Did the Apostles, and early Church in general, believe in Christ as God?

[patrick457]

There is a serious error here because a person who raises people from the dead, performs miracles and himself is raised into heaven is not necessarily equal to God. Take for example the prophet Elijah who was not God, but a prophet, who did all those things. Further, Jewish rabbis would forgive the sins of people who came into the temple with a lamb to sacrifice.

You’re right - I think I’ve said earlier in this thread that “miracles do not necessarily divinity make.” This is a common misconception many moderns fall into: that for the 1st century audience, Jesus’ miracles = proof that He is God. Which is not necessarily so. At best, that would simply point to Jesus being a holy man, but not necessarily ‘Lord’ and ‘Christ’. If you have read the gospels (I hope you did), you would even notice hints that in His lifetime, many people simply considered Jesus as some kind of prophet or a prophet redivivus (“Who do you say that I am?” = “John the Baptist,” “Elijah,” “one of the prophets”).

I believe I’ve pointed out that it is Jesus’ (supposed) resurrection, after He was subjected to the most shameful kind of death known to the people in that time and place, mind you, that made His followers think of Him as being more than just a holy man, that led to the devotion directed towards Him, to Him being called Kyrios ‘Lord’.

You have to take what you see in the gospels in combination with the theology you see in Paul’s writings - which are even earlier than the gospels - which already speak of Jesus in exalted terms. Especially since at least two of the synoptics (Mark and Luke) seem to have a connection with or a knowledge of Paul’s theology.

Again, I’ve think quoted Martin Hengel earlier here, who pointed out that we shouldn’t probably be thinking of the local early Christian communities as being totally isolated islands cut off from each other - community A had this belief, community B had a totally different belief that is foreign to community A - but as being interconnected in some way.

I thought he was raised into heaven.

Well, that difference with Jesus here is that Jesus was killed first. Shamefully. Elijah was raised up without dying.

 

[jcrichton]

You don’t find the quote from John 11:24-26 in the other three gospels which most scholars say were written much earlier than the gospel of John which many scholars date as being written in 95 AD.

Hi, Tom!
…wow, you really hold on to your scholars… did you know that they had proven that the Gospel of St. John was a fake because there was no way that they could find archeological evidence to the pool mentioned in his Gospel (the pool of Siloam)?:

Jerusalem finds validating Gospel of John
(int.icej.org/news/special-reports/jerusalem-finds-validating-gospel-john)

…while researching this issue, I also found:

ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Archeology/intro.html

Though I’ve just glanced through it, you are welcomed to keep trusting the “scholars.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Tomdstone]

Hi, Tom!
…are all the Gospels identical?

No. The discrepancies are puzzling. Take for example the following question:
When Jesus was resurrected who did He appear to first. According to Mark, Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene,then He appeared to two others who had been with Him and who were weeping, then later on He appeared to the Eleven. But according to Paul 1Cor 15: Jesus appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve. After that He appeared to 500 brothers. Then He appeared to James and then to all of the apostles. Paul doesn’t say anything about Mary Magdalene or the other two.

 

[patrick457]

No. The discrepancies are puzzling. Take for example the following question:
When Jesus was resurrected who did He appear to first. According to Mark, Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene,then He appeared to two others who had been with Him and who were weeping, then later on He appeared to the Eleven. But according to Paul 1Cor 15: Jesus appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve. After that He appeared to 500 brothers. Then He appeared to James and then to all of the apostles. Paul doesn’t say anything about Mary Magdalene or the other two.

First, you’re speaking about the so-called ‘long ending’ of Mark (16:9-20), which probably wasn’t part of the original text of Mark. The undisputed part of Mark ends at a cliffhanger in 16:8, when the women run away from the tomb and “say nothing to anyone because they were afraid.” (Not to sound snarky or patronizing, but for someone who speaks about scholars you should know this, it’s elementary stuff. Or maybe you do already, in which case I’m sorry.)

All four gospels (Matthew-Mark-Luke and John) agree about Mary Magdalene being present at the empty tomb. In fact, John himself seems to imply the existence of others with her - as in the synoptics - because Mary Magdalene says ‘we (not ‘I’) do not know where they have laid him.’

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”

In fact, disregarding the differences in detail (which women went to the tomb? How many angels?) both traditions - the synoptic and Johannine - agree in three core, basic elements.

(1) (Female) disciples went to the tomb of Jesus early Sunday morning.
(2) One of these was Mary Magdalene.
(3) The tomb was found empty - the body of Jesus was nowhere to be found.

===

Now as for Paul.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day pin accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

You’re right - Paul doesn’t name Mary Magdalene. But look again at the quote. He only names the men, not the women. Paul may have had good reason to omit the women here: women were hardly considered reliable witnesses in Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures. For Paul to appeal to resurrection appearances to women would have undermined what he was trying to say. (At the same time, this might actually point to this detail found in the gospels as being at least having some historical basis, because it’s quite difficult to imagine that someone back then would invent this detail. Why not make the first discoverers of the empty tomb someone of the Twelve like Peter or John? Why Mary Magdalene?) That might be why he chose to name only the male disciples.

 

[jcrichton]

No. The discrepancies are puzzling. Take for example the following question:
When Jesus was resurrected who did He appear to first. According to Mark, Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene,then He appeared to two others who had been with Him and who were weeping, then later on He appeared to the Eleven. But according to Paul 1Cor 15: Jesus appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve. After that He appeared to 500 brothers. Then He appeared to James and then to all of the apostles. Paul doesn’t say anything about Mary Magdalene or the other two.

Hi, Tom!
Did you read the intro to St. Luke’s Gospel?:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; 2 According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: 3 It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.

Now, scholars know best (well they do a lot of inferring, guessing, and supposing), but from reading this simple intro I would surmise that if the goal was to appear homogenous and thus genuine (from your perspective and that of the “scholars”) all that St. Luke and St. John had to do was mirror St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s Gospels–voilà, you and the scholars would be mute about your “puzzling discrepancies.” However, the Gospels were not Written to provide proof for the unbelievers but to provide Revelation and a testament to the Believers, hence there was not intention of seeking uniformity.

I was hoping that you would allow the Holy Spirit to expand your cognitive thinking, but it appears that your argument are what you are after and not actual Truth searching… since it is becoming quite evident that nothing presented to you (and some of those “scholars”) will help you retrain your thoughts (the direction and preconception) I will exit this circular argument.

May the Holy Spirit Guide you!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Tomdstone]

I was hoping that you would allow the Holy Spirit to expand your cognitive thinking, but it appears that your argument are what you are after and not actual Truth searching… since it is becoming quite evident that nothing presented to you (and some of those “scholars”) will help you retrain your thoughts (the direction and preconception) I will exit this circular argument.

Ad hominem argument. You are attacking me but not addressing the question at hand which has to do with the discrepancy in the Bible as to who first saw the Resurrected Jesus.

 

[jcrichton]

Ad hominem argument. You are attacking me but not addressing the question at hand which has to do with the discrepancy in the Bible as to who first saw the Resurrected Jesus.

Hi, Tom!
…sorry that you did not understand me; you offer a query, when it is replied to you do not hesitate to counter with a similar contradicting query; when that is replied to, you return with another or is it same argument (ie: red is the new black because…–black is no longer black because red is because…–red…); what it boils down to is a circular argument–no replies will satisfy unless is the preconceived reply.

I am not attacking the person nor running form the question. I’ve even gone as far as showing how “scholars” failed greatly in their educated guesses and disputations to which you retrain: “scholars stated…”

There’s nothing that I can do to get you to think differently.

There’s no answer that I can give you that you would not promptly ignore.

There’s no data that I can quote to you that you wouldn’t simply choose to mutely reject.

Yet, I will offer a reply, out of love and respect… the seeming contradictions are there because the Revelation of the Holy Spirit is not a dictation of Jesus’ biography to a group of writers nor a theme for competing soundboard honchos to try to outdo each other.

Scriptures are the Revelations of the Holy Spirit and thusly they will reflect God’s Revelation about Himself and His Salvific Plan. Scholars need not apply their superior intellect in dissecting truth and thought through their science (or is it alchemy?) since as Scriptures say:

39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.
41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him. (St. John 12:39-41)

16 And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. 17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. (St. John 14:16-17)

So you can see, my friend, that the discrepancies are not the undoing factors for the Word of God; rather, they are but missing links in the mind’s eye–only through the Holy Spirit can they be deciphered:

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. 22 For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: 24 But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For see your vocation, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble: 27 But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong. 28 And the base things of the world, and the things that are contemptible, hath God chosen, and things that are not, that he might bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his sight. 30 But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and justice, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, as it is written: He that glorieth, may glory in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 1:20-31)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

No. The discrepancies are puzzling. Take for example the following question:
When Jesus was resurrected who did He appear to first. According to Mark, Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene,then He appeared to two others who had been with Him and who were weeping, then later on He appeared to the Eleven. But according to Paul 1Cor 15: Jesus appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve. After that He appeared to 500 brothers. Then He appeared to James and then to all of the apostles. Paul doesn’t say anything about Mary Magdalene or the other two.

Do you believe all Scripture is inspired by God and innerant?

 

[Tomdstone]

Hi, Tom!
…sorry that you did not understand me; you offer a query, when it is replied to you do not hesitate to counter with a similar contradicting query; when that is replied to, you return with another or is it same argument (ie: red is the new black because…–black is no longer black because red is because…–red…); what it boils down to is a circular argument–no replies will satisfy unless is the preconceived reply.

I am not attacking the person nor running form the question. I’ve even gone as far as showing how “scholars” failed greatly in their educated guesses and disputations to which you retrain: “scholars stated…”

There’s nothing that I can do to get you to think differently.

There’s no answer that I can give you that you would not promptly ignore.

There’s no data that I can quote to you that you wouldn’t simply choose to mutely reject.

Yet, I will offer a reply, out of love and respect… the seeming contradictions are there because the Revelation of the Holy Spirit is not a dictation of Jesus’ biography to a group of writers nor a theme for competing soundboard honchos to try to outdo each other.

Scriptures are the Revelations of the Holy Spirit and thusly they will reflect God’s Revelation about Himself and His Salvific Plan. Scholars need not apply their superior intellect in dissecting truth and thought through their science (or is it alchemy?) since as Scriptures say:

So you can see, my friend, that the discrepancies are not the undoing factors for the Word of God; rather, they are but missing links in the mind’s eye–only through the Holy Spirit can they be deciphered:

Maran atha!

Angel

I never said “red is the new black”.

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you believe all Scripture is inspired by God and innerant?

That Scripture is inerrant? This is what I have read and heard, but I am having difficulty with this concept. For example, if Christ is God, then why is it written that only the Father knows the day or the hour, and not the Son. Further, if the Scriptures are inerrant and the disciples did believe that Christ was God, then why is it written in Acts 1: 3:
After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive.
If the Apostles believed He was God, why would they need convincing proofs? Also, why would Thomas doubt that He had risen?
If the Scriptures are inerrant, why did Mark’s gospel say that there were 3 women who saw the risen Jesus and then it abruptly ends at 16:8 with the 3 women saying that they were in fear and said nothing to anyone. Why would they be in fear? And then in 1Cor15:5, it makes no mention of 3 women. It says that Christ appeared to Peter.
And there are other things which should perhaps be discussed in other threads, such as how would it be possible for God to be immovable and yet walk around in a garden on earth?
There are a lot of questions that can be raised concerning the inerrancy of Scriptures, but that is somewhat off topic of this thread.

 

[jcrichton]

I never said “red is the new black”.

Hi, Tom!
…here’s my quote of what I actually stated:

Hi, Tom!
…sorry that you did not understand me; you offer a query, when it is replied to you do not hesitate to counter with a similar contradicting query; when that is replied to, you return with another or is it same argument (ie: red is the new black because…–black is no longer black because red is because…–red…); what it boils down to is a circular argument–no replies will satisfy unless is the preconceived reply.

I am not attacking the person nor running form the question. I’ve even gone as far as showing how “scholars” failed greatly in their educated guesses and disputations to which you retrain: “scholars stated…”

There’s nothing that I can do to get you to think differently.

There’s no answer that I can give you that you would not promptly ignore.

There’s no data that I can quote to you that you wouldn’t simply choose to mutely reject.

Yet, I will offer a reply, out of love and respect… the seeming contradictions are there because the Revelation of the Holy Spirit is not a dictation of Jesus’ biography to a group of writers nor a theme for competing soundboard honchos to try to outdo each other.

Scriptures are the Revelations of the Holy Spirit and thusly they will reflect God’s Revelation about Himself and His Salvific Plan. Scholars need not apply their superior intellect in dissecting truth and thought through their science (or is it alchemy?) since as Scriptures say:

So you can see, my friend, that the discrepancies are not the undoing factors for the Word of God; rather, they are but missing links in the mind’s eye–only through the Holy Spirit can they be deciphered:

Maran atha!

Angel

Nowhere did I state or implied that you had made the statement in my example.

…this suggests that we are not able to communicate with each other, in spite of the numerous attempts.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Tomdstone]

Hi, Tom!
…here’s my quote of what I actually stated:

Nowhere did I state or implied that you had made the statement in my example.

Here’s what you said: " you return with another or is it same argument (ie: red is the new black)…"
I never argued that red is the new black. This is a misstatement of what I was saying.

 

[jcrichton]

Here’s what you said: " you return with another or is it same argument (ie: red is the new black)…"
I never argued that red is the new black. This is a misstatement of what I was saying.

Hi, Tom!
…again, we are speaking (texting) but not agreeing:

ie means in example.

Since you continue to hold fast to your belief that scholars have demonstrated that the Bible is lacking and since no response that I can offer you will suffice our exchange (argument) is circular.

I attempted to offer an example choosing the colors red and black; perhaps my example distracted you.

Since I cannot get you to reason beyond what you wish to reason and since there’s no gain in continuing to argue over already presented points and counter points the argument must cease or turn into a circular argument where the points and counter point will be restated without any gain or cause.

I’ll offer a second example:

Once I was engaged by a fellow who after arguing for several weeks declared that he did not believe anything that the Bible had to say; since, I could not offer him the answers he sought I quickly opted to cease the exchange (on the matter of Faith); he took offense and could not accept that we should not continue to dialogue about Faith. I believe that when a conversation/argument comes to head (impasse) the parties involved do not need to become adversaries; the argument/conversation must simply cease and a new theme introduced.

Again, if you go back to the first post which I replied to you will find my response covering your question/s–my responses may not have been what you wanted to find; yet, I cannot change my replies.

If you are truly seeking a response, we could rehash the exchange from the first post; yet, only if we address one issue at a time and we both labor to hold on to the truth that is brought forth can anything other than a circular argument be created and maintained.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Tomdstone]

Hi,
If you are truly seeking a response, we could rehash the exchange from the first post; yet, only if we address one issue at a time…

OK. Here is an issue:

Do you believe all Scripture is inspired by God and innerant?

One issue raised here is whether or not there are errors in Scripture. I would say yes. For example,
1Cor 15:5
he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
Jesus could not have appeared to the twelve apostles because Judas had hanged himself.
So He appeared to the eleven and not to the twelve. Mark 16:14

 

[patrick457]

OK. Here is an issue:

One issue raised here is whether or not there are errors in Scripture. I would say yes. For example,
1Cor 15:5
he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
Jesus could not have appeared to the twelve apostles because Judas had hanged himself.
So He appeared to the eleven and not to the twelve. Mark 16:14

Ever considered the possibility that ‘the Twelve’ is the technical name for the group - regardless of how many they actually were at the time? Kind of like the Atlantic 10 Conference, which as of now has fourteen members.

I think everyone pretty much agrees that the Twelve are meant to symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel. The term ‘the Twelve’ may not necessarily refer to their actual number at the time, but the catch-all term for the institution.

The thing about Paul is that he uses ‘apostle’ in a broad sense (he considers himself an ‘apostle’ for one, as are other people who are not part of the Twelve), unlike, say, Luke-Acts which restrict the term for the Twelve.

 

[kdbueno]

Apostleship pre-supposes a truth of the reality of faith. This expounds that faith is universally acceptable to the mortal eye.

 

[Tomdstone]

Ever considered the possibility that ‘the Twelve’ is the technical name for the group - regardless of how many they actually were at the time? Kind of like the Atlantic 10 Conference, which as of now has fourteen members.

I think everyone pretty much agrees that the Twelve are meant to symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel. The term ‘the Twelve’ may not necessarily refer to their actual number at the time, but the catch-all term for the institution.

The thing about Paul is that he uses ‘apostle’ in a broad sense (he considers himself an ‘apostle’ for one, as are other people who are not part of the Twelve), unlike, say, Luke-Acts which restrict the term for the Twelve.

Why did Mark say the Eleven?

 

[patrick457]

Why did Mark say the Eleven?

First, Paul is not Mark, and Mark is not Paul. But even then, Mark out of the four evangelists is the closest to Paul in terms of usage. Most of the time he treats “the twelve” (with a definite article) as if it’s the technical term for the inner circle of disciples - eleven out of the fifteen times the Greek word dōdeka appears in his gospel it refers to the twelve disciples (3:14, 16; 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:10, 17, 20, 43). John 6:70 seems to do likewise (“Did I myself not choose you, the twelve?”)

Second, again you’re talking of the disputed ‘longer ending’. You would have made a better case if this was Matthew or Luke.

Matthew seems to use ‘twelve’ more in the numerical sense (‘the twelve disciples’: 10:1, 11:1, 20:17; 26:20; ‘twelve apostles’: 10:2 - cf. ‘eleven disciples’ 28:16). In at least two places the manuscripts differ as to the wording, whether it is “the twelve” or “the twelve disciples” (20:17; 26:20) - incidentally, both passages are parallel to Mark. The two instances of “the twelve” being used in Matthew is as a stock description of Judas, “one of the twelve” (26:14, 47 = Mark 14:10, 43).

Luke has his own special term for the twelve - “apostles” (Luke 6:13; 9:10; 11:49; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10; cf. ‘eleven apostles’ Acts 1:26). He uses “the twelve” six times (8:1; 9:1, 12; 18:31; 22:3, 47), although half of these are also parallels of Mark (9:1 = Mark 6:7; 18:31 = Mark 10:32; 22:47 = Mark 14:43).

 

[Tomdstone]

First, Paul is not Mark, and Mark is not Paul. But even then, Mark out of the four evangelists is the closest to Paul in terms of usage. Most of the time he treats “the twelve” (with a definite article) as if it’s the technical term for the inner circle of disciples - eleven out of the fifteen times the Greek word dōdeka appears in his gospel it refers to the twelve disciples (3:14, 16; 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:10, 17, 20, 43). John 6:70 seems to do likewise (“Did I myself not choose you, the twelve?”)

Second, again you’re talking of the disputed ‘longer ending’. You would have made a better case if this was Matthew or Luke.

Matthew seems to use ‘twelve’ more in the numerical sense (‘the twelve disciples’: 10:1, 11:1, 20:17; 26:20; ‘twelve apostles’: 10:2 - cf. ‘eleven disciples’ 28:16). In at least two places the manuscripts differ as to the wording, whether it is “the twelve” or “the twelve disciples” (20:17; 26:20) - incidentally, both passages are parallel to Mark. The two instances of “the twelve” being used in Matthew is as a stock description of Judas, “one of the twelve” (26:14, 47 = Mark 14:10, 43).

Luke has his own special term for the twelve - “apostles” (Luke 6:13; 9:10; 11:49; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10; cf. ‘eleven apostles’ Acts 1:26). He uses “the twelve” six times (8:1; 9:1, 12; 18:31; 22:3, 47), although half of these are also parallels of Mark (9:1 = Mark 6:7; 18:31 = Mark 10:32; 22:47 = Mark 14:43).

I never said Paul was Mark.
I was speaking of after the Crucifixion.
Paul says that Jesus appears to the twelve.
Mark says that Jesus appears to the eleven.
Paul has to be wrong because Judas hanged himself so there were only the eleven.

 

[Tomdstone]

Second, again you’re talking of the disputed ‘longer ending’.

In any case, there are still other errors, for example:
According to John 20: one woman, Mary of Magdala was at the tomb and she saw two angels.
According to Mark 16: (before the “disputed” ending): it was 3 women, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome who were at the tomb and they saw one young man.
According to Luke 28, two women, Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, were at the tomb, and they saw one angel.