Re: What LNA Believes (about religions). I believe we should have a chance to "know God"
Phat writes:
If so, why did you choose to become an Eisenhower Republican? Is there something about socialism that you disagree with?
The GOP in the 50s is certainly not the Fascist GOP of today. And no, I can't think of anything about socialism I disagree with, but I do disagree with the utterly ignorant caricature of socialism from you and Faith and so many market.
Phat, let me skip the few sentences mentioning the Council of Nicea, in your quote. I will also change the format and remove the reference numbers.
Now your quote.
Phat says:
quote: After googling your link on the Church Of The East I found myself examining Nestorianism and Christology. Tangle may rightly claim that all of this was "made up" but I would argue that they had to have some belief and inner passion with which to fuel these debates...they certainly were not simply competing for marketing share, after all.
Some interesting quotes from the Wiki articles:
.... A foremost contribution to the Christology of the Apostolic Age is that of Paul. The central Christology of Paul conveys the notion of Christ's pre-existence and the identification of Christ as Kyrios. The Pauline epistles use Kyrios to identify Jesus almost 230 times and express the theme that the true mark of a Christian is the confession of Jesus as the true Lord.
Paul viewed the superiority of the Christian revelation over all other divine manifestations as a consequence of the fact that Christ is the Son of God.
Nevertheless, the view that it was the apostle Paul who introduced the idea that Jesus was divine and thus distorted the actual Jesus has been rejected by some historians. Richard Bauckham argues that Paul was not so influential that he could have invented the central doctrine of Christianity.
Before his active missionary work, there were already groups of Christians across the region. For example, a large group already existed in Rome even before Paul visited the place. The earliest centre of Christianity was the twelve apostles in Jerusalem. Paul himself consulted and sought guidance from the Christian leaders in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-2; Acts 9:26-28, 15:2). “What was common to the whole Christian movement derived from Jerusalem, not from Paul, and Paul himself derived the central message he preached from the Jerusalem apostles.
These scholars argue that if Jesus himself did not claim and show himself to be truly divine (i.e. on the Creator side of the Creator–creature divide), the earliest Christian leaders who were devout ancient monotheistic Jews would not have come to a widespread agreement that he was truly divine, but would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet instead.
So I split your Wiki quotes into five paragraphs.
1
Paragraph one is about Paul calling Jesus "Lord" which is not the same thing as "God". There was a distinction, and the issue is how many times he called Jesus "Theos" verses the "almost 230 times" he called him Kyrios.
A noticeable difference that can't be ignored (endless headaches are caused by this one, but fundamentalists generally don't bother to be, um, "bothered" by the details of the problem OR THE PROBLEM ITSELF).
2
"Son of God" isn't the same thing as being God, even if there is some relation to the divine in that very thing.
3
You just quoted a line that references Richard Bauckham, who I have been quoting constantly since 2015. I will mention more about him later.
4
Paragraph 4 mentions the issue of pre-existing Christian communities (before Paul) being proof of certain (supposed) "Pauline" beliefs being held.
It reminds me of certain Peshitta Supremacists (Aramaic Bible readers who say they had the original Bible and Greek was translated FROM the Aramaic Peshitta-type text) arguing that the "Aramaic Christians existed before Nestorianism" (and the 431 split), and then making the case that the Aramaic Christology of the Church of the East is actually from the time of Jesus.
They also correctly point out that Aramaic speaking Christians existed before the 3rd-5th century translations from Greek into Aramaic (they deny that the translation came from GREEK TO ARAMAIC so they deny that textual history as scholars present), so they say, "How could Aramaic Christians exist without a Aramaic Bible translation" and they really resent being told that their first Aramaic Bible was the circa 180 Synoptic Gospel harmony called the Diatessaron from Tatian.
Diatessaron was a super-popular Gospel harmony in Latin and Greek (Augustine had the Latin version committed to memory, and his Biblical quotations seem to often come from it), and it was translated into all sorts of European languages, including northern European ones, for over 1000 years.
The Aramaic Supremacy Peshitta readers want to see Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as being 1st century documents that were first written in Syriac and/or related Aramaic dialects.
They hate being told that they had no Aramaic Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John until well after 200 A.D.
But scholars say their earliest synoptic Gospels all came from a date - much later - LATER than the Diatessaron of 180 A.D.
5
Paragraph 5 wants to speak for the earliest Christian leaders. By a broad-brush, they say the early Jewish Christians "would not have come to a widespread agreement that he was truly divine, but would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet instead"
Now, back to the Richard Bauckham reference.
From Phat's Wiki quote:
quote:
Nevertheless, the view that it was the apostle Paul who introduced the idea that Jesus was divine and thus distorted the actual Jesus has been rejected by some historians. Richard Bauckham argues that Paul was not so influential that he could have invented the central doctrine of Christianity.
This causes me to quote James Tabor.
James Tabor:
quote:
I have greatly profited from Richard Bauckham’s massive study, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony(Eerdmans, 2006). For those who know my own work, and that of Bauckham, you know that Richard and I are on opposite poles of the earth when it comes to theological perspectives and outlooks, but we have always treated one another respectfully, even when we differ. I have benefited greatly from all his works, particularly, what I consider to be his masterpiece, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church.
Bauckham’s central thesis in the Eyewitness book is that our N.T. gospels are based on eyewitness testimony of those who personally encountered Jesus. I have serious reservations about his conclusions in this regard, though I am convinced that within our two main narrative sources (Mark and John), as well as the material scholars call Q (the “teachings” of Jesus that Matthew and Luke have in common not drawn from Mark), are embedded some very early traditions, that is, material that is not simply created out of whole cloth as some type of theological fiction. In other words, we do have the kinds of sources that can allow us with some confidence to get at “the historical Jesus,” despite the theological and tendentious overlays of these individual authors.
What I think has to be factored in, however, are the sharp and diametrically opposing theological “camps” that were part and parcel of the first forty years of the movement, namely the views of Paul and those of James and Jesus’ original Jerusalem-based followers. In other words, the “products” we finally get in our gospels are wholly influenced by the triumph of Paul’s theology and perspective, his “Christ faith,” as Bousset, Reitzenstein, Baur, Bultmann, Schweitzer, Klausner, and others have called it. And the master narrative, really the “only” narrative, in the ears of most of us, is that of Luke’s account in Acts, that I take to be almost wholly contrary to what was actually going on in the Jerusalem based Jesus movement of the Nazarenes before Paul came along. See my recent post, “Two Assumptions About Early Christianity.” Those issues I will argue more fully in my forthcoming book, Paul and Jesus.
The "Two Assumptions" link is outdated and it leads to nothing.
But Tabor has been big on making a distinction between James & the Jewish Christians on one hand and popular Christian views today.
Bauckham seems to hold different views.
Phat says:
quote: Thus I can see that this whole debate over Jesus being "only human" while on earth or whether there was, in fact, a Hypostatic Union between the Divine and Human has been going on long before jar and I found EvC. If humans do simply make this stuff up they expend a lot of time, effort, livelihood and passion in so doing. Personally, I agree with Faith in that there is more to it that many skeptics and unbelievers simply refuse to see. For them, solid evidence will always guide them and leaps of faith are forbidden. For believers, something or someone must have sparked their passion...it is not simply a wishful fantasy.
Everything started somewhere.
But does the fact that SOMETHING existed in the year 50 A.D. prove that something else that definitely existed 50-100 years later was the exact same thing 50-100 years earlier than what was clearly there 50-100 later.
Does everything have to be the exact same thing just because there was a (evolutionary) relationship of some sort?
One side demands that everything be seen as the exact same thing, due to the relationship. Skeptics and unbelievers seem to offer a more evolutionary view of Christology, I suppose.
What does the Bible tell us about early Christian communities.
quote: Maybe if you stopped nitpicking over every little historical variation and every question raised by any likely or unlikely source, and just focused on a part of the Bible that you feel you can trust to tell you truth about the nature of God, spend time thinking and praying over it with the Bible closed
....
The Bible is necessary for correcting errors though so you can't dispense with it.
Look at the situation from DECADES after Jesus dies.
And we can look to the "Holy Land" of Europe, if it makes people uncomfortable to consider a middle eastern Jewish Christianity of Jesus and James..
In Acts 18:25, Apollos knows only the baptism of John
In Acts 19:1-7, the 12 Christians from Ephesus only know the baptism of John.
I just don't feel like the European Christians of today have a good grasp of what these early Christian communities taught.
A European New Testament should be seen as something a follower of Jesus should reject (not embrace).
One side demands that everything be seen as the exact same thing, due to the relationship. Skeptics and unbelievers seem to offer a more evolutionary view of Christology, I suppose.(...)I just don't feel like the European Christians of today have a good grasp of what these early Christian communities taught. A European New Testament should be seen as something a follower of Jesus should reject (not embrace).
Arguments involving opposing or contradictory views are by-and-large more educational than arguments among those of similar beliefs and philosophies.
I recently watched a great clip from Matt Dillahunty, respected atheist spokesman: Mailbag Aug 18
I learn more from my opponents than I do from Pastors and Christian teachers.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
I was trying to watch that apologetic series that came after the atheist, but my computer kept crashing.
One part was talking about archaeology proving the Bible reliable, but do you ever wonder why we should have to keep looking for (so far NOT FOUND) early New Testament manuscripts in archaeological contexts?
The answer is that European Christians destroyed everything that was Hebrew or early Semitic.
Take the situation until 200 A.D. in the Aramaic and Persian east.
Christianity in the Aramaic east, for example, was a Christianity that lacked what is TODAY'S Gospel of Matthew (they MIGHT have had an earlier Aramaic "Matthew" though it would have been very different than today's Matthew), as well as the Gospels of (3 gospels where there probably was roughly the same text originally as today's ) Mark, Luke, and John.
What kind of a "Christianity" is must have been, in 150 A.D., for there to be no translation (from Greek) of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John!
The Diatessaron of Tatian was not translated until after 175 A.D.
Acts of the Apostles has Aramaic Christians from Persia and Iraq, as well as other places. In the first chapters of Acts, we see evidence of early communities.
Who Do You Say That I Am? (Phat's question about Christology) (Canon relevant?)
Back to the issue about human scriptures and humans making things up.
I want to get to the issue of the Sacred Measure or Canon as we look at the Christological issues as they relate to Paul.
Phat:
quote: Thus I can see that this whole debate over Jesus being "only human" while on earth or whether there was, in fact, a Hypostatic Union between the Divine and Human has been going on long before jar and I found EvC. If humans do simply make this stuff up they expend a lot of time, effort, livelihood and passion in so doing. Personally, I agree with Faith in that there is more to it that many skeptics and unbelievers simply refuse to see. For them, solid evidence will always guide them and leaps of faith are forbidden. For believers, something or someone must have sparked their passion...it is not simply a wishful fantasy.
I want to quote from a work, which covers the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus), and the issue of Christology comes up. That will be seen in my second paragraph, but my first paragraph will just be for context. (Sorry if this seems a little long, skip to my second quotation to get to the matter)
All quotes from 2004 Brill book, The Pauline Canon, Pauline Studies Edited by Stanley E. Porter Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario
(reference (small subscript) numbers removed from text)
My first quotation from the work.
kerygma means proclamation
quote:
In Titus 1:3 the entrusting of the kerygma to Paul is expressly said to be by the command of God the saviour, which highlights the divine origin of the proclamation and its consequent authority as passed from Paul to Titus and on to the other members of the church. What seems to separate 1 Timothy and Titus from 2 Timothy even more conspicuously is the concept of offices, qualifications for holding office, and the implicit handing on of the sound teaching of the church through these offices and the people who hold them (see 1 Tim 3:1-8; 4:14; 5:17, 22; Titus 1:5-9; cf. 1 Tim 1:12; 2:7), something only hinted in 2 Tim 1:6. Hence, in 1 Timothy and Titus the idea of an authoritative Pauline concept of sound teaching, perhaps even a canonical tradition, is developing alongside an emergent ecclesial structure that also has authority. In 1 Timothy and Titus, an incipient canonical process and a community structure are both in view and appear to work in tandem in the transmission and preservation of the Pauline tradition as it is projected into the church's anticipated future. 4 6 In that way, sound teaching can be preserved, error identified and hopefully corrected. Even within these narrative frames of reference, it would be inaccurate to portray the Pastorals, 2 Timothy in particular, as benignly passing on a fixed, received Pauline deposit of authoritative teaching.
Now the Christology of Paul.
Ýí ×ñéóôþ is "en Christon" or In Christ.
quote:
P.20
The issue of Christology in the Pastorals is a good illustration of this dynamic. As we have seen, the expression Ýí ×ñéóôþ in 1 and 2 Timothy is clearly reminiscent of Pauline language and Christology and appears to root the christology of the Pastorals, at least on an internal referential and emergent canonical level, in the Pauline tradition. However, the Christology of the Pastorals is also dramatically different from the undisputed Paulines and much of the rest of the New Testament. This is the case in primarily two ways: the designation 'saviour' for both God and Christ, a designation for Christ found only in Phil 3:20 in the undisputed Pauline Epistles, and the language of 'epiphany' to describe the coming of Christ, once again
P.21
terminology not found in the undisputed Paulines. To be sure, Christology anchors the Pastorals in the kerygma of the early church, but the way it is expressed and developed in the three Pastoral Epistles is peculiar. Considering first the saviour terminology, it is noteworthy that, in 1 Timothy, God alone is referred to as 'saviour', whereas in Titus the designation alternates between God and Christ. The single appearance of the term in 2 Tim 1:10 is also used in connection with Christ. In 1 Tim 1:1 and 2:3 God is simply referred to as 'our saviour' and in 4:10 God is identified as a living God who is saviour of all people. The verbal form of the word in 1 Tim 2:4 has God as the subject, whereas in 1:15 Christ is clearly the subject of the infinitive verb: '...Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners...' In Titus 1:3, 2:10, and 3:4, similar to 1 Tim 1:1 and 2:3, God is designated 'our saviour', whereas in 1:4, 2:13, and 3:6 Christ carries this appellation. In Titus 3:5 the subject of the verb 'to save', referring back to 3:4, also has God as the subject. In 2 Tim 1:9 and 4:18, the verb 'to save' is used; and in the first case God is the subject whereas in the second the 'Lord', apparently referring to God, functions in that capacity. With regard to the identification of the saviour, the Pastoral Epistles con-sistently apply that designation to God or Christ, unlike the remainder of the New Testament Pauline tradition where the nominal form of the term rarely appears. But within the three Pastoral Epistles, there are also some noticeable differences in usage. Titus is the epistle most ready to apply 'saviour' to Christ, whereas 1 Timothy does so only once in relation to the verb 'to save' and the activity of saving. 2 Timothy, on the other hand, is noteworthy for its relatively infrequent use of this terminology. The important point is that Paul's theological and christological language is thoroughly transformed into saviour terminology, especially in 1 Timothy and Titus, but to a lesser extent in 2 Timothy as well. A fixed, received christological tradition is not merely being handed on. Whatever the 'good deposit' is, it is not entirely disconnected from the christological traditions represented by Paul, but by no means is it a static replication of them either.
The only other New Testament document outside the Pastorals where 'saviour' occurs with some regularity is 2 Peter (5 times) and in that epistle the term is used consistently of Christ. In that series of occurrences the only ambiguous reference is 3:2, but even here it is most assuredly a reference to Christ as well.
The Parousia is related to Christology, it seems. So I will pick up where I just left off.
ðáñïõóßá is parousia (used by Paul)
ÝðéöÜíåéá is epiphaneia (used by the Pastoral Epistles) Epiphany
quote:
p.21
While most of the New Testament writings, Paul's included, use ðáñïõóßá to refer to the return of Christ, the Pastorals use ÝðéöÜíåéá to designate the appearances of Christ, both past and future. This feature of the Pastorals has long been recognized, and as Jouette Bassler indicates these epiphanies do not designate a process that moves from lowliness to exaltation but rather a revelation of something previously hidden. She writes: The two epiphanies do not define a process—for example, from lowliness to exaltation. Instead, each reveals a previously hidden divine reality... At least when applied to Jesus' first coming, the epiphany language does not refer primarily to a revelation or manifestation of Christ but to the revelation, through the Christ event, of a reality about God. This does not mean that we should not speak of an epiphany Christology, but that when used of the Pastorals, we must understand it to refer primarily to Christ as the vehicle, and not the content, of the epiphany.
If this epiphany framework not only expresses the christology of the Pastorals but in some way restructures whatever received Pauline traditions the author(s)—assuming the letters are not from Paul—may have had, this illustrates once again the dynamic and creative quality of this deposit that is to be guarded. From an authorial perspective, we perhaps could conclude that the imitation of Paul in the Pastorals is simply not very good, but we might also conclude that the writers are much more creative and transformative of the prior tradition than appears at first reading. This also indicates that the issue must be considered on two different levels: the imagery of the deposit to be guarded in the narrative of the Pastoral texts, which can suggest a rather static image, and the reality of what happens to the Pauline tradition in the Pastorals as the larger narrative world of Pauline Scripture begins to come into view in the early church, which is considerably more innovative. Lest we incline to the view that the Pastorals are simply works of creative fiction with no reflection of Paul's theology or his controversies, we need to note some further Pauline images that surface in the narrative frameworks of these three epistles—that is, in
[ 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Tim 1:10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13; cf. Titus 2:11; 3:4. This term also occurs in 2 Thess 2:8. 50 See Bassler, ¢ Plethora of Epiphanies', 310-25, and Oberlinner, 'Die Epiphaneia des Heilswillens', 192-213. 51 Bassler, ¢ Plethora of Epiphanies', 313. 52 Oberlinner, 'Die Epiphaneia des Heilswillens', 192-313. ]
p.23
addition to those connections between 2 Timothy and Philippians already identified. As we have seen in Titus 1:10-16, the Jewish character of the opposition in this epistle is identified in general terms. These problem people come especially from the 'circumcision', though apparently not exclusively so. They teach that which is improper to teach for shameful gain. The text goes on in 1:14 to say that those grounded in the true testimony should pay no attention to the Jewish myths and commandments of the people who reject the truth. In this regard, the narrative structures of Galatians and Titus have one thing in common. There is a problem with the Jewish law in both. But whereas two entire chapters are devoted exclusively in Galatians to the issue of faith and works of law, only three verses at most address the issue of the commandments in Titus. The place of the Gentiles in the covenant, so central in the Galatians debate, is nowhere to be found in Titus. 'Faith in Christ' is not juxtaposed to 'works of law' in the narrative world of Titus, even though Titus makes it clear in 3:5 that salvation is the result of divine mercy and not works of righteousness. The Pauline image at that point is unmistakable. 1 Timothy deals with an opposition that is identified with myths, genealogies, and speculations (1:4). More specifically, the author writes against teachers who teach about things of which they have little understanding (1:7). As in Titus, the law is the point at issue. In response, the writer says the law is good if it is used legitimately, that is, if one understands that the law is set forth for the lawless and not the innocent (1:8-10). Galatians 3:19, read on its own terms in the context of Galatians, appears to suggest a view of the law that is similar: 'Why therefore the law? It was given because of transgress i o n s . . . ' 5 In both texts, the function of the law is to deal with lawlessness and transgressions. In the narrative of 1 Timothy this is, of course, related to the ascetic problem of forbidding marriage and not eating certain foods. The opponents are presumably trying to impose these requirements on those in the community who are faithful. That is a misunderstanding and misuse of the law, according to the author. In 1 Timothy, this is not a theoretical problem, and it does not pertain to the place of the Gentiles and the promises of God in salvation history. There is to be sure an emphasis on training oneself
[ Cf. Rom 4:1-24; 9:30-10:4; Eph 2:8-11. See the discussion regarding the interpretation of Gal 3:19 by D.J. Lull, " T h e Law Was Our Pedagogue": A Study in Galatians 3:19-25', JBL 105 (1986), 482-86. 54 ]
p.24
[ Lamark New Age: " ðáéäáãùãüò " is PAIDAGOGOS or teaching ]
[ LMA: " ôùí ðáñáâÜóåùí ÷ Ü ñ é í " is TON PARABASEON CHARIN ]
in godliness in 1 Timothy (4:7), but there is no correlation between the law and a ðáéäáãùãüò. While there is a structural connection in the way the law is understood in 1 Timothy and in Galatians—in both the law is given for transgressions and lawlessness—it should be noted that the law in Galatians is given because of or on account of transgressions (ôùí ðáñáâÜóåùí ÷ Ü ñ é í ) , whereas in 1 Timothy it is laid down for the lawless and disobedient. In the first instance the focus is on the transgressions and in the second it is on the transgressors. Once again, we hear the echo of Paul's words resounding through the words of 1 Timothy and Titus, yet at the same time they reverberate in quite new ways in the Pastorals. It is not necessary to exhaust these parallel images to establish the point that in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus concepts of sound teaching and the good deposit are coming to define how Paul and his teachings are to be remembered, preserved, and passed on. This is not simply a description of how the Pastorals conserved or transformed the Pauline traditions at their disposal. Neither is it a commentary on the Pastoral Epistles as some type of creative fiction made possible by pseudepigrapha as a type of literature. It is an observation about how an understanding of Pauline doctrine as a deposit is becoming a factor in the larger narrative world of Paul's teaching and its legacy. Of course, if there is ever to be a collection of Pauline Scriptures and in time a Pauline canon, there must be a remembrance of Paul and his teaching that is preserved. The claim that this legacy also has theological and christological authority only underscores its importance and urgency. But the point is that in the Pastorals we are witnessing the early formation of a larger narrative world that we might call the Pauline Scriptures or the Pauline canon. To that narrative world, each of the epistles eventually included in that Pauline legacy will contribute, but perhaps even more importantly each of the epistles will be read ultimately in light of that larger narrative world. The Paul of the Pastorals and the Paul of the community letters will start to be read in light of each other. When that happens, a Pauline collection of writings will start to function as a canon. The same principle came into play when the other letters attributed to Paul came to be read together instead of separately. It is at that point that the notion of a body of sound teaching or a Pauline deposit also has the potential to affect how the larger Pauline tradition is read. The letters may be read in church communities primarily for their doctrines and moral principles—in other words for the deposit of sound teaching—rather
p.25
[ LMA: ãñÜììáôá is GRAMMATA]
[LMA ãñáöÞ is GRAPHE]
than for their contingent applications of the gospel in the context of the apostle's missionary work.
The author of 2 Timothy writes in 3:14-16: But for you, remain in what you have learned and believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings (ãñÜììáôá) that are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture (ãñáöÞ) is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.
There is little doubt that what the author meant by sacred writings or God-breathed scripture are the scriptures of Israel. Even though we know that authoritative writings were beginning to emerge quite early in the church, it may well be anachronistic to think that the author had in mind a body of church produced writings that were now being referred to as God-breathed. In any case, the text gives us rather direct clues about the utility of scripture for the author: to make wise for salvation—for teaching, reproof, correction, and training. It may not be too much of a stretch to suggest that as an authoritative Pauline narrative and canonical world began to come into view, it was precisely these types of assertions about the usefulness and the divine authority of the texts that started to have an effect on how the Pauline texts and the good desposit were thought to function—at least among those inclined to include the Pastorals in the Pauline canon.
The idea of ALL SCRIPTURE being inspired clearly points to a time period (late 1st century) that used to be called the "Council of Jamnia" when a Jewish Canon actually might have existed. Otherwise ALL SCRIPTURE could mean almost anything.
But "Savior" used interchangeably between God and Jesus clearly indicates a move around 100 A.D. to see Jesus and God as the same thing, though it would take a while for the early Roman Catholic/Greek Orthodox texts (I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus) to trickle into broader Christian circles.
This might be 1 area where the Pastorals were actually consistent with Paul's views, as I feel that Paul did come to see Jesus as a God of some sort. The question of Paul's views on Christological issues is controversial though.
This board has seemingly froze over this weekend, so I will put up a "savior" concordance.
(Philippians 3:20, written 59-61 A.D., is in Paul's own words, and it, along with the very late book of 2nd Peter having the other 5 uses of the word, is the only Biblical use, of "savior", outside the Pastoral Epistles.)
I Timothy:
quote:
1:1 (God) Our Savior
1:15 (Jesus) (verb) (to save)
2:3 (God) Our Savior
2:4 (God) (verb)
4:10 (God) Savior
II Timothy:
quote:
1:9 (God) (verb)
1:10 (Jesus)
4:18 (God) (verb)
Titus:
quote:
1:3 (God) Our Savior
1:4 (Jesus) Our Savior
2:10 (God) Our Savior
2:13 (Jesus) Our Savior
3:4 (God) Our Savior
3:5 (God) (verb)
3:6 (Jesus) Our Savior
Considering scholars date this book at roughly the same time as the Gospel of John, then it shouldn't be too much of a shock to see Jesus and God as a twin duo of Gods here.
The Holy Spirit wasn't yet made out to be a God yet though.
We were still very much in the formative period in European Christianity.
At this early date, the "Trinity" doctrine did not yet attempt to reconcile the European polytheistic Christianity with a religion that had monotheistic Jewish Christian (Ebionite, Nazarene, Elkesaite, etc.) followers of James the Just, who was himself quite an authority as the brother of Jesus.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
