.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 12:01:19 PM by truthseeker32 » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2013, 12:24:02 PM »

Or Protestants are spirutual mangoes and Orthodox are spiritual pineapples?

I'm allergic to pineapples, and I love mangoes!   Shocked
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 5,938


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 09, 2013, 12:28:25 PM »

Or Protestants are spirutual mangoes and Orthodox are spiritual pineapples?

I'm allergic to pineapples, and I love mangoes!   Shocked

Uh-oh...
Logged

Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 09, 2013, 12:29:55 PM »

Sorry, that was a typo on my part. Point #7 should be  "Christians should return to seeing Jesus as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God."

His main thesis is that Jesus did not see himself as coeternal or consubstantial with the Father. He didn't see himself as divine in any way shape or form. In light of this, Vermes argues that Christianity should reform itself to see Jesus not as God incarnate, but a messenger of God.

I understood #7 even with the typo, but my question still stands.

If Christianity abandons the divinity of Christ, how does Vermes see Christianity changing or improving?  Is it simply a matter of "authenticity" without having thought much further on it?  Or does rejecting the divinity of Christ enable us to understand him and his message in a way that makes it easier to live and apply?  If so, in what way?    
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 09, 2013, 12:31:32 PM »

Uh-oh...

There was a poster a few weeks back, if I'm not mistaken, who accused me of having a Protestant spirituality or outlook or some nonsense like that.  I'll bet he feels justified.  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 5,938


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 09, 2013, 12:32:04 PM »

If Christ is just a prophet, would he be considered a true or a false prophet, especially by those who are not Christians?
Logged

hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 5,938


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 09, 2013, 12:33:02 PM »

Uh-oh...

There was a poster a few weeks back, if I'm not mistaken, who accused me of having a Protestant spirituality or outlook or some nonsense like that.  I'll bet he feels justified.  Tongue

"I knew it!  He likes Protestant mangoes!!!"  [Insert smug smiley]
Logged

Hinterlander
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 516


« Reply #28 on: October 09, 2013, 01:35:33 PM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

I admit it is an improper question because ultimately who are we to judge or compare.  I am pretty humbled by the acts of love, service and sacrifice I witness in my Protestant congregation.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 01:36:06 PM by Hinterlander » Logged
Hinterlander
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 516


« Reply #29 on: October 09, 2013, 01:38:06 PM »

I just finished going through it. His essential argument is as follows:

1. Jesus was a Charismatic messenger of God who did not see himself as divine.
2. The earliest Christians did not see Christ as divine. This can be seen in the Didache and synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
3. Paul shifted emphasis from Christ's message to Christ himself, the first step in altering Christ from a prophet of God to the Son of God.
4. Gentile, primarily Hellenistic influence, brought with it platonic concepts that further moved Christianity towards seeing Christ as the eternal, divine logos.
5. At the council of Nicea, Constantine was persuaded by bishops like Athanasius to adopt and promote the idea of homoousious.
6. The rest is history.
7. Christians should return to seeing God as a prophet of God, not the unique, divine Son of God.

In light of this argument, I was wondering if any of you have read the book, and if so what you thought of his arguments.

Thank you for reading it and summing it up.  I probably won't read it now, but thanks!  I have Pelikan to read and then hopefully Behr on the early church.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 09, 2013, 01:47:23 PM »

I have Pelikan to read and then hopefully Behr on the early church.

Don't say "hopefully".  DO IT.  Smiley
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #31 on: October 09, 2013, 02:17:23 PM »

Good answer. How does Vermes deal with Christ's self-affirmation as divine, or does he completely ignore those bits?
Vermes doesn't deny that Christ made claims to be the Son, or a son of God. He focuses on terminology, arguing that in light of the Charismatic Jewish tradition that preceded Jesus, and how the term "son of God" was used within it, he argues that when Christ refers to himself as "son of God" it does not mean what contemporary orthodox Christianity thinks it does. Rather than meaning the unique, divine Son of God who is co-eternal with the Father, Vermes argues that "son of God" means a servant of God who acts as a messenger. Vermes sees Jesus as another Moses or Elijah, whom he thinks also could have been called sons of God.

Regardless of what one believes I think this is a valid point. Jesus affirming that he is the Son of God, or a son of God, does get one to the contemporary orthodox Christian understanding of what "Son of God" means. Is he the Son of God as Jehova's Witnesses understand? as Mormons understand? as Gnostics understand? as orthodox Christianity understands? To get to a more specific point more is required, and I think the Christian tradition has done a decent job of providing such information.

It's even easier than this. Jesus eventually got Peter to figure out he was the Christ. So do you think he went around claiming equality with God?

Look at ancient Christian writings such as the epistles of Ignatius. They believed that Christ's divinity was kept a secret in order to deceive the devil into taking him.

Use your heads, people!
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #32 on: October 09, 2013, 02:22:04 PM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

I admit it is an improper question because ultimately who are we to judge or compare.  I am pretty humbled by the acts of love, service and sacrifice I witness in my Protestant congregation.

And I continue to be the only Orthodox person I have ever met who is willing to touch a poor person with less than a 10-foot pole.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 6,908



« Reply #33 on: October 09, 2013, 02:30:59 PM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

I admit it is an improper question because ultimately who are we to judge or compare.  I am pretty humbled by the acts of love, service and sacrifice I witness in my Protestant congregation.

And I continue to be the only Orthodox person I have ever met who is willing to touch a poor person with less than a 10-foot pole.
Am I reading this wrong or are you asserting an incredibly haughty and proud statement?
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 5,938


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 09, 2013, 02:33:37 PM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

I admit it is an improper question because ultimately who are we to judge or compare.  I am pretty humbled by the acts of love, service and sacrifice I witness in my Protestant congregation.

And I continue to be the only Orthodox person I have ever met who is willing to touch a poor person with less than a 10-foot pole.

I gave a dollar to a woman begging at an intersection.  Her hand brushed my finger as she took the bill from me.  I couldn't wait to get home to wash my hands, as she was very dirty.  Does that make me a hypocrite?
Logged

TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 6,908



« Reply #35 on: October 09, 2013, 02:34:37 PM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

I admit it is an improper question because ultimately who are we to judge or compare.  I am pretty humbled by the acts of love, service and sacrifice I witness in my Protestant congregation.

And I continue to be the only Orthodox person I have ever met who is willing to touch a poor person with less than a 10-foot pole.

I gave a dollar to a woman begging at an intersection.  Her hand brushed my finger as she took the bill from me.  I couldn't wait to get home to wash my hands, as she was very dirty.  Does that make me a hypocrite?
You probably should have attached it to an 11 foot pole and passed it to her that way.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Posts: 351



« Reply #36 on: October 09, 2013, 02:35:46 PM »

I understood #7 even with the typo, but my question still stands.

If Christianity abandons the divinity of Christ, how does Vermes see Christianity changing or improving?  Is it simply a matter of "authenticity" without having thought much further on it?  Or does rejecting the divinity of Christ enable us to understand him and his message in a way that makes it easier to live and apply?  If so, in what way?    
I think he simply sees it as more true and should be accepted because it is true.
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 5,938


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 09, 2013, 02:36:05 PM »


You probably should have attached it to an 11 foot pole and passed it to her that way.
[/quote]

Next time, I guess.  I will have to acquire a telescopic 11-foot pole, because a straight pole won't fit in my car.
Logged

TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 6,908



« Reply #38 on: October 09, 2013, 02:43:59 PM »

Quote
You probably should have attached it to an 11 foot pole and passed it to her that way.

Next time, I guess.  I will have to acquire a telescopic 11-foot pole, because a straight pole won't fit in my car.
It could be just like a mechanical arm that lowers.  It would normally be in an upright position with a dollar attached. When you see someone that warrants your charity. You just lower the boom and allow them to take the money.  You then pull to a safe location free of poor people, reload the contraption and you can be off to your next charitable giving event.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 02:44:28 PM by TheTrisagion » Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #39 on: October 09, 2013, 02:45:02 PM »


You probably should have attached it to an 11 foot pole and passed it to her that way.

Next time, I guess.  I will have to acquire a telescopic 11-foot pole, because a straight pole won't fit in my car.
[/quote]

Tie the dollar to a rock and throw into oncoming traffic next time. Let's see if these people really are willing to work for our money.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #40 on: October 09, 2013, 02:46:07 PM »

Quote
You probably should have attached it to an 11 foot pole and passed it to her that way.

Next time, I guess.  I will have to acquire a telescopic 11-foot pole, because a straight pole won't fit in my car.
It could be just like a mechanical arm that lowers.  It would normally be in an upright position with a dollar attached. When you see someone that warrants your charity. You just lower the boom and allow them to take the money.  You then pull to a safe location free of poor people, reload the contraption and you can be off to your next charitable giving event.

This is basically the structure of buying a pair of Tom's except you also get a badge of charity to show everyone.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 6,908



« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2013, 02:46:40 PM »

Quote
You probably should have attached it to an 11 foot pole and passed it to her that way.

Next time, I guess.  I will have to acquire a telescopic 11-foot pole, because a straight pole won't fit in my car.

Tie the dollar to a rock and throw into oncoming traffic next time. Let's see if these people really are willing to work for our money.
laugh

thats the spirit!
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 5,938


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 09, 2013, 02:51:06 PM »

Quote
You probably should have attached it to an 11 foot pole and passed it to her that way.

Next time, I guess.  I will have to acquire a telescopic 11-foot pole, because a straight pole won't fit in my car.
It could be just like a mechanical arm that lowers.  It would normally be in an upright position with a dollar attached. When you see someone that warrants your charity. You just lower the boom and allow them to take the money.  You then pull to a safe location free of poor people, reload the contraption and you can be off to your next charitable giving event.

Ah, the suburbs!  Maybe they can put of picture of me on the front page of the newspaper with headline: LOCAL MAN GENEROUS; DOESN"T GET DIRTY -"Close call," says eyewitness.
Logged

Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #43 on: October 09, 2013, 03:24:48 PM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

I admit it is an improper question because ultimately who are we to judge or compare.  I am pretty humbled by the acts of love, service and sacrifice I witness in my Protestant congregation.

And I continue to be the only Orthodox person I have ever met who is willing to touch a poor person with less than a 10-foot pole.

To be fair, Orthodox monks I have seen are very good about this. I overlooked that.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 6,908



« Reply #44 on: October 09, 2013, 03:26:27 PM »

Less important than how a Christian begins is how he ends, and usually not very well as they tend to end just like everyone else in the world around them. People can mock the Odox and other "liturgical" Christians for all their pomp, but to be fair, without it, how would anyone know these people were Christians?

This thought has been creeping around my mind for months now in the guise of this question:  Are Orthodox Christians distinguishable from Protestants in terms of "spiritual fruit"?

I admit it is an improper question because ultimately who are we to judge or compare.  I am pretty humbled by the acts of love, service and sacrifice I witness in my Protestant congregation.

And I continue to be the only Orthodox person I have ever met who is willing to touch a poor person with less than a 10-foot pole.

To be fair, Orthodox monks I have seen are very good about this. I overlooked that.
So it is just you and the monks.  Got it.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Tags: Vermes  history  Christian Origins 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.159 seconds with 72 queries.