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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zadeth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
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
Click to expand...
Hi, Tom!
You are correct about Judas!

I use a different version of Scriptures:
5 And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven. (1 Corinthians 15:5–Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA))
Click to expand...
This version seems to be more accurate; though I do not know if its translation is correct (as to the prescribed number of Apostles/Disciples).

Still, where some may read a discrepancy/error Believers and non-Believers cannot deny the fact that Jesus Ordained/Elected Twelve. Neither can it be denied that there’s a specific prophecy that address this particular issue of the Twelve Offices/Elections/Ordinations:
16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. (Acts 1:16-20)
Click to expand...
Though 1 Corinthians is said to have been Written before the book of Acts (53-54 AD and 80-90 AD, respectively), both were Written after the event that took place in the above passage; hence, it could well be that the Writer of 1 Corinthians included Matthias as the “Twelfth” in his zeal to demonstrate that there existed Twelve Offices/Ministries.

Though this is my personal understanding, I do not make the rule nor do I believe that others must accept my insight.

However, the fact remains that it was prophesied that Judas would betray Jesus and that another would take his place(Ministry/Office)–so Twelve remains Twelve!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Tomdstone said:
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.
Click to expand...
I pointed this out on a post a while back. Before we go to the differences, let’s point out the similarities first.

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.​

As for the other women besides Mary Magdalene, we have the following:

Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James (likely the “Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses” / “Mary the mother of Joses” mentioned in 15:40, 47), Salome

Matthew: Mary Magdalene, the other Mary (cf. 27:61 - perhaps the “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” mentioned in 27:56?)

Luke: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, “the other women with them”

At best, you might accuse the gospels of adding more women, but as they are, there’s no contradiction as to who went - in the sense that “this other Mary did not go, it was actually someone else.” At least all three synoptics agree in two out of three names: Mary Magdalene, plus another Mary, the mother of James and Joses/Joseph.

The only real difference is Mark’s Salome and Luke’s Joanna, but then again, without having to posit (as some people did) that Salome and Joanna are really one and the same person, one may argue that Salome is covered by Luke’s rather general “the other women with them.”
According to Luke 28, two women, Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, were at the tomb, and they saw one angel.
Click to expand...
I think you mean Matthew.

Re. the angels: it’s actually more like Matthew and Mark’s one figure vs. Luke and John’s two.

Matthew: One “angel,” sitting on the blocking stone
Mark: One “young man,” sitting on the right side (inside the tomb)
Luke: Two “men,” standing by the women (inside the tomb)
John: Two “angels,” sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet (inside the tomb)
Tomdstone said:
If Scripture is inerrant and inspired by God, why are people on this thread disputing certain Scriptural passages?
Click to expand...
I think you’re confusing ‘authorship’ with ‘inspiration’.
 
patrick457 said:
I pointed this out on a post a while back. Before we go to the differences, let’s point out the similarities first.

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.​

As for the other women besides Mary Magdalene, we have the following:

Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James (likely the “Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses” / “Mary the mother of Joses” mentioned in 15:40, 47), Salome

Matthew: Mary Magdalene, the other Mary (cf. 27:61 - perhaps the “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” mentioned in 27:56?)

Luke: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, “the other women with them”

At best, you might accuse the gospels of adding more women, but as they are, there’s no contradiction as to who went - in the sense that “this other Mary did not go, it was actually someone else.” At least all three synoptics agree in two out of three names: Mary Magdalene, plus another Mary, the mother of James and Joses/Joseph.

The only real difference is Mark’s Salome and Luke’s Joanna, but then again, without having to posit (as some people did) that Salome and Joanna are really one and the same person, one may argue that Salome is covered by Luke’s rather general “the other women with them.”

I think you’re confusing ‘authorship’ with ‘inspiration’.
Click to expand...
Was it one angel, or two angels, or one young man who they saw?
 
Tomdstone said:
Was it one angel, or two angels, or one young man who they saw?
Click to expand...
Well, if you’re going to split hairs, you might as well have asked whether it was “two angels,” an “angel,” “a young man” (neaniskos), or “two men” (andres, in the sense of ‘male’).

The way I see it, either someone doubled the figure or (more likely I believe) Matthew’s and Mark’s singular angel/young man could be considered as either one of the pair, if two appeared.
Tomdstone said:
Not according to St. Paul 1Cor15.
Click to expand...
We’re going in circles here. Paul spoke of male disciples. For that matter, Paul didn’t mention any empty tomb either, if you’re going to be literalistic about it. 🤷
 
Speaking of which, don’tchall (is that even a word?) think the thread title is no longer accurate? We’re no longer discussing here whether “the Apostles, and early Church in general, believe in Christ as God.” Somehow we’ve moved on (backward?) to the resurrection accounts. 🤷
 
patrick457 said:
Speaking of which, don’tchall (is that even a word?) think the thread title is no longer accurate? We’re no longer discussing here whether “the Apostles, and early Church in general, believe in Christ as God.” Somehow we’ve moved on (backward?) to the resurrection accounts. 🤷
Click to expand...
Hi, Patrick!
…it’s been long done!

The OP’s “…early Church…” query has been high jacked.

Perhaps we could open a different thread on the “scholar’s findings against Scriptural inerrancy!”

Maran atha!

Angel
 
patrick457 said:
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.
Click to expand...
But we have the following statement of the Pope:
" all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost."
PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
 
Tomdstone said:
But we have the following statement of the Pope:
" all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost."
PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
Click to expand...
I think I mentioned earlier that ‘authorship’ and ‘canonicity’ / ‘sacredness’ / ‘inspiration’ are two different issues. You’re confusing the two.

The longer ending likely not being part of the original gospel of Mark is a textual / authorship issue. It does not affect the work’s or that ending’s canonicity as a whole. The ending can still be inspired even if it is not from a textual point of view ‘authentically Markan’. As it is, the longer ending doesn’t really say anything that is not found in some form in the other three gospels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top