Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom 67 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • TerryWalstrom
    TerryWalstrom

    The purpose of this topic is twofold.

    First, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine Bible scholars, are urged by me to do what I did, SUBSCRIBE to Bart Ehrman's BLOG. The subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.

    Secondarily, by broadening our view of the New Testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'Christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to Watchtower fabrication. By this I don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.

    Now . . .

    Here is an example of Bart Ehrman's contribution to his blog concerning what being 'GOD' meant in the NT era and beyond. Ehrman begins here with the question of Jesus being thought of in some way as "god."

    __________________

    " I have been insisting that if one wants to say that “Jesus is God” according to an early Christian text, one has to ask “in what *sense*” is he God? Now is a good time for me to lay out how I understand ancient people understood the divine realm. It was very different from the way most people today – at least the people I run across – imagine the divine realm. As I pointed out earlier, people today think of God as completely Other than us humans. We are mortal and limited in every respect; he is immortal and unlimited. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present. We are by comparison weak, ignorant, and in one place at a time. He is infinite and eternal; we are finite and temporal. There is an unbridgeable gap between us and God. (Although in Christian theology, it is Jesus who bridges that gap by being a divine being who becomes human; in traditional theology, he did that so that we humans could then become divine) People in the ancient world did not think of the divine realm in that way. True, the major Gods were enormously powerful and knowing and were immortal (you couldn’t kill them, and they couldn’t kill each other! And they never died). But there were lots of different gods with lots of different power and knowledge. And many of the gods (nearly all of them) came into being at some point in the past. They haven’t always existed. Like us, they get born. And like us, gods have strengths and weaknesses, and rarely were gods imagined as all-knowing, and almost never as all-powerful. But there were gods and there were gods. I try to illustrate the divine realm to my students by speaking in terms of a divine pyramid. So, imagine a pyramid. At the very top (where it is narrowest) some ancient pagans located a single most powerful (all powerful? ) divinity – call him Zeus, or Jupiter, or an Unknown God, or something else. This God was far more powerful than we can possibly imagine. Possibly he is the source of all things. Below this single divine power, on the next rung of the pyramid, were the great gods known to us from Greek and Roman mythology: the Greek Zeus (if he’s not at the top), and Hera, and Ares, and Aphrodite – or their Roman equivalents Jupiter, Juno, Mars, and Venus, and all the rest, the gods of Mount Olympus. These gods by and large have little to do with us, as they have their own concerns. But occasionally they interact with us. They too are enormously powerful, immortal, and superhuman in every way (even though in the myths they appear to be all *too* human with their jealousies, and anger, and loves, and lusts, and other human emotions; but it’s not clear that most ancient people – and certainly not most educated ancient people – actually believed the myths as telling events that truly happened). On the next lower rung on the pyramid, below the Olympian gods, were other gods of a more local nature and purpose. There were, in fact, gods of virtually every locality and function. Gods who inhabited and were in charge of certain mountains and fields and forests and rivers and streams; gods of war, love, health, childbirth, weather; gods of the local cities and towns, gods of the home, gods of the hearth, gods of the family. The gods on this realm were far less powerful and ubiquitous than the great Gods. But they were also far more powerful that we mere mortals. On the next lower rung on the pyramid, was an even less powerful group (and more numerous) set of divine beings sometimes called DAIMONIA. It’s not helpful or accurate to translate this term as“demons” – even though that is the precise equivalent – because these were not necessarily divine entities that always did harm and were out to hurt people. Sometimes they were, but sometimes they were good too. These are the divine beings closer to us, who have more to do with our daily affairs. They can be fickle, and some are nasty, but others were not. I prefer calling these daimonia, rather than demons, since demons in the Christian tradition are always malevolent. And there is another rung even below these daimonia, which is made up of beings who are in some sense partially divine, either because they were born to the union of a god and a mortal (like Hercules or Dionysus), or because they were adopted by a divine being to be his son, or because they were so powerful or wise that it was hard to imagine them as merely mortal (such as the emperor, or a great philosopher like Plato). Below that level of the pyramid were humans, some of whom were more god-like than others. Like my first wife used to say many years into our marriage: “I married a Greek God, and now I’m married to a goddam Greek.” The point is that divinity was a kind of graded, graduated affair. To call the emperor “God” was not to say that he was the one on the top of the pyramid. Quite the contrary! He wasn’t even on the level of the daimonia. But he was God, *in some sense.* Some of you (I can hear you thinking as I type) are wondering if any of this has any relevance to Judaism. The answer is yes, in some ways, and I’ll deal with that question eventually. For now let me simply stress that when Christians were most forthright in calling Jesus “God” without qualification (as in “Jesus is God” – a statement you hardly ever [maybe once?] get in the NT, but start getting frequently in the second century) Christianity had by and large stopped being a primarily Jewish affair and was, rather, primarily a Gentile affair. That is, most of its adherents were converts from paganism, who brought their views of the divine realm with them into the new faith they adopted."

  • TerryWalstrom
    TerryWalstrom

    Again, Ehrman:

    "One day we were in Priene, a town on the west coast, looking at the ruins.  There was a large temple with pillars lying all around and other remains.   I was looking at a large ornamental stone that had an inscription on it.  The inscription described the emperor Augustus and called him “god.”   And something hit me.  Surely I knew this before, but it had never really HIT me before.  I don’t know why.  But it hit me at this moment and it nearly took my breath away.   This was really important.  The Christians began calling Jesus God at just the same period that the Romans began calling their rulers God.

    Of course I had known this, but it had never clicked.   It can’t be an *accident* that Jesus was put on the same level as the emperor at almost exactly the same time that the emperor was being exalted to a divine status.   Romans called the emperor the “savior” and the “lord” and even “God.”  And these are things that Christians called Jesus. 

    Soon after the pagans were doing it.   Moreover, the “son” of a divine emperor was the “son of God.”  In fact, the only people in the empire to be called “son of God” were the emperor and Jesus.  (Other divine men were called “son of Zeus” or “son of Apollo” etc.  But the term “son of God” was used only of emperors.  And then Jesus.)"

  • myelaine
    myelaine

    Wasn't it jewish disciples who started calling Jesus Son of God because of the miracles(works of God)? Does Bart suggest that these jewish disciples bought into the notion that earthly entities were entitled to the title of God merely because it was de rigueur?

    the thought than Jesus WASN'T the Son of God was contested by other factions in the jewish population. This leads me to believe that the titles Son of God and God weren't borne of the "pyramid scheme". 

  • Viviane
    Viviane
    That's an except from his book "How Jesus Became God", quite good. He provides many examples in both scripture and other Jewish literature of a continuum of divinity with Judaism with men becoming divine, gods becoming man, angel worship and polytheism.
  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    The ancients obviously plagiarized theological ideas from various sources.

    Think Islam.    

  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    In a book by Larry Hurtado which I'm currently reading he demonstrates why the hellenization of Jewish culture did not affect the view of Christ as God. 

    There are far too many things missing, and several facts. As an example, the Jewish culture was emphatically monotheistic. The Christian movement was persecuted very much for their apparent reverence for Christ alongside God because the Jews saw this as a gross blaspheme to God.

    What was accomplished by the Christian movement is very significant. The movement first went to only Jews, and managed to convert them by the thousands. These were people who were devoutly monotheistic, and they knew the precarious position they put themselves in by accepting Christianity in the face of the Jewish religious leaders. They could have been charged with blasphemy like Stephen was - and stoned. But despite this they accepted Jesus, and did so all the while MAINTAINING their monotheism. They didn't view Christ as almighty God, they knew the difference. But they did reverence him along with God. anyway the point is, this development can owe no debt to the surrounding nations - it developed on its own merits. 

    Some argue that the inclusion of the Gentiles explains it, but it does not. Because history attests that it began with the Jews, and even in the bible we see Paul stating that he passed on what he was given - which he got from Peter in Jerusalem. So the source was always Jerusalem, and Jewish culture - it was never affected by the gentile mind of emperor worship.

    Another point of fact is to suggest a cause and effect from the gentile nations necessitates that it not stop with just emperor worship. Why not include idols? But they never did this, not until well after Constantine. In fact, the Christians were persecuted by the gentile nations because they thought they were atheists since they had no idols anywhere, no gods to be found. 

    So it really doesn't hold up to scrutiny to suggest that the surrounding cultures were why any of it happened. Not only the bible, but also archeological finds suggest otherwise. Such as locations of Christian worship where only pictures of Old Testament prophets are found but no idols, which as I pointed out if they were going to accept emporer worship why not idolatry too? 

    anyway, I've typed way too much here.


  • TTWSYF
    TTWSYF

    Some things in early Christianity can be traced to earlier beliefs from other faiths thru time....but there is only one religion where a man claimed to be God and 2000 years later, 1 out of every 5 people [or more] on the whole planet believe it.

    just saying

  • myelaine
    myelaine

    I can understand where OT prophets, priests and kings could acquire an air of divinity. The NT saints were even given this type of honour by some people but, Jesus was more closely aligned with DEITY where the others both OT and NT were kept firmly on the ground in their roles as "divinity" as can be seen in their strictly human foibles being included in the text. How these roles were appreciated in the day to day lives of the OT hebrew people likely CAN be seen in jewish literature of the time. I just doubt that it had any influence on the main purveyors of the religion of the jews by the time of Christ. The silence of God for 400 years likely contributed to their hesitance to see ANYONE "new" as divine...think JtB.


    matthew 16:16-17

  • TerryWalstrom
    TerryWalstrom

    Could you clarify what you mean about what exactly Peter gave Paul which Paul passed along?

    To wit:

    Some argue that the inclusion of the Gentiles explains it, but it does not. Because history attests that it began with the Jews, and even in the bible we see Paul stating that he passed on what he was given - which he got from Peter in Jerusalem.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

    Taking more of a realist viewpoint, maybe the question should be poised as what did MAN meant in the historical view of the interpretive Divine  ?

    The ancients all had a specific intent in their development of their own mythological beliefs, even the first era Christians. The first century Romans certainly had a desire and drive to create a new belief system around the historical figure of Jesus Christ, was it all fact based or did they embellish stories or create subjective lies in an effort to appeal to a given population  ? 

    Seems like whenever men have the intent of creating a religious following around themselves, there are surmountable subjective lies drawn up from out of that original intent .

    Not to mention any names of course .  

    Interesting topic Terry 

     

     

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit