A refutation of the refutation of 'an affair on Golgatha'

Of course it started in Jerusalem. It had to start somewhere. But it very quickly spread to Rome.

It's you who brought up the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, in relation (to the timeline)

It's difficult trying to unravel your gordian knot of contradictions.

 

I'm still not with you.
You believe that the first Jerusalem church believed that Jesus is God .. right?
..and you presume that because of an interpretation of what one man .. Paul .. is reported to have said in the Bible .. right?

There is no mention of God being a trinity in the OT. RabbiO will tell you this from the Hebrew.
The Jews were not expecting "a god-man" as Messiah.
The disciples of Jesus believed that he was the Christ [greek] / Messiah.
Your opinion that they believed in the orthodox trinity has no firm foundation.

 

I do not know. They believed in the Resurrected Christ. And the Eucharistic sacrament was already practiced in Rome during Nero's time. It was misunderstood to be cannibalism and was the reason used to persecute Christians. So Christianity as separate from Judaism was evident quite early

As always, you dispute the source, without offering anything else -- in this case Paul.

Why should there be?

So?

Perhaps. But it spread to the gentiles.

Neither does yours. They may not have defined the trinity in the first few years after Christ's ascension, but the resurrected Christ gave them the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and Christ's divinity is accepted in the NT. Which you also dispute.

(edited ...)

 

OK .. you do not know whether they believed in the orthodox trinity.

..so why do the gospels keep on referring to Jesus as "the Messiah" .. why not God?

 

In the earliest days, the orthodox trinity probably was not clearly defined. But the Holy Spirit was accepted, as was the divinity of Christ the Son

When Thomas called Jesus 'my Lord and my God' Jesus did not correct him. He blessed him.
John 20:28-29
Similar passages have been quoted and repeated all over these threads.

 

That is what you believe. The OT does not speak about a messiah who is God.

Ah .. so the Jewish scriptures are not reliable enough for you?
You think that your English / Latin translations of a few specific verses from the NT are more reliable?

What you are in effect claiming, is that the Hebrew OT is unreliable .. not much different to what Muslims think, really

 

This is becoming very wearisome @muhammad_isa

And Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah. As is their right.
But then how do you get to this:

And then this:

scratching my head

 

Well, we better be sure what it actually says then, if we want to claim that the OT is only in the Bible for reference.

 

Gordian Knot

 

I'm not sure whether I agree with him

 

Paddle your own canoe

 

I know what you mean
You think that the orthodox Jews [and Muslims] are wrong to think that the Messiah can't be God.
Do you think that their Hebrew scripture is "incomplete" or they are interpreting incorrectly?

 

It does not speak of a crucified Messiah either, who died and was resurrected

So "you are saying"
1) The disciples were Jews
2) who believed Jesus was the Messiah,
3) following the crucifixion they could not have believed in the resurrected Christ as the Messiah?

Therefore NT passages such as John 20:28-29 are false insertions, because they do not conform to the Quranic picture of Jesus that you insist upon?

 

The Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah. They are waiting for him.
You are tying yourself in knots.

 

D'you think that of the Official Version of the Quran?

"Qur'anic studies, as a field of academic research, appears today to be in a state of disarray. Those of us who study Islam's origins have to admit collectively that we simply do not know some very basic things about the Qur'an – things so basic that the knowledge of them is usually taken for granted by scholars dealing with other texts. They include such questions as: How did the Qur'an originate? Where did it come from, and when did it first appear? How was it first written? In what kind of language was – is – it written? What form did it first take? Who constituted its first audience? How was it transmitted from one generation to another, especially in its early years? When, how, and by whom was it codified? Those familiar with the Qur'an and the scholarship on it will know that to ask even one of these questions immediately plunges us into realms of grave uncertainty and has the potential to spark intense debate. To put it another way, on these basic issues there is little consensus even among the well-trained scholars who work on them."
-- wiki --

And from sources of countries neighbouring the Moslem states:
"There is no mention of the "Quran" nor "Islam", (nor 'rightly guided caliphs', nor any of the famous futūḥ battles) by Christian Byzantines in their historical records describing the Arab invaders' advance, leaders or religion; the lack of any surviving documents by those Arabs who "lived through the establishment of the Caliphate"; the fact that coins of the region and era did not use Islamic iconography until sometime after 685 CE...

The accounts of non-Muslim conquered peoples also conflict with the accounts of traditional Islamic literature... Arab "immigrants" (Mhaggraye) who were invading/settling in formerly Byzantine territory at that time ... never mentioned the terms "Quran" nor "Islam" nor that the immigrants were of a new religion... Muhammad was "the first king of the Mhaggraye", also guide, teacher, leader or great ruler... The immigrants' religion was described as monotheist "in accordance with the Old Law (Old Testament)". When the Emir of the immigrants and Patriarch of the local Christians did have a religious colloquium there was much discussion of the scriptures but no mention of the Quran, "a possible indication that the Quran was not yet in circulation." The Christians reported the Emir was accompanied by "learned Jews", that the immigrants "accepted the Torah just as the Jews and Samaritans", though none of the sources described the immigrants as Jews.
-- wiki --

 

Muhammad_isa – this really is your on-going diatribe against orthodox Christianity, but one ought to tread lightly, old friend, because one stands at risk of being hoist on one's own petard.

To paraphrase:
"And you believe that the Angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammed, right?
..and you presume that because of an interpretation of what one man .. Muhammad .. is reported to have said in the Quran .. right?"

A large body of scholarship says the Quran evolved before its final editing and recension, that it contains materials from pre-existing sources, that its account of Christianity, for example, would suggest the influence of a mix of Lucan narrative, apocryphal Christian fables, Docetic and/or Gnostic narrative. Then a canonical version was collated and all other versions conveniently burned ...

A large body of scholarship notes that it's just 'not done' to question ... certainly the critical dialogue within Christianity would not be at all welcome in Islam.

+++

The above is rhetorical. I do not hold a position regarding Islam, it's your faith, not mine, I'm just pointing out that you need to take care lest one day you turn that same critical vision on your own path, or invite someone to offer an equally skeptical and critical investigation regarding the early traditions of your religion ...

 

They could have believed in the resurrected Christ as "just the the Messiah". I don't know, but they probably didn't.
I understand you now. From this we get the various theories that express HOW Jesus was divine.
Thankyou for correcting me.

 

No .. I don't.

Can I be pain and ask you to discuss this topic in another thread?

 

Shaye J. D. Cohen is a Professer of Hebrew literature and philosophy.

It is also understood by many that so-called Jewish Christians continued to worship in synagogues.
..so when we talk about "the Jerusalem church", are we referring to a group of people or a building?
There is certainly some confusion about the many different beliefs that people held around that time.
We all know what views became prominent over a few centuries within the empire.

 

This is the problem. History can get wiped out. It doesn't seem to me to be accidental.
It is assumed that so-called Jewish Christians have heretical writings and so on.
Perhaps we are ALL heretics

One thing is for sure .. these early Christians who were driven out of Jerusalem did not believe in the orthodox trinity!