Political Crossfire Forums

[Saf]

How do you handle Christology? Do you blindly accept what early church councils (i.e., not Christ) say about the nature of Christ, and the permutations of those decisions into modern day denominations? Do you examine the Gospels and try do decide for yourself based on reason and study? Or do you simply pray for the answers?

[John]

Saf wrote: How do you handle Christology? Do you blindly accept what early church councils (i.e., not Christ) say about the nature of Christ, and the permutations of those decisions into modern day denominations? Do you examine the Gospels and try do decide for yourself based on reason and study? Or do you simply pray for the answers?

Examining the Gospels (the whole Bible actually) and praying will lead you to the same conclusion that the guys at the church councils came to about Jesus Christ. What do you think the councils used as evidence? Scripture and prayer.

[sLiPpY]

I prefer reason and study. Looking at resources within and outside of the text, that give it historical context and provide clarity for language nuiances.

i.e. Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.

The example above is a clear indication that Jesus is saying, there is none good but God. The verse seems to imply Jesus's own acknowlegement that he is not God.

[sLiPpY]

Here are some examples, as to why I believe one needs more than just a Bible to arrive at reasonable conclusions.

Passages where Jesus speaks about the Son of God are later additions. Rationally speaking, such a claim of deity for himself would not have been consistent with the lifestyle we can reconstruct. For three decades after Jesus' death, followers continued as a sect within Judaism. The first three decades of the existence of the church were within the synagogue. It would have been beyond belief if the followers had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus. And if one examines Matthew, Mark, and Luke...excluding John it becomes rather clear that no such claims were made. It's the difference between "Why have though forsaken me?" and "It is finished."

In fact it wasn't until around 80 to 90 CE, that Jewish leaders began kicking Jesus followers out of the Synagogue. There's even a specific Greek word that was coined to describe the action, which appears in the Gospel of John. I perceive that it might have something to do with the blasphemy of declaring Jesus divinity. Acts 2:46 confirms that early followers "keep up their daily attendance at the Temple." It is beyond belief that the Jews of the Temple would stand idly by and allow the followers to do this if they were preaching the total cancellation of the law of Moses and that Jesus was God.

Consider the following:

Deuteronomy 4:39 Clearly states that there is none else, excepting God. Christianity cannot reasonably claim that Jesus was in the beginning, when the Torah clearly states there IS NONE ELSE!

Isaiah 43:10-11 Says that although the Lord has witnesses, and chooses servants...which is what "Son of Man" literally means "Servant of God." The passage clearly says that before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I am, and beside me there is NO SAVIOR!"

Christians were expelled from the Synagogues for their growing blasphemy. If there was no god before or after God Almighty, then how was Jesus "begotten" as a god? The answer is HE WAS NOT. Jesus was a mortal man, not a god.

Earlier in my life I accepted the Trinity, and what had become Mainstream Christian beliefs. Later when it came time for Confirmation, I had several meetings with our Episcopal rector. The man indicated to me that Christians are not obligated to believe that Jesus Christ was God. After reviewing some of the passages he shared with me, and other resources that pointed to a falsely high Christology.

It became interesting to explore early Christ followers, such as the Ebonites, the Cerinthians, etc. There were many first groups of Christianity that viewed Jesus as having been mortal and not god. Arians, Paulicians and Goths also accepted Jesus as a prophet of God. Even today there are churches in Asia, in Africa, and the Unitarians, who do not worship Jesus as God.

How most American Christians accept the Trinity and still claim to be Monothiestic is beyond me. :gdgf:

[John]

Quote: Isaiah 43:10-11 Says that although the Lord has witnesses, and chooses servants...which is what "Son of Man" literally means "Servant of God." The passage clearly says that before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I am, and beside me there is NO SAVIOR!"


Ah Isaiah 43....what an awesome chapter....

8 Bring out the people who are blind, even though they have eyes,
And the deaf, even though they have ears.
9 All the nations have gathered together
So that the peoples may be assembled
Who among them can declare this
And proclaim to us the former things?
Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified,
Or let them hear and say, "It is true."
10 "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.
11"I, even I, am the LORD,
And there is no savior besides Me.
12"It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,
And there was no strange god among you;
So you are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And I am God.
13 "Even from eternity I am He,
And there is none who can deliver out of My hand;
I act and who can reverse it?"


Hmmm.....what did Jesus say again??


John 8
23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.

24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

25 So they were saying to Him, "Who are You?" Jesus said to them, "What have I been saying to you from the beginning?

26 "I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."

27 They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.

28 So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.


Unless you believe that Jesus Christ is the very God Almighty that spoke to Abraham and told us in Isaiah 43 that there is no savior besides Him...you will die in your sins.

It that plain enough for you?

[Saf]

John wrote: Saf wrote: How do you handle Christology? Do you blindly accept what early church councils (i.e., not Christ) say about the nature of Christ, and the permutations of those decisions into modern day denominations? Do you examine the Gospels and try do decide for yourself based on reason and study? Or do you simply pray for the answers?

Examining the Gospels (the whole Bible actually) and praying will lead you to the same conclusion that the guys at the church councils came to about Jesus Christ. What do you think the councils used as evidence? Scripture and prayer.

Sure, and what do you think the sides that lost the debate used - scripture and prayer. Do you really base the entirety of your faith on the outcome of one debate around 1800 years ago? There were times when many different versions of Christianity were perfectly acceptable, but church politics (once again, not Christ) eradicated anyone who didn't accept the party line. Gnostic Christianity, Docetism and others aren't necessarily untrue, they just lost at politics.

[John]

Saf wrote: John wrote: Saf wrote: How do you handle Christology? Do you blindly accept what early church councils (i.e., not Christ) say about the nature of Christ, and the permutations of those decisions into modern day denominations? Do you examine the Gospels and try do decide for yourself based on reason and study? Or do you simply pray for the answers?

Examining the Gospels (the whole Bible actually) and praying will lead you to the same conclusion that the guys at the church councils came to about Jesus Christ. What do you think the councils used as evidence? Scripture and prayer.

Sure, and what do you think the sides that lost the debate used - scripture and prayer. Do you really base the entirety of your faith on the outcome of one debate around 1800 years ago? There were times when many different versions of Christianity were perfectly acceptable, but church politics (once again, not Christ) eradicated anyone who didn't accept the party line. Gnostic Christianity, Docetism and others aren't necessarily untrue, they just lost at politics.

I don't base much of anything on what they decided. I read, study the scriptures & pray myself. From my own study and prayer I believe that Christ did in fact teach that He is God.

Why do you question my decision?

[sLiPpY]

John wrote: Quote: Isaiah 43:10-11 Says that although the Lord has witnesses, and chooses servants...which is what "Son of Man" literally means "Servant of God." The passage clearly says that before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I am, and beside me there is NO SAVIOR!"


Ah Isaiah 43....what an awesome chapter....

8 Bring out the people who are blind, even though they have eyes,
And the deaf, even though they have ears.
9 All the nations have gathered together
So that the peoples may be assembled
Who among them can declare this
And proclaim to us the former things?
Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified,
Or let them hear and say, "It is true."
10 "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me. 11"I, even I, am the LORD,
And there is no savior besides Me.
12"It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,
And there was no strange god among you;
So you are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And I am God.
13 "Even from eternity I am He,
And there is none who can deliver out of My hand;
I act and who can reverse it?"


Hmmm.....what did Jesus say again??


John 8
23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.

24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

25 So they were saying to Him, "Who are You?" Jesus said to them, "What have I been saying to you from the beginning?

26 "I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."

27 They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.

28 So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.


Unless you believe that Jesus Christ is the very God Almighty that spoke to Abraham and told us in Isaiah 43 that there is no savior besides Him...you will die in your sins.

It that plain enough for you?

Highlighted above, is the reasoning for the eviction of Christians from the Synogogues in the 1st Century. And your choice of the Book of John, seems to lend credibility to my point that there can be no high Christology in it's absence.

The Book of John also defines the term anti-Christ as follows: 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

John thinks he is living in "the last times." He "knows" this because he sees so many antichrists around. 2:18

I wonder if John is referring to the Jewish leadership, who chose to evict the Christians? By the time the Gospel was written, the happening was indeed in-mass.

A "Chosen Servant" is the same thing as saying "Son of Man" :wink:

[John]

sLiPpY wrote: John wrote: Quote: Isaiah 43:10-11 Says that although the Lord has witnesses, and chooses servants...which is what "Son of Man" literally means "Servant of God." The passage clearly says that before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I am, and beside me there is NO SAVIOR!"


Ah Isaiah 43....what an awesome chapter....

8 Bring out the people who are blind, even though they have eyes,
And the deaf, even though they have ears.
9 All the nations have gathered together
So that the peoples may be assembled
Who among them can declare this
And proclaim to us the former things?
Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified,
Or let them hear and say, "It is true."
10 "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me. 11"I, even I, am the LORD,
And there is no savior besides Me.
12"It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,
And there was no strange god among you;
So you are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And I am God.
13 "Even from eternity I am He,
And there is none who can deliver out of My hand;
I act and who can reverse it?"


Hmmm.....what did Jesus say again??


John 8
23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.

24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

25 So they were saying to Him, "Who are You?" Jesus said to them, "What have I been saying to you from the beginning?

26 "I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."

27 They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.

28 So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.


Unless you believe that Jesus Christ is the very God Almighty that spoke to Abraham and told us in Isaiah 43 that there is no savior besides Him...you will die in your sins.

It that plain enough for you?

Highlighted above, is the reasoning for the eviction of Christians from the Synogogues in the 1st Century. And your choice of the Book of John, seems to lend credibility to my point that there can be no high Christology in it's absence.

The Book of John also defines the term anti-Christ as follows: 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

John thinks he is living in "the last times." He "knows" this because he sees so many antichrists around. 2:18

I wonder if John is referring to the Jewish leadership, who chose to evict the Christians? By the time the Gospel was written, the happening was indeed in-mass.

A "Chosen Servant" is the same thing as saying "Son of Man" :wink:

Son of man literally means "son of man" or son of Adam (Ben Adam).

Jesus was the Chosen Servant...He was God incarnate who came to redeem the world as a servant.

The text from Isaiah 43 is from the perspective of the Father....let's look at an example from the perspective of the Son.



Isaiah 48
12 "Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
13 "Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
14 "Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15 "I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,
I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
16 "Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit."

17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel,
"I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit,
Who leads you in the way you should go.

[John]

Quote: John thinks he is living in "the last times." He "knows" this because he sees so many antichrists around.

And he was correct. The last times started with Pentecost.

I believe we are at the twilight of the last times.


The “last times” means the last dispensation before Christ literally reigns on earth in Jerusalem.

[MJB]

Saf wrote: How do you handle Christology? Do you blindly accept what early church councils (i.e., not Christ) say about the nature of Christ, and the permutations of those decisions into modern day denominations? Do you examine the Gospels and try do decide for yourself based on reason and study? Or do you simply pray for the answers?

Reason, study (of both OT and NT, not just the gospels) and, of course, prayer. Prayer to ask of God. He is the author of truth. If anyone can enlighten a man's mind and give him wisdom and understanding about the things of God, it is God.

And, while God expects us to develop and exercise faith, he has also given us a mind with the ability to think and reason, and expects us to use it. This requires an open mind, not a closed one.

He certainly does not expect, or want, us to blindly follow anyone, but to think, reason, study, search, and act for ourselves, and depend on him to assist us in our efforts to come to a knowledge of truth.

[sLiPpY]

John wrote: sLiPpY wrote: John wrote: Quote: Isaiah 43:10-11 Says that although the Lord has witnesses, and chooses servants...which is what "Son of Man" literally means "Servant of God." The passage clearly says that before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I am, and beside me there is NO SAVIOR!"


Ah Isaiah 43....what an awesome chapter....

8 Bring out the people who are blind, even though they have eyes,
And the deaf, even though they have ears.
9 All the nations have gathered together
So that the peoples may be assembled
Who among them can declare this
And proclaim to us the former things?
Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified,
Or let them hear and say, "It is true."
10 "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me. 11"I, even I, am the LORD,
And there is no savior besides Me.
12"It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,
And there was no strange god among you;
So you are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And I am God.
13 "Even from eternity I am He,
And there is none who can deliver out of My hand;
I act and who can reverse it?"


Hmmm.....what did Jesus say again??


John 8
23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.

24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

25 So they were saying to Him, "Who are You?" Jesus said to them, "What have I been saying to you from the beginning?

26 "I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."

27 They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.

28 So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.


Unless you believe that Jesus Christ is the very God Almighty that spoke to Abraham and told us in Isaiah 43 that there is no savior besides Him...you will die in your sins.

It that plain enough for you?

Highlighted above, is the reasoning for the eviction of Christians from the Synogogues in the 1st Century. And your choice of the Book of John, seems to lend credibility to my point that there can be no high Christology in it's absence.

The Book of John also defines the term anti-Christ as follows: 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

John thinks he is living in "the last times." He "knows" this because he sees so many antichrists around. 2:18

I wonder if John is referring to the Jewish leadership, who chose to evict the Christians? By the time the Gospel was written, the happening was indeed in-mass.

A "Chosen Servant" is the same thing as saying "Son of Man" :wink:

Son of man literally means "son of man" or son of Adam (Ben Adam).

Jesus was the Chosen Servant...He was God incarnate who came to redeem the world as a servant.

The text from Isaiah 43 is from the perspective of the Father....let's look at an example from the perspective of the Son.



Isaiah 48
12 "Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
13 "Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
14 "Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15 "I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,
I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
16 "Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit."

17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel,
"I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit,
Who leads you in the way you should go.

Yes, the Hebrew rendering "ben adam" applied to mankind in general, as opposed to a non-human relationship.

"bene Elohim" expresses a difference from God. The term occurs in the blessing of Balaam: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19

bene Elohim, also designates the slanderers and evil-doers in contrast to the righteous. It is most frequently used as a synonym for "mankind."

As to Ezekiel, the term occurs in Yhwh's communication about ninety times. The term "ben adam" is a cumbersome substitute for the personal pronoun, such substitution being due possibily to the influence of Assyro-Babylonian usage.

In the Gospels the title occurs eighty-one times. Most recent scholars, have come to the conclusion that Jesus, speaking Aramaic could never have designated himself as the "son of man." Because the Aramaic term never implied a Messianic meaning. Greek translators coined the phrase, which then led, to the theological construction of the title which is basic to the Christology of the Church. In the mouth of Jesus, it seems the equivalent for the personal pronoun "I."

Earlier I made a reference to "Son of Man" meaning "Servant of God", that information turned out to be erroneous, and a Conservative theologians interpretation. Apparently, the individual didn't bother to look further into the eptimology of the term. :-D

[Saf]

John wrote: I don't base much of anything on what they decided. I read, study the scriptures & pray myself. From my own study and prayer I believe that Christ did in fact teach that He is God.

Why do you question my decision?
That's fine if that's your decision based on study and prayer - I thought you were saying that you had blindly accepted what the churches teach. I haven't done enough research to really formulate an answer for myself, but I would lean at this point more toward Christ as prophet in the likes of Moses and Abraham. He could be the saviour without being God. I can't rightly call myself a Christian at this point but I absolutely believe in matters of religion that "the establishment" is crap. It could theoretically be correct, but people need to come to their own conclusions between themselves and God. The churches try to intervene in faith rather than fostering it (not all of them but you get my meaning).

[sLiPpY]

Saf wrote: John wrote: I don't base much of anything on what they decided. I read, study the scriptures & pray myself. From my own study and prayer I believe that Christ did in fact teach that He is God.

Why do you question my decision?
That's fine if that's your decision based on study and prayer - I thought you were saying that you had blindly accepted what the churches teach. I haven't done enough research to really formulate an answer for myself, but I would lean at this point more toward Christ as prophet in the likes of Moses and Abraham. He could be the saviour without being God. I can't rightly call myself a Christian at this point but I absolutely believe in matters of religion that "the establishment" is crap. It could theoretically be correct, but people need to come to their own conclusions between themselves and God. The churches try to intervene in faith rather than fostering it (not all of them but you get my meaning).

One minor point. The term Christian is not exclusive to those who believe that Jesus is God. Even today, there are millions who study the words of the Christ prophet and refer to themselves as Christ followers...

[Saf]

I didn't mean to imply that, Slippy - there are definately unitarian Christians out there. I've noticed that most of the biblical evidence for Christ's godhood seems to come from the book of John, which is interesting. John and his followers, being trained in Greek philosophy, would be eager to estalblish a Platonic dualism and use Christ as the bridge between the material and the intelligible. If I remember correctly, Matt and Luke make a point of tracing the lineage of David back to some important biblical figure, which seems silly if David isn't the father of Jesus...

[connermt]

Saf wrote: John wrote: Saf wrote: How do you handle Christology? Do you blindly accept what early church councils (i.e., not Christ) say about the nature of Christ, and the permutations of those decisions into modern day denominations? Do you examine the Gospels and try do decide for yourself based on reason and study? Or do you simply pray for the answers?

Examining the Gospels (the whole Bible actually) and praying will lead you to the same conclusion that the guys at the church councils came to about Jesus Christ. What do you think the councils used as evidence? Scripture and prayer.

Sure, and what do you think the sides that lost the debate used - scripture and prayer. Do you really base the entirety of your faith on the outcome of one debate around 1800 years ago? There were times when many different versions of Christianity were perfectly acceptable, but church politics (once again, not Christ) eradicated anyone who didn't accept the party line. Gnostic Christianity, Docetism and others aren't necessarily untrue, they just lost at politics.

Prayer & scripture would be all you need if everyone praying over the same subject came to the same conclusion. How often does that happen?

[sLiPpY]

Saf wrote: I didn't mean to imply that, Slippy - there are definately unitarian Christians out there. I've noticed that most of the biblical evidence for Christ's godhood seems to come from the book of John, which is interesting. John and his followers, being trained in Greek philosophy, would be eager to estalblish a Platonic dualism and use Christ as the bridge between the material and the intelligible. If I remember correctly, Matt and Luke make a point of tracing the lineage of David back to some important biblical figure, which seems silly if David isn't the father of Jesus...

:-D Yes, Matthew and Luke do make a silly attempt to trace the Lineage back. The point of doing so, is that up until around 80 to 90 CE, the Christians were still in the Synagogue and Jesus had not yet risen to the level of "diety." Those writers were simply attempting to show Jesus as the fulfilment of the Davidic covenant, and sell it to their respective Jewish audiences.

[cap'n queasy]

sLiPpY wrote: I prefer reason and study. Looking at resources within and outside of the text, that give it historical context and provide clarity for language nuiances.

i.e. Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.

The example above is a clear indication that Jesus is saying, there is none good but God. The verse seems to imply Jesus's own acknowlegement that he is not God.

Why?
Y'shua didn't say He wasn't good. He merely stated that only God is good. After all didn't Y'shua call Himself the "Good" Shepherd? Maybe it is not as clear as you suppose it is.


Check it out.
Quote: Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" 11 Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 "In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, 'YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE; 15 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES, HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.' 16 "But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

[cap'n queasy]

sLiPpY wrote: Saf wrote: I didn't mean to imply that, Slippy - there are definately unitarian Christians out there. I've noticed that most of the biblical evidence for Christ's godhood seems to come from the book of John, which is interesting. John and his followers, being trained in Greek philosophy, would be eager to estalblish a Platonic dualism and use Christ as the bridge between the material and the intelligible. If I remember correctly, Matt and Luke make a point of tracing the lineage of David back to some important biblical figure, which seems silly if David isn't the father of Jesus...

:-D Yes, Matthew and Luke do make a silly attempt to trace the Lineage back. The point of doing so, is that up until around 80 to 90 CE, the Christians were still in the Synagogue and Jesus had not yet risen to the level of "diety." Those writers were simply attempting to show Jesus as the fulfilment of the Davidic covenant, and sell it to their respective Jewish audiences.

The New Testament dates from that era and it is pretty clear that the writers of these books knew that Y'shua was YHWH in human form. They wrote it in the scriptures, themselves. They were the Hebrew leaders of Hebrew Christianity so to claim that that Hebrew followers of Christ at that time did not believe that Y'shua was the Moshiach, the incarnation of YHWH is a claim that is hard to believe that anyone would make

Furthermore when Paul rebukes the judaizers (Peter, James etc) for reverting to Rabbinism in the synagogue at Jerusalem did they back down or not? This was a good twenty years or so prior to the period you mention. This can be found in the book of Acts.

The thing you fail to understand is that what Y'shua taught is the culmination of the true tradition of Israel, prophesied from the very beginning (Genesis 3:15). He was the Moshiach. When He was rejected by Israel, as was clearly prophesied in the Tanakh, in the book of Daniel chapter 9 verse 26, and the Temple destroyed Judaism was left without recourse and became what it is today. A tattered remnant of a misconceived from of Judaistic and Babylonian pagan syncretism we know today as Pharisaical Rabbinism that was left without any way to propitiate their sins. So they allegorized everything to mean that they could be redeemed by the works of their own hands and rewrote their scriptures to show this and then bolstered it with the Talmud. A mere commentary which they hold to have mystical significance and which whose main purpose is to deny that they, in fact, did reject the very Moshiach that the prophets proclaimed would come and that Y'shua claimed to be (John 4:25). The very same Moshiach that came at the very time appointed by these very prophets and that these very same prophets said that Israel would reject.

The truth is that Judaism shattered itself on the same Rock that Moses hit with a stick thousands of years before. An eventuality that BTW was prophesied in the Scriptures. The same rock that the ship of the gentile world is about to crash into.

If you skip ahead to the Revelation you will find out how YHWH plans to resolve the issue of Israel's recalcitrance and the world's unrepentence.