4 ms·

Thought the article says the council 'settled' christology, it still took hundreds of years before it was popularly resolved: for, at least, the first 500 years

Thought the article says the council 'settled' christology, it still took hundreds of years before it was popularly resolved: for, at least, the first 500 years of christianity jesus was widely regarded as something more like a demigod. This fairly clearly what Paul thought; with Luke likely believing just in a messianic role. Early christianity is perhaps best seen as greeking of judaism: god the father is zeus, the angles are demigods, jesus is a half-human offspring of zeus, jesus has been sent to destroy the demonic forces and end the process of death (whereby we're sent to the underworld, etc.). Satan as something more like a peer of God (this indeed, was the original OT role: santan was an angle appointed by god to test people). The whole thing starts to make less-and-less sense the more this greek frame is dropped: if jesus ends up being god himself, and there is no hell, etc. it becomes basically incoherent. Why would god send god to resurrect people which is something god can already do?

panick21_ 3y ago
There is no clear 'early Christianity'. By the first time we have any evidence, there are already many different interpretations.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  Then you agree with me. My phrasing is for an audience who is unaware that the gospels already disagree on Christology. I was retrospectively talking about the pauline-johnian views which won and what they were like
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    I don't think actual Paul and 'John' would agree on much but I know what you are saying.
    - mjburgess 3y ago
      Well, at least only, that both the son and the father are divine.
RhysU 3y ago
Yahweh was originally a weather god, not unlike Zeus, well before being interwoven with El during proto-Judaism [1]. Any "Greek period" of the eventual Jewish faith, to which you refer, ended certainly by their complete adoption of monotheism. Judaism came "pre-Greeked". That particular Council affirmed that Christianity's God is triune by expressly rejecting Arianism. God sending God to do things God could already do is heavily a consequence of the trinity [2], hence why Nicaea was a big deal theologically. Whether a monotheistic God is unary, binary, trinary, etc has implications that seem sufficiently fundamental that no major religion will abandon its chosen view. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  Unfortunately all the interpretations of Yahweh at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Periods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Periods fall under the Zeus/Cancer/Aries timeframe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38761574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38761574 ... > Whether a monotheistic God is unary, binary, trinary, etc... In particular, Arianism would've allowed a supernatural of characteristic zero, while trinitarianism demands characteristic two.

panick21_ 3y ago

There is no clear 'early Christianity'. By the first time we have any evidence, there are already many different interpretations.

mjburgess 3y ago
Then you agree with me. My phrasing is for an audience who is unaware that the gospels already disagree on Christology. I was retrospectively talking about the pauline-johnian views which won and what they were like
- panick21_ 3y ago
  I don't think actual Paul and 'John' would agree on much but I know what you are saying.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    Well, at least only, that both the son and the father are divine.

RhysU 3y ago

Yahweh was originally a weather god, not unlike Zeus, well before being interwoven with El during proto-Judaism [1]. Any "Greek period" of the eventual Jewish faith, to which you refer, ended certainly by their complete adoption of monotheism. Judaism came "pre-Greeked". That particular Council affirmed that Christianity's God is triune by expressly rejecting Arianism. God sending God to do things God could already do is heavily a consequence of the trinity [2], hence why Nicaea was a big deal theologically. Whether a monotheistic God is unary, binary, trinary, etc has implications that seem sufficiently fundamental that no major religion will abandon its chosen view. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

082349872349872 3y ago
Unfortunately all the interpretations of Yahweh at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Periods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Periods fall under the Zeus/Cancer/Aries timeframe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38761574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38761574 ... > Whether a monotheistic God is unary, binary, trinary, etc... In particular, Arianism would've allowed a supernatural of characteristic zero, while trinitarianism demands characteristic two.