God and the suffering of Jesus

[BluePhantom]

Hmm. Very interesting stuff. I've never heard some of these stories.

Well that's kind of the thing. Most people don't know these stories because historically you would get killed for speaking of them. There is a reason why apocryphal books are so rare. You would get killed for having them. This is also why when we find these rare books they are stuffed in jars and buried or hidden. They were buried so no one would know that the owner had them and then 2,000 years later someone is digging for fertilizer (as was the case with the Nag Hammadi texts) and suddenly there are these books no one has ever seen. We knew they existed because other texts referred to them but we didn't have them. For example we have writings from very ancient church fathers talking about the Gospel of Thomas. We knew it existed at some point but it had been lost to history. We didn't know what the Gospel of Thomas actually said. We didn't know for perhaps 1,800 years. Then in 1945 a guy was digging in the desert and found a jar. In it was the fucking Gospel of Thomas that had been buried by someone almost 2,000 years ago to hide it so he would not get killed for having it. Suddenly, all these references by other Christian authors start to make sense because NOW we have the Gospel of Thomas!!!!

So there are so many things that we don't know about what ancient Christians believed and when one starts to dig there is a great opportunity for learning that can enhance one's faith and love for God. But many people find it really threatening because those texts are very different. They talk about a very different Christianity than they grew up believing. It's scary to consider such things because you put your entire theological creed on the line.

You think that's scary, try wondering about the existence of God! You know, you're supposed to have "faith" to get into Heaven. Otherwise . . . hot potatoes.

Well but consider what I said about Satan earlier. There was no concept of hell in early Judaism either. Hell developed with the concept of Satan. If God was the Lord of heaven and Satan was the antithesis of God there must be the antithesis of heaven. Hell was born. But just like in the original Judaism where Satan didn't exists, neither did hell. Hell got invented as the concept of Satan developed. The words traditionally translated into "hell" in the Bible don't even mean that in the original languages of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The concept of hell didn't arise until centuries after the death of Jesus.

That's also why I don't believe in hell. It was made up to identify the realm of Satan who in turn was made up to explain suffering. It had the added benefit of terrifying the hell out of the peasant to get them to behave themselves.

 

[Picaro]

I always thought Jesus was God's son??? I've never heard that Jesus was God in human form. BTW, although I am agnostic, I am quite capable of having a rational discussion about the "theories."

The whole point of Jesus was that he indeed was human. the Gnostics are notorious for denying his humanity, the latter being the common thread running through the various flavors of Gnosticism. It's their 'signature', so to speak. Most of the outlier sects disappeared; they never were numerous, or even connected to one another. The orthodox view was the earliest and by far the largest, which is why it won out eventually, even as they debated various theological points and parables. The 'new school' bases their 'modern' premises' largely on the Nag Hammadi discoveries, and then tried to inflate their importance far beyond what they actually were, creating conspiracy theories and fairly ridiculous leaps of logic, mainly because they want to rewrite the Bible and make it something they like better, i.e. they want to fabricate a new religion and make it all nice and PC.

 

[Picaro]

In the early Christian church all these different points of view were in competition for converts and they all had different beliefs. Many of them radically different. According to research by Walter Bauer, which is mostly accepted by scholarship although not completely, it was the view of the church at Rome that won out and the rest were banished by pain of death. So that's what comes to us today. The Christianity we see today is not necessarily the original version, nor the version that was the majority opinion in antiquity. It was the view that won the war and got adopted by Constantine and Theodosius.

Bauer never made a decent case for his theories, and neither has any of his followers, like Elaine Pagels. The case is much stronger that the original orthodoxy is indeed the original, and by far the most widespread. Give me a day or two and I will elaborate more, I'm short of time, and I also need to make a trip to the library for some cites on this. The view that the Roman church had much influence early on is also a myth; it was just one church among many; the primary influences came from the church at Jerusalem and those in Syria. The Roman church's importance was merely geographical, being in the capital city of the Empire, but it carried no more theological weight than some of the others, and certainly not more than the Syrian churches.

 

[ChrisL]

I always thought Jesus was God's son??? I've never heard that Jesus was God in human form. BTW, although I am agnostic, I am quite capable of having a rational discussion about the "theories."

The whole point of Jesus was that he indeed was human. the Gnostics are notorious for denying his humanity, the latter being the common thread running through the various flavors of Gnosticism. It's their 'signature', so to speak. Most of the outlier sects disappeared; they never were numerous, or even connected to one another. The orthodox view was the earliest and by far the largest, which is why it won out eventually, even as they debated various theological points and parables. The 'new school' bases their 'modern' premises' largely on the Nag Hammadi discoveries, and then tried to inflate their importance far beyond what they actually were, creating conspiracy theories and fairly ridiculous leaps of logic, mainly because they want to rewrite the Bible and make it something they like better, i.e. they want to fabricate a new religion and make it all nice and PC.

So, you don't believe the Jesus and God are one in the same theory, I take it.

 

[Avatar4321]

I've always been of the opinion that Christ suffered immensely. And the Father did as well. That His suffering was necessary for us to be healed.

Indeed modern revelation describes the suffering in these terms:

"Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest Ismite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that youconfess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit." (D&C 19:15-20).

And also:

"For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, theblind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

6 And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men.

7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body,hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man cansuffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.

10 And he shall rise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world; and behold, all these things are done that a righteous judgment might come upon the children of men." (Mosiah 3:5-10)

I know from the Spirit that He suffered on my behalf. And because of Him I have been healed many times.

 

[Picaro]

I always thought Jesus was God's son??? I've never heard that Jesus was God in human form. BTW, although I am agnostic, I am quite capable of having a rational discussion about the "theories."

The whole point of Jesus was that he indeed was human. the Gnostics are notorious for denying his humanity, the latter being the common thread running through the various flavors of Gnosticism. It's their 'signature', so to speak. Most of the outlier sects disappeared; they never were numerous, or even connected to one another. The orthodox view was the earliest and by far the largest, which is why it won out eventually, even as they debated various theological points and parables. The 'new school' bases their 'modern' premises' largely on the Nag Hammadi discoveries, and then tried to inflate their importance far beyond what they actually were, creating conspiracy theories and fairly ridiculous leaps of logic, mainly because they want to rewrite the Bible and make it something they like better, i.e. they want to fabricate a new religion and make it all nice and PC.

So, you don't believe the Jesus and God are one in the same theory, I take it.

I'm an atheist, but I find the bible a truly great piece of work, and the radical cultural revolution Christianity kicked off one of the greatest and best events in human history; it literally did 'save mankind', at least in the West, and it is now taking off in the Far East, even as it dies from the relentless campaign of mindless hate being conducted against it in the West, a grave mistake, by the way, from a cultural and sociological health perspective.

Re the theological premise of whether Jesus was an actual human being, yes, he definitely was. That premise is key to the whole Christian narrative. It humanizes God, and is intended to demonstrate that he does indeed know what mortals are experiencing and going through, and is not some aloof, indifferent being. The allegorical references are extensive on many levels, so, yes, as far as spiritual and literary purposes are concerned, they are the same 'soul', or spirit, or whatever 'placeholder' one prefers. One part was made entirely human. None of the Poll answers fit, exactly, at least to my readings, so I didn't vote.

 

[Picaro]

Re Walther Bauer and the ‘new school’ and the claims there was no early orthodoxy but a diversity of Christian beliefs early on.

Bauer’s two main theses:

Bauer had two main content ideas.

1. There were originally varieties of Christianities, not a fixed orthodoxy. In the beginning there were Christianities, existing side by side with no one option having a superior claim on apostolic roots. He claimed there was hard evidence to support this conclusion. In his regional survey of Edessa of ancient Syria and Alexandria in Egypt, Bauer argued that what became known as heresy was the faith’s original form. Other regions such as Asia Minor and Macedonia give evidence that such heretical views were at least a more prevalent minority than the church sources suggest. So Bauer’s key point is that orthodoxy is a construct of the later church. Between the fourth and sixth centuries a later orthodoxy was projected back into this earlier period. Bauer’s implication is that what Christianity has been and what it originally was are so different that we should rethink (or make over) the faith.

2.What allowed for the development of orthodoxy was the Roman church’s successful control over other areas in the late second century. Thus, for example, Rome threw its weight around in Corinth, even though Corinth had more diversity than orthodoxy.

Eventually, Rome won across most of Christiandom, so orthodoxy won. Bauer claimed that this victory distorted the earliest history, and subsequent writers, embracing his thesis, formed the new school with its push to reassess this history.

An Assessment of Bauer’s Content Theses

Did Rome Control? Is the orthodox church Rome’s work? Subsequent critique has discredited his thesis. In fact, the German church historian Hans-Dietrich Altendorf described this feature of Bauer’s work as playing with the argument from silence so that the result was the “constructive fantasy of the author”. Later he spoke of an elegantly worked out fiction” to describe Bauer’s view of of how Rome directed Corinth.

A closer look at Bauer’s argument helps us. If Rome is the center of orthodoxy, then Bauer must show two things: (1) that orthodoxy really did not exist elsewhere and (2) that Roman communication in I Clement (ca. AD 95) to Corinth was not merely an attempt to persuade but was a ruling imposed on Corinth. However neither of these is the case.

See Norris, Frederick W. 1976, {b]Ignatius, Polycarp, and I Clement: Walter Bauer Reconsidered.[/b] Vigilae Christianae 30:23-44.

On the first point, we know that Antioch and Asia Minor were strongholds for what became orthodox views in this early period

See Robinson, Thomas A..1988, The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church.

Ephesus was an especially important center as well as Jerusalem, which Bauer completely ignored. There were several key, orthodox locales for the early church besides Rome. ..

Six further points argue against the Roman control thesis.

1. Norris notes that the idea of a city having a single bishop, which some consider integral to Roman powers and claims, emerged first in Jerusalem and Syria, not Rome.Ignatius and Polycarp represent the evidence here from Syria, while James oversaw the church in Jerusalem very early on.

2. This same Ignatius can speak of a separation between competing groups that points to a sense of orthodoxy versus heresy. As just noted, Ignatius was not from Rome.

3. Some of the most important witnesses we have of “orthodox" materials come from books written for Asia Minor. This is the locale for the Johannine materials (John's gospel, his three epistles, and Revelation). Many of Asia Minor's communities received Paul's letters. It was a vital center outside of Rome.

4. Marcion developed his system assuming the authority of certain works shared with orthodoxy, especially Luke and the Pauline epistles.

5. The earliest liturgical texts we possess come from Syria.

6. Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about a Christian community in Bythnia that worshipped Jesus, a practice that reflects orthodox belief there.(Epistles 10. 96-97)

So early expressions of orthodoxy were not as geographically isolated as Bauer argued.. As Turner noted in his critique of Bauer's ideas, Asia Minor as a region is “less promising" for Bauer's views than Edessa or Alexandria, which Turner had just finished critiquing at this point in his lecture. After Surveying Asia Minor, Turner stated “Nothing here supports the more daring features of Bauer’s reconstruction”.(p.63)

Turner,, H.E.W. 1954. The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study of the Relations Between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church

The failure of the idea that Rome was prevalent in influence is important. If Rome did not drive the move to define orthodoxy more precisely in this earliest period, then the sense of orthodoxy may have been more widely distributed than Bauer argued.This may well explain orthodoxy's “success”. IT may be that it was widely distributed because of the nature of its roots, but more on that later. That there was contact with other churches with Rome is not surprising, because it was the culture’s dominant city, but this falls far short of ecclesiastical control. In fact, Turner notes occasions when Polycarp and Polycrates opposed efforts by Rome to step into their affairs. In his major study of Rome in the two centuries, Lampe explained an element of orthodoxy’s success there. It was simply the majority belief among the many opinions; it was more attractive to the masses (Lampe 1989, 323) So one of Bauer's two main pillars is made of sand.

Peter Lampe’s survey of Asia Minor. I don’t feel like typing out those long titles German scholars or so fond of, and I don’t have the fonts needed.

Most of the above is from Darrell Bock's book, The Missing Gospels. Bock has written extensively on the subject.

The next section covers “ Does a regional survey show that the earliest origin and majority presence are with the alternative views? No evidence there either, that the orthodoxy wasn’t the prevalent view early on. Part of the reasons the ‘new school’ needs to fabricate a fiction re the Roman church’s dominating is so those in the modern era can feel free to rewrite Christianity to suit modern ‘values’ and claim a false academic cache in doing so. Of course, many already do that anyway, but the premises of the ‘new school’ require a more in-depth fiction.

 

[aris2chat]

What kind of father would put his son through crucifixion?

What kind of god requires human blood sacrifice to forgive sin?

 

[BluePhantom]

Re Walther Bauer and the ‘new school’ and the claims there was no early orthodoxy but a diversity of Christian beliefs early on.

Bauer’s two main theses:

Bauer had two main content ideas.

1. There were originally varieties of Christianities, not a fixed orthodoxy. In the beginning there were Christianities, existing side by side with no one option having a superior claim on apostolic roots. He claimed there was hard evidence to support this conclusion. In his regional survey of Edessa of ancient Syria and Alexandria in Egypt, Bauer argued that what became known as heresy was the faith’s original form. Other regions such as Asia Minor and Macedonia give evidence that such heretical views were at least a more prevalent minority than the church sources suggest. So Bauer’s key point is that orthodoxy is a construct of the later church. Between the fourth and sixth centuries a later orthodoxy was projected back into this earlier period. Bauer’s implication is that what Christianity has been and what it originally was are so different that we should rethink (or make over) the faith.

2.What allowed for the development of orthodoxy was the Roman church’s successful control over other areas in the late second century. Thus, for example, Rome threw its weight around in Corinth, even though Corinth had more diversity than orthodoxy.

Eventually, Rome won across most of Christiandom, so orthodoxy won. Bauer claimed that this victory distorted the earliest history, and subsequent writers, embracing his thesis, formed the new school with its push to reassess this history.

An Assessment of Bauer’s Content Theses

Did Rome Control? Is the orthodox church Rome’s work? Subsequent critique has discredited his thesis. In fact, the German church historian Hans-Dietrich Altendorf described this feature of Bauer’s work as playing with the argument from silence so that the result was the “constructive fantasy of the author”. Later he spoke of an elegantly worked out fiction” to describe Bauer’s view of of how Rome directed Corinth.

A closer look at Bauer’s argument helps us. If Rome is the center of orthodoxy, then Bauer must show two things: (1) that orthodoxy really did not exist elsewhere and (2) that Roman communication in I Clement (ca. AD 95) to Corinth was not merely an attempt to persuade but was a ruling imposed on Corinth. However neither of these is the case.

See Norris, Frederick W. 1976, {b]Ignatius, Polycarp, and I Clement: Walter Bauer Reconsidered.[/b] Vigilae Christianae 30:23-44.

On the first point, we know that Antioch and Asia Minor were strongholds for what became orthodox views in this early period

See Robinson, Thomas A..1988, The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church.

Ephesus was an especially important center as well as Jerusalem, which Bauer completely ignored. There were several key, orthodox locales for the early church besides Rome. ..

Six further points argue against the Roman control thesis.

1. Norris notes that the idea of a city having a single bishop, which some consider integral to Roman powers and claims, emerged first in Jerusalem and Syria, not Rome.Ignatius and Polycarp represent the evidence here from Syria, while James oversaw the church in Jerusalem very early on.

2. This same Ignatius can speak of a separation between competing groups that points to a sense of orthodoxy versus heresy. As just noted, Ignatius was not from Rome.

3. Some of the most important witnesses we have of “orthodox" materials come from books written for Asia Minor. This is the locale for the Johannine materials (John's gospel, his three epistles, and Revelation). Many of Asia Minor's communities received Paul's letters. It was a vital center outside of Rome.

4. Marcion developed his system assuming the authority of certain works shared with orthodoxy, especially Luke and the Pauline epistles.

5. The earliest liturgical texts we possess come from Syria.

6. Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about a Christian community in Bythnia that worshipped Jesus, a practice that reflects orthodox belief there.(Epistles 10. 96-97)

So early expressions of orthodoxy were not as geographically isolated as Bauer argued.. As Turner noted in his critique of Bauer's ideas, Asia Minor as a region is “less promising" for Bauer's views than Edessa or Alexandria, which Turner had just finished critiquing at this point in his lecture. After Surveying Asia Minor, Turner stated “Nothing here supports the more daring features of Bauer’s reconstruction”.(p.63)

Turner,, H.E.W. 1954. The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study of the Relations Between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church

The failure of the idea that Rome was prevalent in influence is important. If Rome did not drive the move to define orthodoxy more precisely in this earliest period, then the sense of orthodoxy may have been more widely distributed than Bauer argued.This may well explain orthodoxy's “success”. IT may be that it was widely distributed because of the nature of its roots, but more on that later. That there was contact with other churches with Rome is not surprising, because it was the culture’s dominant city, but this falls far short of ecclesiastical control. In fact, Turner notes occasions when Polycarp and Polycrates opposed efforts by Rome to step into their affairs. In his major study of Rome in the two centuries, Lampe explained an element of orthodoxy’s success there. It was simply the majority belief among the many opinions; it was more attractive to the masses (Lampe 1989, 323) So one of Bauer's two main pillars is made of sand.

Peter Lampe’s survey of Asia Minor. I don’t feel like typing out those long titles German scholars or so fond of, and I don’t have the fonts needed.

Most of the above is from Darrell Bock's book, The Missing Gospels. Bock has written extensively on the subject.

The next section covers “ Does a regional survey show that the earliest origin and majority presence are with the alternative views? No evidence there either, that the orthodoxy wasn’t the prevalent view early on. Part of the reasons the ‘new school’ needs to fabricate a fiction re the Roman church’s dominating is so those in the modern era can feel free to rewrite Christianity to suit modern ‘values’ and claim a false academic cache in doing so. Of course, many already do that anyway, but the premises of the ‘new school’ require a more in-depth fiction.

Read my original statement on Bauer. "According to research by Walter Bauer, which is mostly accepted by scholarship although not completely...". I pointed out his work was controversial to begin with which means there are many who disagree with his hypothesis. There are also many who do agree. In other words it has not yet been settled.

 

[onefour1]

Jesus is the firstborn spirit child of the Father. Through his firstborn son all things were created. So great was Jesus before even coming to this earth that he formed a quorum with the Father and the Holy Ghost known as the Godhead. As a member of the Godhead, he is called God. It is through Jesus Christ that the Father reveals himself to man on earth. This is why Jesus is called the Word. He is a perfect revelation of the Father. The Father and Son are not the same being but are one in purpose and glory. They are separate and distinct personages.

To understand the atonement of Christ you must understand that man existed prior to coming to this earth and the intelligence of man has always existed. God never created man ex nihilo (out of nothing). For this reason God could not create man to be perfect. In order for man to progress, God needed to teach man how to be like himself. God is a being who does good in and of himself. He is not forced to do good. For man to be like him, it was necessary for man to learn to do good in and himself also. For this reason we have come to this earth to learn to walk by faith and to learn to do many good things of our free will. Man was also sent to earth to gain a body just as God has. The problem arises because in God's kingdom you must live a celestial law. For no unclean thing can reside in the presence of God. Man in his imperfect state has broken God's laws and fallen short of the kingdom of God. Were it not for the atonement of Christ, no man could return to live with God. But God knew this from the beginning and called his Firstborn Son to be a Savior for the world. Salvation works like this: God is a perfectly just being. If we break the laws of the kingdom of heaven, we cannot enter therein. But God knew that we were imperfect and would break the law. Breaking the law would be part of our learning process due to our imperfection. So God needed a way to allow those who repent and overcome sin to be allowed back into his kingdom. His plan would be to send down his firstborn son, who reached perfection before coming to this earth, and have him live a perfect life without sin. He would show all the true path that we should follow and then he would subject himself to be punished for all the sins of the world. This took place in the Garden of Gethsemane. He was then beaten and crucified. Because Jesus never sinned, it was unjust for him to be punished for all the sins of the world and to crucified and die. The Father being a perfectly just being needed to recompense Jesus for the unjust suffering and death that he suffered. It is only fair that his recompense be in proportion to the amount of suffering he bore. And what was Jesus' recompense? He was granted the power to give mercy to all men if they would only repent. Repentance is necessary because man would still need to abide the celestial law once given entrance into the kingdom of heaven. And because Jesus suffered the sins of all mankind, his recompense covered all men. But Jesus only grants the forgiveness to enter the kingdom of heaven to those who truly repent. Through Jesus atonement and resurrection, all mankind will resurrect from the dead, but only those who truly repent will he extend the mercy to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is the true meaning of the atonement. It is a gift of God that all men will resurrect and escape and eternal physical death. It is also a gift of God that most all men will be saved into a kingdom. But only the truly repentant will be allowed back into the presence of God the Father in his heavenly kingdom.

Jesus is not the Father. The Father could not do what Jesus did because he was already a resurrected being who could never lay down his body again. It needed to be one who had not yet received a body so that he could lay it down. Jesus came to this earth to receive a body just as you and I did. But due to his sinless nature, it was not just that he die and separate from his body. Thus he was able to take his body up again. Once he completed his atonement and resurrection, he was allowed to grant resurrection to all. I tell you these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[ChrisL]

There are SO many different versions and belief systems, how do you know which one is correct? Does God actually expect people to be able to determine this, especially since HE created us as flawed entities?

 

[aris2chat]

First born son? Aren't Adam and Eve, and Lilith, and the angels, all his children as well? All those children are his bastards and don't count?

According to some gospels, he was not such a good little child. Even if you can raise the dead it is still a sin to kill.

Jesus forgave himself so he could commit another sin?

Suicide by cop is still suicide. Is that not a sin?

To manipulate others to sin, is that the work of a good god?

 

[onefour1]

Not sure why you believe that Jesus being the First born son would preclude everyone else from being his children? Which gospels are you referring to? For man it is sin to kill. Because God is God and oversees our temporal time on earth, he is in charge of when we leave this earth. All mankind will live an immortal life. Death is only a temporary stage for our learning. God is the gardener. For man, killing is a sin. You will not be left dead for eternity but will resurrect and be given immortal life through God. How do you suppose God manipulates us to sin?

 

[onefour1]

There are SO many different versions and belief systems, how do you know which one is correct? Does God actually expect people to be able to determine this, especially since HE created us as flawed entities?

I think God understands us and knows we are imperfect. In the scriptures we are commanded to do one thing more than anything else. That is we are commanded to pray. God has asked us to pray for guidance and has also asked us to study his word. If you would like, I can try and show you these things in scripture. But prayer is the only way you will find conviction in your heart.

James 1:5-6
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

 

[aris2chat]

Not sure why you believe that Jesus being the First born son would preclude everyone else from being his children? Which gospels are you referring to? For man it is sin to kill. Because God is God and oversees our temporal time on earth, he is in charge of when we leave this earth. All mankind will live an immortal life. Death is only a temporary stage for our learning. God is the gardener. For man, killing is a sin. You will not be left dead for eternity but will resurrect and be given immortal life through God. How do you suppose God manipulates us to sin?

Infancy gospel. God love the children, but Jesus shoved a child off a roof to his death, and other died after he cursed him.

If Jesus is god and god killed in the stories of noah, abraham and moses, etc., is Jesus not also a murderer? Jesus and god are one and the same. One god.
Is Jesus not responsible for his own death, he did everything to bring the wrath of rome by presenting himself to be the king of the jews. In is name how many christians were killed? Is he not responsible for their deaths?

 

[Picaro]

Re Walther Bauer and the ‘new school’ and the claims there was no early orthodoxy but a diversity of Christian beliefs early on.

Bauer’s two main theses:

Bauer had two main content ideas.

1. There were originally varieties of Christianities, not a fixed orthodoxy. In the beginning there were Christianities, existing side by side with no one option having a superior claim on apostolic roots. He claimed there was hard evidence to support this conclusion. In his regional survey of Edessa of ancient Syria and Alexandria in Egypt, Bauer argued that what became known as heresy was the faith’s original form. Other regions such as Asia Minor and Macedonia give evidence that such heretical views were at least a more prevalent minority than the church sources suggest. So Bauer’s key point is that orthodoxy is a construct of the later church. Between the fourth and sixth centuries a later orthodoxy was projected back into this earlier period. Bauer’s implication is that what Christianity has been and what it originally was are so different that we should rethink (or make over) the faith.

2.What allowed for the development of orthodoxy was the Roman church’s successful control over other areas in the late second century. Thus, for example, Rome threw its weight around in Corinth, even though Corinth had more diversity than orthodoxy.

Eventually, Rome won across most of Christiandom, so orthodoxy won. Bauer claimed that this victory distorted the earliest history, and subsequent writers, embracing his thesis, formed the new school with its push to reassess this history.

An Assessment of Bauer’s Content Theses

Did Rome Control? Is the orthodox church Rome’s work? Subsequent critique has discredited his thesis. In fact, the German church historian Hans-Dietrich Altendorf described this feature of Bauer’s work as playing with the argument from silence so that the result was the “constructive fantasy of the author”. Later he spoke of an elegantly worked out fiction” to describe Bauer’s view of of how Rome directed Corinth.

A closer look at Bauer’s argument helps us. If Rome is the center of orthodoxy, then Bauer must show two things: (1) that orthodoxy really did not exist elsewhere and (2) that Roman communication in I Clement (ca. AD 95) to Corinth was not merely an attempt to persuade but was a ruling imposed on Corinth. However neither of these is the case.

See Norris, Frederick W. 1976, {b]Ignatius, Polycarp, and I Clement: Walter Bauer Reconsidered.[/b] Vigilae Christianae 30:23-44.

On the first point, we know that Antioch and Asia Minor were strongholds for what became orthodox views in this early period

See Robinson, Thomas A..1988, The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church.

Ephesus was an especially important center as well as Jerusalem, which Bauer completely ignored. There were several key, orthodox locales for the early church besides Rome. ..

Six further points argue against the Roman control thesis.

1. Norris notes that the idea of a city having a single bishop, which some consider integral to Roman powers and claims, emerged first in Jerusalem and Syria, not Rome.Ignatius and Polycarp represent the evidence here from Syria, while James oversaw the church in Jerusalem very early on.

2. This same Ignatius can speak of a separation between competing groups that points to a sense of orthodoxy versus heresy. As just noted, Ignatius was not from Rome.

3. Some of the most important witnesses we have of “orthodox" materials come from books written for Asia Minor. This is the locale for the Johannine materials (John's gospel, his three epistles, and Revelation). Many of Asia Minor's communities received Paul's letters. It was a vital center outside of Rome.

4. Marcion developed his system assuming the authority of certain works shared with orthodoxy, especially Luke and the Pauline epistles.

5. The earliest liturgical texts we possess come from Syria.

6. Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about a Christian community in Bythnia that worshipped Jesus, a practice that reflects orthodox belief there.(Epistles 10. 96-97)

So early expressions of orthodoxy were not as geographically isolated as Bauer argued.. As Turner noted in his critique of Bauer's ideas, Asia Minor as a region is “less promising" for Bauer's views than Edessa or Alexandria, which Turner had just finished critiquing at this point in his lecture. After Surveying Asia Minor, Turner stated “Nothing here supports the more daring features of Bauer’s reconstruction”.(p.63)

Turner,, H.E.W. 1954. The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study of the Relations Between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church

The failure of the idea that Rome was prevalent in influence is important. If Rome did not drive the move to define orthodoxy more precisely in this earliest period, then the sense of orthodoxy may have been more widely distributed than Bauer argued.This may well explain orthodoxy's “success”. IT may be that it was widely distributed because of the nature of its roots, but more on that later. That there was contact with other churches with Rome is not surprising, because it was the culture’s dominant city, but this falls far short of ecclesiastical control. In fact, Turner notes occasions when Polycarp and Polycrates opposed efforts by Rome to step into their affairs. In his major study of Rome in the two centuries, Lampe explained an element of orthodoxy’s success there. It was simply the majority belief among the many opinions; it was more attractive to the masses (Lampe 1989, 323) So one of Bauer's two main pillars is made of sand.

Peter Lampe’s survey of Asia Minor. I don’t feel like typing out those long titles German scholars or so fond of, and I don’t have the fonts needed.

Most of the above is from Darrell Bock's book, The Missing Gospels. Bock has written extensively on the subject.

The next section covers “ Does a regional survey show that the earliest origin and majority presence are with the alternative views? No evidence there either, that the orthodoxy wasn’t the prevalent view early on. Part of the reasons the ‘new school’ needs to fabricate a fiction re the Roman church’s dominating is so those in the modern era can feel free to rewrite Christianity to suit modern ‘values’ and claim a false academic cache in doing so. Of course, many already do that anyway, but the premises of the ‘new school’ require a more in-depth fiction.

Read my original statement on Bauer. "According to research by Walter Bauer, which is mostly accepted by scholarship although not completely...". I pointed out his work was controversial to begin with which means there are many who disagree with his hypothesis. There are also many who do agree. In other words it has not yet been settled.

I did read your original statement, and I can read just fine, and no, Bauer is not 'mostly accepted by scholarship', his scholarship was poor and his premise unsupportable. How popular it is with those with a modern agenda they want to pursue has little to do with 'scholarship' and refuting the historical record, and is just fantasy and wishful thinking. Not all 'scholars' are honest or even competent. The orthodox view hasn't been refuted and still very much stands as the main early majority view, despite the attempts otherwise. The 'new school' is just a current pseudo-intellectual fad, and not serious 'scholarship'. A Saudi scholar proclaimed the world was flat, and I'm sure if a vote was taken in Saudi schools most 'scholars' would agree it was, even the science professors. So much for academic peer pressure and fashion.

Elaine Pagels has a personal agenda, as does her fan club, and is more of a space cadet than a serious historical scholar, as any bio of her will demonstrate. She even claims the 'Gospel of Thomas' was written before John's Gospel, which of course is ridiculous nonsense with no historical evidence whatsoever. Her books and articles are very short on evidence and very very obsessively long on innuendo and theological revisionism.

 

[onefour1]

Not sure why you believe that Jesus being the First born son would preclude everyone else from being his children? Which gospels are you referring to? For man it is sin to kill. Because God is God and oversees our temporal time on earth, he is in charge of when we leave this earth. All mankind will live an immortal life. Death is only a temporary stage for our learning. God is the gardener. For man, killing is a sin. You will not be left dead for eternity but will resurrect and be given immortal life through God. How do you suppose God manipulates us to sin?

Infancy gospel. God love the children, but Jesus shoved a child off a roof to his death, and other died after he cursed him.

If Jesus is god and god killed in the stories of noah, abraham and moses, etc., is Jesus not also a murderer? Jesus and god are one and the same. One god.
Is Jesus not responsible for his own death, he did everything to bring the wrath of rome by presenting himself to be the king of the jews. In is name how many christians were killed? Is he not responsible for their deaths?

There is a reason the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was not included in the canon of scripture. You can read about it on Wikipedia.

"Author[edit]
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a work attributed to "Thomas the Israelite" (in a medieval Latin version).[citation needed] The biblical Thomas (or Judas Thomas, Didymos Judas Thomas, etc.) is very unlikely to have had anything to do with the text. Some scholars believe the initial author was a gentile, and whoever he was, he seems not to have known much of Jewish life besides what he could learn from the Gospel of Luke, which the text seems to refer to directly in ch. 19; Sabbath and Passover observances are mentioned."​

God is the overseer of this temporary mortal life. He is the giver and taker of life on this earth and manages all its affairs. This is a temporal mortal existence. God has the authority to decide when people come into this life and when they are to be taken from it. He is not under the law given to mortal men. In eternity man does not die. This means that the commandment to not murder was only to be given to mortals in this life. God is not subject to this mortal command but it is given to man to leave the taking of life up to God himself. It is not sin for God because he is the one who placed us here, and has authority to take us back when he deems necessary. For us to remove someone without God's permission is sin. In certain cases God has given command to man to kill others to fulfill his will. In such cases it is not sin for man. Self defense is such a case. God is the author of the law to mortals in this life and not the subject thereof. Trying to accuse God of sin is like the child accusing his parents of sin for not being in bed by 9 o'clock. The parents aren't under the exact same rules as the children. The parents are the children's overseer. Certain rules do not apply to the parent that are applied to the children. God has authority as the supreme ruler to manage the affairs of we less knowledgeable mortals. God only has the authority and he has given reasonable guidelines as to when man is justified in also taking life. Some parents let their children stay up later on the weekend. When given permission, it is ok for the child to do so.

Jesus and God are one in purpose. Jesus only did that which the Father would have him do. In this way they were one. They are not the same being.

 

[aris2chat]

Re Walther Bauer and the ‘new school’ and the claims there was no early orthodoxy but a diversity of Christian beliefs early on.

Bauer’s two main theses:

Bauer had two main content ideas.

1. There were originally varieties of Christianities, not a fixed orthodoxy. In the beginning there were Christianities, existing side by side with no one option having a superior claim on apostolic roots. He claimed there was hard evidence to support this conclusion. In his regional survey of Edessa of ancient Syria and Alexandria in Egypt, Bauer argued that what became known as heresy was the faith’s original form. Other regions such as Asia Minor and Macedonia give evidence that such heretical views were at least a more prevalent minority than the church sources suggest. So Bauer’s key point is that orthodoxy is a construct of the later church. Between the fourth and sixth centuries a later orthodoxy was projected back into this earlier period. Bauer’s implication is that what Christianity has been and what it originally was are so different that we should rethink (or make over) the faith.

2.What allowed for the development of orthodoxy was the Roman church’s successful control over other areas in the late second century. Thus, for example, Rome threw its weight around in Corinth, even though Corinth had more diversity than orthodoxy.

Eventually, Rome won across most of Christiandom, so orthodoxy won. Bauer claimed that this victory distorted the earliest history, and subsequent writers, embracing his thesis, formed the new school with its push to reassess this history.

An Assessment of Bauer’s Content Theses

Did Rome Control? Is the orthodox church Rome’s work? Subsequent critique has discredited his thesis. In fact, the German church historian Hans-Dietrich Altendorf described this feature of Bauer’s work as playing with the argument from silence so that the result was the “constructive fantasy of the author”. Later he spoke of an elegantly worked out fiction” to describe Bauer’s view of of how Rome directed Corinth.

A closer look at Bauer’s argument helps us. If Rome is the center of orthodoxy, then Bauer must show two things: (1) that orthodoxy really did not exist elsewhere and (2) that Roman communication in I Clement (ca. AD 95) to Corinth was not merely an attempt to persuade but was a ruling imposed on Corinth. However neither of these is the case.

See Norris, Frederick W. 1976, {b]Ignatius, Polycarp, and I Clement: Walter Bauer Reconsidered.[/b] Vigilae Christianae 30:23-44.

On the first point, we know that Antioch and Asia Minor were strongholds for what became orthodox views in this early period

See Robinson, Thomas A..1988, The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church.

Ephesus was an especially important center as well as Jerusalem, which Bauer completely ignored. There were several key, orthodox locales for the early church besides Rome. ..

Six further points argue against the Roman control thesis.

1. Norris notes that the idea of a city having a single bishop, which some consider integral to Roman powers and claims, emerged first in Jerusalem and Syria, not Rome.Ignatius and Polycarp represent the evidence here from Syria, while James oversaw the church in Jerusalem very early on.

2. This same Ignatius can speak of a separation between competing groups that points to a sense of orthodoxy versus heresy. As just noted, Ignatius was not from Rome.

3. Some of the most important witnesses we have of “orthodox" materials come from books written for Asia Minor. This is the locale for the Johannine materials (John's gospel, his three epistles, and Revelation). Many of Asia Minor's communities received Paul's letters. It was a vital center outside of Rome.

4. Marcion developed his system assuming the authority of certain works shared with orthodoxy, especially Luke and the Pauline epistles.

5. The earliest liturgical texts we possess come from Syria.

6. Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about a Christian community in Bythnia that worshipped Jesus, a practice that reflects orthodox belief there.(Epistles 10. 96-97)

So early expressions of orthodoxy were not as geographically isolated as Bauer argued.. As Turner noted in his critique of Bauer's ideas, Asia Minor as a region is “less promising" for Bauer's views than Edessa or Alexandria, which Turner had just finished critiquing at this point in his lecture. After Surveying Asia Minor, Turner stated “Nothing here supports the more daring features of Bauer’s reconstruction”.(p.63)

Turner,, H.E.W. 1954. The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study of the Relations Between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church

The failure of the idea that Rome was prevalent in influence is important. If Rome did not drive the move to define orthodoxy more precisely in this earliest period, then the sense of orthodoxy may have been more widely distributed than Bauer argued.This may well explain orthodoxy's “success”. IT may be that it was widely distributed because of the nature of its roots, but more on that later. That there was contact with other churches with Rome is not surprising, because it was the culture’s dominant city, but this falls far short of ecclesiastical control. In fact, Turner notes occasions when Polycarp and Polycrates opposed efforts by Rome to step into their affairs. In his major study of Rome in the two centuries, Lampe explained an element of orthodoxy’s success there. It was simply the majority belief among the many opinions; it was more attractive to the masses (Lampe 1989, 323) So one of Bauer's two main pillars is made of sand.

Peter Lampe’s survey of Asia Minor. I don’t feel like typing out those long titles German scholars or so fond of, and I don’t have the fonts needed.

Most of the above is from Darrell Bock's book, The Missing Gospels. Bock has written extensively on the subject.

The next section covers “ Does a regional survey show that the earliest origin and majority presence are with the alternative views? No evidence there either, that the orthodoxy wasn’t the prevalent view early on. Part of the reasons the ‘new school’ needs to fabricate a fiction re the Roman church’s dominating is so those in the modern era can feel free to rewrite Christianity to suit modern ‘values’ and claim a false academic cache in doing so. Of course, many already do that anyway, but the premises of the ‘new school’ require a more in-depth fiction.

Read my original statement on Bauer. "According to research by Walter Bauer, which is mostly accepted by scholarship although not completely...". I pointed out his work was controversial to begin with which means there are many who disagree with his hypothesis. There are also many who do agree. In other words it has not yet been settled.

I did read your original statement, and I can read just fine, and no, Bauer is not 'mostly accepted by scholarship', his scholarship was poor and his premise unsupportable. How popular it is with those with a modern agenda they want to pursue has little to do with 'scholarship' and refuting the historical record, and is just fantasy and wishful thinking. Not all 'scholars' are honest or even competent. The orthodox view hasn't been refuted and still very much stands as the main early majority view, despite the attempts otherwise. The 'new school' is just a current pseudo-intellectual fad, and not serious 'scholarship'. A Saudi scholar proclaimed the world was flat, and I'm sure if a vote was taken in Saudi schools most 'scholars' would agree it was, even the science professors. So much for academic peer pressure and fashion.

Elaine Pagels has a personal agenda, as does her fan club, and is more of a space cadet than a serious historical scholar, as any bio of her will demonstrate. She even claims the 'Gospel of Thomas' was written before John's Gospel, which of course is ridiculous nonsense with no historical evidence whatsoever. Her books and articles are very short on evidence and very very obsessively long on innuendo and theological revisionism.

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Picaro]

Re Walther Bauer and the ‘new school’ and the claims there was no early orthodoxy but a diversity of Christian beliefs early on.

Bauer’s two main theses:

Bauer had two main content ideas.

1. There were originally varieties of Christianities, not a fixed orthodoxy. In the beginning there were Christianities, existing side by side with no one option having a superior claim on apostolic roots. He claimed there was hard evidence to support this conclusion. In his regional survey of Edessa of ancient Syria and Alexandria in Egypt, Bauer argued that what became known as heresy was the faith’s original form. Other regions such as Asia Minor and Macedonia give evidence that such heretical views were at least a more prevalent minority than the church sources suggest. So Bauer’s key point is that orthodoxy is a construct of the later church. Between the fourth and sixth centuries a later orthodoxy was projected back into this earlier period. Bauer’s implication is that what Christianity has been and what it originally was are so different that we should rethink (or make over) the faith.

2.What allowed for the development of orthodoxy was the Roman church’s successful control over other areas in the late second century. Thus, for example, Rome threw its weight around in Corinth, even though Corinth had more diversity than orthodoxy.

Eventually, Rome won across most of Christiandom, so orthodoxy won. Bauer claimed that this victory distorted the earliest history, and subsequent writers, embracing his thesis, formed the new school with its push to reassess this history.

An Assessment of Bauer’s Content Theses

Did Rome Control? Is the orthodox church Rome’s work? Subsequent critique has discredited his thesis. In fact, the German church historian Hans-Dietrich Altendorf described this feature of Bauer’s work as playing with the argument from silence so that the result was the “constructive fantasy of the author”. Later he spoke of an elegantly worked out fiction” to describe Bauer’s view of of how Rome directed Corinth.

A closer look at Bauer’s argument helps us. If Rome is the center of orthodoxy, then Bauer must show two things: (1) that orthodoxy really did not exist elsewhere and (2) that Roman communication in I Clement (ca. AD 95) to Corinth was not merely an attempt to persuade but was a ruling imposed on Corinth. However neither of these is the case.

See Norris, Frederick W. 1976, {b]Ignatius, Polycarp, and I Clement: Walter Bauer Reconsidered.[/b] Vigilae Christianae 30:23-44.

On the first point, we know that Antioch and Asia Minor were strongholds for what became orthodox views in this early period

See Robinson, Thomas A..1988, The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church.

Ephesus was an especially important center as well as Jerusalem, which Bauer completely ignored. There were several key, orthodox locales for the early church besides Rome. ..

Six further points argue against the Roman control thesis.

1. Norris notes that the idea of a city having a single bishop, which some consider integral to Roman powers and claims, emerged first in Jerusalem and Syria, not Rome.Ignatius and Polycarp represent the evidence here from Syria, while James oversaw the church in Jerusalem very early on.

2. This same Ignatius can speak of a separation between competing groups that points to a sense of orthodoxy versus heresy. As just noted, Ignatius was not from Rome.

3. Some of the most important witnesses we have of “orthodox" materials come from books written for Asia Minor. This is the locale for the Johannine materials (John's gospel, his three epistles, and Revelation). Many of Asia Minor's communities received Paul's letters. It was a vital center outside of Rome.

4. Marcion developed his system assuming the authority of certain works shared with orthodoxy, especially Luke and the Pauline epistles.

5. The earliest liturgical texts we possess come from Syria.

6. Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about a Christian community in Bythnia that worshipped Jesus, a practice that reflects orthodox belief there.(Epistles 10. 96-97)

So early expressions of orthodoxy were not as geographically isolated as Bauer argued.. As Turner noted in his critique of Bauer's ideas, Asia Minor as a region is “less promising" for Bauer's views than Edessa or Alexandria, which Turner had just finished critiquing at this point in his lecture. After Surveying Asia Minor, Turner stated “Nothing here supports the more daring features of Bauer’s reconstruction”.(p.63)

Turner,, H.E.W. 1954. The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study of the Relations Between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church

The failure of the idea that Rome was prevalent in influence is important. If Rome did not drive the move to define orthodoxy more precisely in this earliest period, then the sense of orthodoxy may have been more widely distributed than Bauer argued.This may well explain orthodoxy's “success”. IT may be that it was widely distributed because of the nature of its roots, but more on that later. That there was contact with other churches with Rome is not surprising, because it was the culture’s dominant city, but this falls far short of ecclesiastical control. In fact, Turner notes occasions when Polycarp and Polycrates opposed efforts by Rome to step into their affairs. In his major study of Rome in the two centuries, Lampe explained an element of orthodoxy’s success there. It was simply the majority belief among the many opinions; it was more attractive to the masses (Lampe 1989, 323) So one of Bauer's two main pillars is made of sand.

Peter Lampe’s survey of Asia Minor. I don’t feel like typing out those long titles German scholars or so fond of, and I don’t have the fonts needed.

Most of the above is from Darrell Bock's book, The Missing Gospels. Bock has written extensively on the subject.

The next section covers “ Does a regional survey show that the earliest origin and majority presence are with the alternative views? No evidence there either, that the orthodoxy wasn’t the prevalent view early on. Part of the reasons the ‘new school’ needs to fabricate a fiction re the Roman church’s dominating is so those in the modern era can feel free to rewrite Christianity to suit modern ‘values’ and claim a false academic cache in doing so. Of course, many already do that anyway, but the premises of the ‘new school’ require a more in-depth fiction.

Read my original statement on Bauer. "According to research by Walter Bauer, which is mostly accepted by scholarship although not completely...". I pointed out his work was controversial to begin with which means there are many who disagree with his hypothesis. There are also many who do agree. In other words it has not yet been settled.

I did read your original statement, and I can read just fine, and no, Bauer is not 'mostly accepted by scholarship', his scholarship was poor and his premise unsupportable. How popular it is with those with a modern agenda they want to pursue has little to do with 'scholarship' and refuting the historical record, and is just fantasy and wishful thinking. Not all 'scholars' are honest or even competent. The orthodox view hasn't been refuted and still very much stands as the main early majority view, despite the attempts otherwise. The 'new school' is just a current pseudo-intellectual fad, and not serious 'scholarship'. A Saudi scholar proclaimed the world was flat, and I'm sure if a vote was taken in Saudi schools most 'scholars' would agree it was, even the science professors. So much for academic peer pressure and fashion.

Elaine Pagels has a personal agenda, as does her fan club, and is more of a space cadet than a serious historical scholar, as any bio of her will demonstrate. She even claims the 'Gospel of Thomas' was written before John's Gospel, which of course is ridiculous nonsense with no historical evidence whatsoever. Her books and articles are very short on evidence and very very obsessively long on innuendo and theological revisionism.

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, I've read the Wiki article; it's not a 'Gospel' at all, just a list, and is considered literature, of which there are several from the era after the times of Jesus and the Apostles. It was obviously not widespread; most of the Nag Hammadi scrolls weren't, which of course is just more evidence these 'Gnostics' and other sects weren't large or widespread, and mostly small local cults, most likely just tiny groups centered around one 'teacher'.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

So I have been thinking a lot about God and the crucifixion. For the sake of this question let's assume that Jesus was God or at the very least God resided within Jesus through the Holy Spirit during His ministry. It creates a question about God suffering at the hands of man through Jesus. This was a really big issue in early Christianity and one of the reasons why there were so many different forms of Christianity in the early church.

The question was "if Jesus was God, and Jesus suffered at the hands of man, did man cause God to physically suffer as well?" There was a lot of debate. Some said that Jesus was God, but his physical form was merely an illusion and therefore God did not suffer because you can't harm an illusion. Some apocryphal gospels even depict Jesus as laughing during the crucifixion to really make this point stick. Some said that God entered Jesus either at birth or at his baptism by John the Baptist and left Jesus before His death to avoid the suffering. The thought here was that man cannot possibly harm God so God must have left before any actual harm befell Jesus. Still others argued that Jesus was God and the whole point was for God to experience what it was to be a man. Therefore, God suffered all the same pains and agonies as Jesus did during the passion and crucifixion.

As a point of Biblical history, these schools of thought (as well as others) created rivalries and completely separate branches of early Christianity such as the Gnostics, Ebinonites, Marcionites, proto-orthodox, etc. There were tons of them. To some degree all those different points of view remain within different branches of Christianity.

So I ask this question because I am interested in what most people think of have been taught. I know my point of view on this, but I am very curious to see what others think. For those who are atheist...yeah we already know your point of view. Bugger off.

Other.

Jesus was a heretic who was executed as per Deuteronomy 13:5