I feel like we are responding to different things. I am not sure how what you wrote responds to what I wrote. This is honestly my last attempt.
Because they felt commissioned to spread the good news? God has chosen them to spread a new understanding to people in light of the resurrection of Jesus. Maybe many also thought the end was here and they needed to get the message to as many as possible before the return of Jesus.
Resurrection or are you claiming the parousia (second-coming) happened already?
Literacy didnât have to improve very much. They hired people to write and to read what was written. They had the means.
I donât think they realized after most of the apostles had passed away that it was time to write everything down. They were preaching, âHe Livesâ. âHe who was dead defied death and He is here now for all of us. Believe us. We are not kidding. He came to us and we are here to tell you, He loves you. Receive Him. Believe in Him. Watch what He will do for and in you.â That was their message. They were filled to overflowing with God right then and there. Old Pete announced it when Jews from all over the world mistook them for drunks and heard them speak in their own languages. He was available to all who believed in his name. God visited them. God was in that place and it shook up the world. They returned home and spread the news.
People were writing down everything that was taking place as it happened. People couldnât believe what they saw and heard. They were stunned. Even Herod Antipas, who beheaded John, wanted to meet the magician.
Vinnie, they believed his return could happen at any second. That is just as true right now. Until then, until He returns in his second coming, He has given us his Spirit. They wouldnât bother taking the time to travel great distances if they believed He would return first. They were hedging their bets. They didnât know when He would come back the Second time. It could be at any moment. We believe that now. Until His Second Coming we have the H.S., His representative, and weâve been instructed to tell everyone that God is with us. God is here, fully God, in the person of the H.S.
He showed up after He was dead. He said, Hang out. I will send My Spirit, Me, in the form of the Holy Spirit, and He did. He came to them like a mighty, rushing wind. His Spirit came upon them.
He also promised to return in person. Even He didnât know the day or the hour. But, He promised to come back at some point to rule the world as our King. We live in the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. We know Him now through the H.S. Soon, we shall see him face to face, when we die, or when He returns in Person. He is returning in person.
Iâm trying to point out that it is clear that they thought He was God. Thatâs why they killed him; He claimed and proved beyond any doubt He was God.
Bill, excuse me. I realize I am replying to your question to someone else.
Paul wasnât returning home when he went on missionary trips, nor were others who went with him. There were Christians popping up all over the place thanks to missionaries.
My comment was made to @Vinnie in response to his Great Commission statement.
I was just pointing out that in addition to the professional missionaries there were many people who spread Christianity to their home country on their return.
Evidently He didnât prove it to their satisfaction. They killed Him because He âclaimedâ to be equal with God and a King and therefore might bring down the wrath of Rome.
Bill, if you knew me growing up and you had to bet, you would put every penny you would ever have on me being the last person on earth who would love Jesus. Every human being would bet that way, including me.
Bill, that is why the whole scene was absolutely ridiculous. They didnât kill him because they thought He was faking. They saw what He did. They saw miraculous healings repeatedly, Lazarus brought back from the dead. The little dead boy restored. The fish and bread. This guy was happening on a major scale and they knew He had to be God, but they couldnât face it. If you kill God, thereâs every reason to believe it wonât be for good. So, they were exasperated. They killed him hoping to bury their fears that He really was God.
No the signs and wonders indicated He was the promised Messiah, not God. As I understand it, the Messiah was not God. Even with the signs Jesus didnât fit their idea of what the Messiah would bring so it was safe to kill Him to preserve the nation, John 11:50.
I know this is one of your personal beliefs but you might want to take a look at Books and Readers in the Earth Church, A History of Early Christian Texts by Harry Y. Gamble. He has a good discussion of literacy in the early church.
âWe are not stoning you for any good work,â they replied, âbut for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.â
âListen here Jesus. Nobody can do what youâve been doing unless He was actually God. We got it. Itâs obvious you are I AM. But, see, we got to stone you for the heck of it. See, youâre God and that scares us to death. Why, at the rate youâre going, weâll be has-beens, kaput, no one will give a rip about us. Do you understand? So, even though you are unstoppable, and your words match your deeds, we have to destroy you so we can go back to the way things were. Thanks for understanding.â
Jesus replied, âIs it not written in your Law: âI have said you are godsâd? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God cameâand the Scripture cannot be brokenâ 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?
If I am not doing the works of My Father, then do not believe Me. 38But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works themselves, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.â
This is against historical data though.They had Jesus at the same status as the Father (ie meaning divine status). So either you are one of those who dont want to look at the historical data,or you have your own personal beliefs about Jesus and think the first Christians were wrong
Being Godâs adoptive Son, or his representative on earth and being given authority by Him is not the same thing as ontologically being God. Is it possible you are simply reading later creedal Christianity into aspects of the NT where it shouldnât be? This issue might not be as binary as it seems to you.
I am certainly very interested in seeing this historical data and your defense of what the first Christians (ca. 35 CE) believed about Jesus.
If you want something further from there asked to be opened again
My link as well as 2 books posted there gives equivelent basis to my argument.Check them out if you can.Not sure about the books but my link should be free still . Its academic work so its worth the time
Mind you the question was asked by me whom be then was sure that the early christians didnt did that sort of thing
Your link says some early Christians were subordinationists.
âNo theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine âpersonsâ, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.â
Jesus was not viewed as God in the ontological sense closer to what we mean as far as we know until the Gospel of John and whenever itâs traditions stem from.
One can even make a compelling argument (see the thread on John about framing vs history) that Jesus didnât even think he was God looking at the synoptic Gospels.
Either you are ignorant or didnt read the papaerwork Quote me from it. And if it did said that( i remember tge paperwork diving in some other aspects as well) it didnt said ONLY that. There are historical records that Christians worshiped Jesus the same as the Father. Period
Agreed what does that have to do with Jesus beign worshiped the same as the Father?
What percentage of scholars dedicated to historical biblical studies can confirm or assert this? Or whats the percentage of them holding these views?
Christians from 30-60CE? Aside from a few potential credal formulas/hymns in the genuine Pauling corpus, Iâll call your bluff in my ignorance. What are these sources?
Refute me or you have no authority to call me a liar. Since i imagine you cant,slander and foul language (as you have shown before responding to me) are not of intelectuall grounds. I wont respond to accusations or anything else. Only at facts and refutations