The Church of God - And who made christ god?

In my research, it’s come to my belief that christ was raised to the position of god through Paul. In Paul’s letters he refers to the community as “the church of god” which at the time was an offshoot of the Jewish church. I conjecture further that the “fish”,“icthus” was the common symbol for this diasoporic offshoot of judaism, and christ was an actual teacher, just not in Paul’s lifetime. (he doesn’t talk about Christ in “recent” terms. Christ is an ancient prophet through paul’s language).

If christianity were formed in recent memory it would be considered a millenium cult, that believes the end of the world is at hand. You can still read much of Paul’s belief that the end was at hand throughout his letters.

While christ, like the prophets before him, taught us to worship god, Paul, like the followers of Buddha (who are nameless?) changed Christ (and Buddha respectively) into a deity worthy of worship.

This of course hinges on several things:

Christ is an ancient person that none of the apostles including paul saw within their lifetime.

The gospels were written in a different time, and a different theistic viewpoint. The gospels and acts, most likely at the very earliest were written mid to late second century AD. If we use the traditional time frame for christ that he was alive in the early part of the first century, this is at least 100 years after the man… if we use, what I’m beginning to think is a more appropriate time frame, in that christ lived at least 100 years before that at least. Paul surely would’ve mentioned things that his apostle friends saw and heard of christ during their time with him.

If you were trying to drive home that you think beethoven is a great composer would you do so with just a rough idea of his work?

Or would you, have a witness to his music tell you something of his work?

If I’m not mistaken, christ was given his god status (and possibly invented altogether) in 325AD at the first council of Nicea, at which also the trinity was invented.

Dr.Satanical

This is a common oversimplification. Nicea was fundamentally meant to resolve a controversy which to many modern folks would seem incredibly obscure. The argument wasn’t so much over the “deity” of Christ in the sense that he was a pre-existant (to his appearance on earth) being, or even that it was through him that the creation came to be. What separated the “Athanasians” and the “Arians” was whether or not this trancendent personage was himself “uncreated” and what precisely his relationship to “God the Father” was. The Athanasians basically said his essence was “the same”, making him in that sense “God”. The Arians believed that while “the Son” pre-existed the entire created order, and was in fact the demiurge/logos by which it was fashioned, he was in fact himself a “creature” - in essence, a kind of supreme, archangel. The Arians actually had little difficulty with calling Christ “God” - but they meant something different than the Athanasians did, at least if you dig deep enough.

In between those two extremes were other views, such as those which came to be known as “semi-Arianism” - a view which said (comprimisingly) that the Son was of “like substance” to God (“the Father”).

IOW, it was a surprisingly theoretical argument (and a very nasty one), more than a practical one - apparently the churches of both the Athanasians (who came out on top at Nicea) and the Arians were practically identical, as were their services, etc.

Understanding this, it’s a little doctrinaire to say “Nicea made Jesus God” let alone “divine” - particularly when one takes into account the pre-Nicean patristic literature which touches on this (which interestingly enough, along with the New Testament itself, both the Athanasians and Arians were fond of quoting to make their respective cases.) Clear statements of Jesus Christ as “God” can be found in works which most scholars date from the early second century onward (Igantius of Antioch comes to mind.)

I think a better (though still dubious, IMHO) case can be made that it was Paul who made Jesus “divine”. However, I personally don’t subscribe to that either - really a lot of the primitive Christian theology is a spill over from debates that were going on within Judaism at the time (and in the immediate century or so beforehand), such as an idea that there were “two powers” in heaven (somehow a “greater YHWH” and a “lesser YHWH”), or that the Messiah was not simply a man, but a pre-existing heavenly being who appears in history. Obviously, normative Judaism sided with a more or less “unitarian view”, where as these other “weird” ideas would only end up surviving in Judaism’s enduring child, Christianity.

Don’t get me wrong, I know the idea of jesus being divine existed before 325 ad, and if paul actually existed (as paul, and not a retelling of ‘simon magus’) then it was indeed he that made the idea popular.
What my point was was that the idea of ‘trinity’ and ‘jesus as god’ was cemented as one of the core dogmatic tenets of the previously uncodified christian religion at nicea.

Doc,

Fair enough, though I think that’s kind of stating the obvious, since it was Paul in large part who made Christianity popular in general.

On the surface this is certainly true, but I think it’s an admission which needs to be qualified, since it too often is one which degenerates into the belief that the Emperor Constantine just kind of “thunk this up” and imposed it upon any Christians he could get his paws on.

dr. s is correct,

the christian church before “paul” (and even after) wasn’t focused on the divinity of christ as much as the teachings of christ. The same thing happened in Buddhism when they shifted from teaching the teachings to deifying the buddha.

what’s really interesting I think is that Paul talks about the “apostles” (mark, barnabas, etc) but never in the light that they walked with christ.

The christian church as we know it was developed from a mix of diasporic jewish belief (main god, laws) + hellenistic beliefs (Hell and heaven, deifying a man) + egyptian beliefs (ressurection, god man) + continual integration of the surrouding beliefs (aka paganism, it’s way beyond just the christmas tree)

only what little we have left, there is some that doesn’t refer to jesus as god like the gospel of thomas which was found at qumran.

remember the catholics burned a whole crap load of ancient texts because they didn’t like what they said.

Also remember that “paul” was writing letters in the pre 70’s (CE) - ( this is only ascertained by the fact that he doesn’t mention the fall of the temple in jerusalem), he refers to the organization as the “church of god”.

He also is speaking to churches that are well established. Something that would be impossible for a mere 25 years. (reference the start of Islam, or the start of Jehovah witnesses, the start of mormonism, etc.)

in 25 years for other religions they build up a large following, but not spread across an entire nation. Remember it’s not just to one city, that Paul is writing to. It’s several, churches.

I don’t think he ‘thunk it up’ persay, as most of the elements of the religion already existed in some form. I do think he is responsible for combining the ‘messiah cult’ scriptures that he liked with his pre-existing mithraic beliefs. ( the presence of mithraic dogma and mythos in christianity is pretty hard to ignore if you ask me)

absolutely. Pre-mithras combination is interesting when the church of god used the “alpha” symbol instead of the cross. Many people think that the “fish” is Icthus for christ, it’s become obvious to me though that the christians like all other people of the time were heavily involved in astrology and the “fish” is nothing more than a representation of pisces.

Some interesting books on the subject:

Jesus Christ, Sun of God

jesus 100 years before the christ

both of these examine the issue with an all important critical eye.

Hello F(r)iends,

I think there is a remote possibility that the notion of Jesus as god was “invented” by Paul. Afterall, if my recollection serves me correctly, Paul’s epistles could predate the gospels.

However, I think one would have to accept that no one challenged Paul’s version of the events. I imagine that the disciples would have had no problem challenging outright lies or misconceptions about the Jesus they knew, loved, and flat out worshipped as god.

If Jesus was deified it would have been during his lifetime or immediately after the resurrection story. In either case, the notion that his deity was in question until the 2nd or 2rd century is pretty weak.

-Thirst

Due to the language difference, there is no doubt it predates the gospels.

well no doubt there were others that believed him simply for the matter that he had visions of christ. But that doesn’t mean that he didn’t invent that belief, for example;

600 years later, people believed that mohammed had visions of god in a cave, and 1230 years after that people believed that joe smith had visions of jesus, god and moroni. (depending on which vision you believe.)

Before these prophet-eers came along, did anyone believe what they believed? We know for a fact that before mohammed most of arabia was still practicing localized polygamy. Before Joseph smith people believed that no one could be prophets and talk to god directly anymore.

It may seem totally ludicrous to think that he would just make up a belief about jesus being god, but think about how Paul refers to jesus… certainly not as someone who lived in the recent past.

Here’s the issue of the catholic assembled New Testament. The so called “disciples” (that Paul simply calls Apostles), indeed would’ve made such claims about christ. Their overwhelming silence in Paul’s writings is the key to this puzzle. (and the fact that Paul didn’t refer to christ as living in recent memory). The other key is how far spread and how developed the “church of god” (a jewish offshoot) was at the time.

It’d be impossible for a church to develop into such a widespread phenomenom in a mere ~30 years. But if Jesus was an ancient teacher (at least 100 years before the popular date) the spread of the church makes more sense.

The so called “disciples” were made so after the fact. The second, third century christian writers who believed in the divinity of christ turned Paul’s apostolic missionary friends into disciples of christ.

It was in question in the fifth century (the century of the nicea council) the egyptian branch didn’t believe in the trinity, and they believed christ was “merely” the son of god. (like as the christian gnostics taught, we all are)

Out of interest, what is your research. Most of what you say is quite widely accepted scholarship. While I certainly believe that without the influence of Paul Christ would certainly have not been considered the deity that he is, I’m not sure it is fair to say that he was completely raised to this status by Paul; not because of what is said in the gospels, as they were likely mostly written after Paul’s epistles, but rather because there would have been plenty of people around testifying to have known Jesus, who would not have suffered to pass complete myths on the part of Paul that he was divine.

On this front i cannot agree. Certainly Paul seems to suggest that, as it were, the kingdom of heaven is close, but most scholars would been extreemly careful about suggesting that Christ was not of Paul’s lifetime.

Jon F

Still a no go area im afraid. The routes and the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity are much more long and complex, stretching from the the routes of Christianity to the present day. Once again, you have massively oversimplified.

Jon F

some note so notable (pagan origins of the christ myth)

some more noteable;

jesus 100 years before the christ. jesus the sun of god.

that certainly may be a stretch on my part. I was just trying to push the modal thinking on the subject of what some scholars do say and take it a step further. That Paul (or whoever possibly “made” the christ before him) invented Jesus in the same way that mohammed invented allah, (he was around before just in a different sense) or that Joe Smith invented Moroni, or L. Ron invented Ancient aliens that seeded the human race.

Do I have any proof of this? well no more proof than I have for any of the other people I mentioned in that paragraph. It’s possible L. Ron Hubbard is right isn’t it? But at the same time we know from common sense (well at least I hope we here do.) that Scientology is a quack religion.

So how can I make such ascertations about Christianity? From the scholars I’ve read, Paul looks more like a “millenial end times” type of guy then the christian scholars want to admit. And certainly he wasnt’ the only christian that thought so at the time, and it may be he wasn’t the inventor of that thought. But … there is a substantial amount of evidence that shows he believed the “end was nigh”.

let me put this another way… if Christianity started today Paul would be akin to the founder of the Waco Cult.

well, well after. Luke Addresses Theophilus;

Luke 1:3 (New International Version)

3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

While this may seem inconsequential, Theophilus was a “father” from ~160 to 190 CE. This dates the gospel of Luke to the mid to late 2nd century.

and remember we have substantial evidence that when Paul wrote in the first century CE, he was speaking of Jesus in distant terms, the church was well established, etc.

Yes, had jesus really done the things he was supposed to have done in the first century there would’ve been plenty of other authors talking about those things.

there’s not…

Certainly if Paul’s apostlic friends (in his letters) knew christ he would have stated so. It’d be like if I thought Elvis was god, but I wasn’t around elvis at all but I had these friends that witnessed key things that he did (like shaking his hips). Why would I fail to mention these things?

The “apocryphal” (so decided because they don’t support the catholic/christian message) documents are just as disturbing, the older documents talk less about jesus’ life then the more recent documents.

well working from your idea (which I tend to agree with) that Paul didn’t invent the tenet of christ being god, I don’t think that Arius invented that tenet that christ was in fact not god. and in fact it was constantinople that made the tie breaking vote that formed the trinity as dogma.

Exactly a year later, Arius died under mysterious circumstances (it’s obvious to anyone with half a sense of reason he was poisoned by those in power.)

Which Theophilus do you mean? There was one that was a Jewish High Priest in around 40 AD or so. Which Theophilus are you thinking he was talking to?

it’d be fairly impossible that “luke” (presupposing that was the authors name) was speaking to a jewish high priest in 40 AD. (even assuming that the “luke” was a disciple to Jesus in the 20’s to 30’s AD.)

edit:
Not to mention that even most biblical/christian scholars say that Luke based a portion of his work off of “Mark’s” gospel that was written according to them around 70 - 80 AD.

OK. So like I asked you, which Theophilus are you referring to that dates Luke to 160 to 190?
[/quote]

[/quote]

To be honest, i don’t remember his exact designation, and I can’t find the reference atm… still looking and will post it when I find it.

Theophilus of Antioch is probably the one you mean, since he was around in the times you said. I’m having a hard time finding references to him being the Theophilus of Luke, though- I found one essay that says so, but that essay claims that Theophilus of Antioch is the earliest person named Theophilus we’ve ever heard of, and that’s not true.

here’s one such source:

sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Luke.htm

and what he says:

Theophilus of Antioch who was an early Christian patriarch who wrote around 180-185 AD

I honestly didnt’ know about the other theophilus, using “occam’s razor” though which is more likely?

That the Author of Luke and acts was writing to Theophilus of Antioch a christian Patriarch. Or the author was writing the books to a Jewish Rabbi in 40 AD before the book of Mark and John were written, which even some biblical scholars admit Luke had to have borrowed from. (if not the “so called” Q document as well. I think all the Q document was, as the author of “Jesus 100 years before the christ” ascertains, a collection of old testament and apocryphal sayings. This author in case your interested has plenty of references to come to the conclusion that the gospels were written in the second century, besides the Theophilus of Antioch one.)