How could Christians prior to the Hellenization of Christianity have understood God? (Gospel, Mormonism)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm having a discussion on another forum (i.e. not City-Data) with a Catholic friend. I asked him to explain the difference between a "being" and a "person." Here was his answer:
The word "being" is from the Greek ousia and can also be translated into English as 'essence' or 'essential substance/nature' (i.e. some renderings of the Nicene Creed in English have, "consubstantial with the Father" rather than "of one Being with" but they really mean the same thing).
"Person" is from the Greek hypostasis and can also mean 'underlying substance' but the sense in which Nicene'rs use it (the Trinitarian formula "three hypostases in one ousia") is that 'ousia' is the general whilst 'hypostasis' is the particular. So, 'ousia' can be taken to mean the essential essence and nature of something, whereas 'hypostasis' can be taken to mean the individual relation of something to another. Likewise, the 'Trinity' means that there are three distinct relations within one single divine Being - or rather, "three actions".
Indeed, 'person' (hypostasis) was first used in the context of Greek drama to refer to the 'relations' between different roles played by the one actor in a play. It doesn't mean what the English language implies with regards 'personhood' (i.e. individual centres of consciousness disembodied from one another). So, there aren't three individuals or gods or properties who make up God for Trinitarian Christians like myself. Nor is it 'modalism' because the three modes of being, actions or relations are noninterchangeable and distinctive without introducing any division into the Godhead.
'Being' refers to what God is (one essence/substance/reality/isness), whereas 'person' refers to who God is (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in relation to both Himself and His creation. Thus, Nicene Christians say that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Really, its a 'dynamic' and 'relational' understanding of God's eternal and immutable being (which is One).
A complicated, mysterious and indeed "mystical" doctrine no doubt, but its what we believe.
According to this source, "The Hellenization of Christianity was a complex interaction between Hellenistic philosophy and early Christianity during the first four centuries of the Common Era."
This makes me wonder... Were the earliest Christians at a disadvantage because these concepts were not a part of their understanding of God? Did the Jewish converts to Christianity truly understand who God was and what the relationship between the Father and the Son was? Personally, I believe they had a much better understanding of these things than did their descendants four and five hundred years down the road.
I'm having a discussion on another forum (i.e. not City-Data) with a Catholic friend. I asked him to explain the difference between a "being" and a "person." Here was his answer:
The word "being" is from the Greek ousia and can also be translated into English as 'essence' or 'essential substance/nature' (i.e. some renderings of the Nicene Creed in English have, "consubstantial with the Father" rather than "of one Being with" but they really mean the same thing).
"Person" is from the Greek hypostasis and can also mean 'underlying substance' but the sense in which Nicene'rs use it (the Trinitarian formula "three hypostases in one ousia") is that 'ousia' is the general whilst 'hypostasis' is the particular. So, 'ousia' can be taken to mean the essential essence and nature of something, whereas 'hypostasis' can be taken to mean the individual relation of something to another. Likewise, the 'Trinity' means that there are three distinct relations within one single divine Being - or rather, "three actions".
Indeed, 'person' (hypostasis) was first used in the context of Greek drama to refer to the 'relations' between different roles played by the one actor in a play. It doesn't mean what the English language implies with regards 'personhood' (i.e. individual centres of consciousness disembodied from one another). So, there aren't three individuals or gods or properties who make up God for Trinitarian Christians like myself. Nor is it 'modalism' because the three modes of being, actions or relations are noninterchangeable and distinctive without introducing any division into the Godhead.
'Being' refers to what God is (one essence/substance/reality/isness), whereas 'person' refers to who God is (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in relation to both Himself and His creation. Thus, Nicene Christians say that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Really, its a 'dynamic' and 'relational' understanding of God's eternal and immutable being (which is One).
A complicated, mysterious and indeed "mystical" doctrine no doubt, but its what we believe.
According to this source, "The Hellenization of Christianity was a complex interaction between Hellenistic philosophy and early Christianity during the first four centuries of the Common Era."
This makes me wonder... Were the earliest Christians at a disadvantage because these concepts were not a part of their understanding of God? Did the Jewish converts to Christianity truly understand who God was and what the relationship between the Father and the Son was? Personally, I believe they had a much better understanding of these things than did their descendants four and five hundred years down the road.
The apostles taught that each of the persons of the Godhead has a will, they are all God, they have all the characteristics that would describe them as being a separate person.
But they also were strict monotheists. They taught that there is ONLY one God. Not multiple Gods.
So the solution is that yes--they are all God, but they are all of the same essence. They are not all part of the essence of God, but they all fully contain all of the essence of God. They are all fully God.
Maybe they did lack the way to describe it, I don't know. But I do know that Jesus claimed to be God, the apostles taught he IS God, etc.
The apostles taught that each of the persons of the Godhead has a will, they are all God, they have all the characteristics that would describe them as being a separate person.
But they also were strict monotheists. They taught that there is ONLY one God. Not multiple Gods.
So the solution is that yes--they are all God, but they are all of the same essence. They are not all part of the essence of God, but they all fully contain all of the essence of God. They are all fully God.
Maybe they did lack the way to describe it, I don't know. But I do know that Jesus claimed to be God, the apostles taught he IS God, etc.
Sounds to me like the Apostles had a pretty good understanding of God -- a much better one than the Greek philosophers had.
I'm having a discussion on another forum (i.e. not City-Data) with a Catholic friend. I asked him to explain the difference between a "being" and a "person." Here was his answer:
The word "being" is from the Greek ousia and can also be translated into English as 'essence' or 'essential substance/nature' (i.e. some renderings of the Nicene Creed in English have, "consubstantial with the Father" rather than "of one Being with" but they really mean the same thing).
"Person" is from the Greek hypostasis and can also mean 'underlying substance' but the sense in which Nicene'rs use it (the Trinitarian formula "three hypostases in one ousia") is that 'ousia' is the general whilst 'hypostasis' is the particular. So, 'ousia' can be taken to mean the essential essence and nature of something, whereas 'hypostasis' can be taken to mean the individual relation of something to another. Likewise, the 'Trinity' means that there are three distinct relations within one single divine Being - or rather, "three actions".
Indeed, 'person' (hypostasis) was first used in the context of Greek drama to refer to the 'relations' between different roles played by the one actor in a play. It doesn't mean what the English language implies with regards 'personhood' (i.e. individual centres of consciousness disembodied from one another). So, there aren't three individuals or gods or properties who make up God for Trinitarian Christians like myself. Nor is it 'modalism' because the three modes of being, actions or relations are noninterchangeable and distinctive without introducing any division into the Godhead.
'Being' refers to what God is (one essence/substance/reality/isness), whereas 'person' refers to who God is (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in relation to both Himself and His creation. Thus, Nicene Christians say that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Really, its a 'dynamic' and 'relational' understanding of God's eternal and immutable being (which is One).
A complicated, mysterious and indeed "mystical" doctrine no doubt, but its what we believe.
According to this source, "The Hellenization of Christianity was a complex interaction between Hellenistic philosophy and early Christianity during the first four centuries of the Common Era."
This makes me wonder... Were the earliest Christians at a disadvantage because these concepts were not a part of their understanding of God? Did the Jewish converts to Christianity truly understand who God was and what the relationship between the Father and the Son was? Personally, I believe they had a much better understanding of these things than did their descendants four and five hundred years down the road.
Until it was declared a heresy by the Jews in the second century AD, Judaism had a belief regarding 'Two powers in heaven' based on their own Hebrew Scriptures. Certain passages had a binitarian aspect which indicate two complimentary powers or two Yahweh's as it were. For this reason, the first century Jews who did accept Jesus as God had no problem doing so because of this two powers binitarian aspect in their own scriptures. And this did not violate their concept of monotheism. On the other hand, the Jews who rejected Jesus didn't like the idea of him being that second power in heaven and eventually declared the belief a heresy.
The late Jewish scholar Alan F. Segal wrote a book, appropriately titled Two Powers in Heaven in which he writes about it from the standpoint of being a heresy.
Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser has lectured on this two powers in heaven aspect to the Hebrew Scriptures. Here is one such lecture.
Beings posses life.
The term 'person' is a descriptor/classification.
You do not need Hellenization in order to be grateful to a Higher Power for one's existence.
Many are grateful to simply experience existence, others not so much.
I'm having a discussion on another forum (i.e. not City-Data) with a Catholic friend. I asked him to explain the difference between a "being" and a "person." Here was his answer:
The word "being" is from the Greek ousia and can also be translated into English as 'essence' or 'essential substance/nature' (i.e. some renderings of the Nicene Creed in English have, "consubstantial with the Father" rather than "of one Being with" but they really mean the same thing).
"Person" is from the Greek hypostasis and can also mean 'underlying substance' but the sense in which Nicene'rs use it (the Trinitarian formula "three hypostases in one ousia") is that 'ousia' is the general whilst 'hypostasis' is the particular. So, 'ousia' can be taken to mean the essential essence and nature of something, whereas 'hypostasis' can be taken to mean the individual relation of something to another. Likewise, the 'Trinity' means that there are three distinct relations within one single divine Being - or rather, "three actions".
Indeed, 'person' (hypostasis) was first used in the context of Greek drama to refer to the 'relations' between different roles played by the one actor in a play. It doesn't mean what the English language implies with regards 'personhood' (i.e. individual centres of consciousness disembodied from one another). So, there aren't three individuals or gods or properties who make up God for Trinitarian Christians like myself. Nor is it 'modalism' because the three modes of being, actions or relations are noninterchangeable and distinctive without introducing any division into the Godhead.
'Being' refers to what God is (one essence/substance/reality/isness), whereas 'person' refers to who God is (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in relation to both Himself and His creation. Thus, Nicene Christians say that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Really, its a 'dynamic' and 'relational' understanding of God's eternal and immutable being (which is One).
A complicated, mysterious and indeed "mystical" doctrine no doubt, but its what we believe.
According to this source, "The Hellenization of Christianity was a complex interaction between Hellenistic philosophy and early Christianity during the first four centuries of the Common Era."
This makes me wonder... Were the earliest Christians at a disadvantage because these concepts were not a part of their understanding of God? Did the Jewish converts to Christianity truly understand who God was and what the relationship between the Father and the Son was? Personally, I believe they had a much better understanding of these things than did their descendants four and five hundred years down the road.
Trinity is an ancient concept. I think Khemic (Osiris, Horus, Isis) religion was popular in Greek world at that time.
Trinity is an ancient concept. I think Khemic (Osiris, Horus, Isis) religion was popular in Greek world at that time.
I realize that, but I'm speaking specifically of the "Trinity doctrine" espoused by the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. I'm referring to the terminology that would have been utterly foreign to 1st-century Jewish converts to Christianity. The "Godhead" of the Bible is comprised of a divine Father, a divine Son and a divine Holy Spirit. The Hellenization of Christianity turned this simple concept into a complicated one. The same individual that I quoted in my OP also stated, "However, most Christians by the late second - fifth centuries were Gentile and predominantly Greek-speaking (indeed Jewish Christianity seems to have died out entirely by around the late fourth century CE). As such, they (we?) naturally had recourse to the developed language of philosophy (Platonism and Aristotelianism) to try and 'scientifically' (in the ancient sense) express this mysterious doctrine of the unicity of God." I can totally understand why Jewish Christianity would have died out. These were the original Christians, the Christians who personally listened to Jesus and His Apostles teach this gospel. It's clear to me that as Greek philosophy corrupted the true Christian concept of God, it was no longer palatable to the Judeo-Christian community.
Until it was declared a heresy by the Jews in the second century AD, Judaism had a belief regarding 'Two powers in heaven' based on their own Hebrew Scriptures. Certain passages had a binitarian aspect which indicate two complimentary powers or two Yahweh's as it were. For this reason, the first century Jews who did accept Jesus as God had no problem doing so because of this two powers binitarian aspect in their own scriptures. And this did not violate their concept of monotheism. On the other hand, the Jews who rejected Jesus didn't like the idea of him being that second power in heaven and eventually declared the belief a heresy.
Well, I can go along with the idea that "two powers in heaven" being monotheistic. In that regard, Mormonism has more in common with what the first-century Jewish converts to Christianity believed than what the fifth-century Christians believed.
Quote:
You might find them both to be very interesting.
Yes, I might. But two-and-a-half hours? I don't think so.
I'm having a discussion on another forum (i.e. not City-Data) with a Catholic friend. I asked him to explain the difference between a "being" and a "person." Here was his answer:
The word "being" is from the Greek ousia and can also be translated into English as 'essence' or 'essential substance/nature' (i.e. some renderings of the Nicene Creed in English have, "consubstantial with the Father" rather than "of one Being with" but they really mean the same thing).
"Person" is from the Greek hypostasis and can also mean 'underlying substance' but the sense in which Nicene'rs use it (the Trinitarian formula "three hypostases in one ousia") is that 'ousia' is the general whilst 'hypostasis' is the particular. So, 'ousia' can be taken to mean the essential essence and nature of something, whereas 'hypostasis' can be taken to mean the individual relation of something to another. Likewise, the 'Trinity' means that there are three distinct relations within one single divine Being - or rather, "three actions".
Indeed, 'person' (hypostasis) was first used in the context of Greek drama to refer to the 'relations' between different roles played by the one actor in a play. It doesn't mean what the English language implies with regards 'personhood' (i.e. individual centres of consciousness disembodied from one another). So, there aren't three individuals or gods or properties who make up God for Trinitarian Christians like myself. Nor is it 'modalism' because the three modes of being, actions or relations are noninterchangeable and distinctive without introducing any division into the Godhead.
'Being' refers to what God is (one essence/substance/reality/isness), whereas 'person' refers to who God is (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in relation to both Himself and His creation. Thus, Nicene Christians say that there is One God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Really, its a 'dynamic' and 'relational' understanding of God's eternal and immutable being (which is One).
A complicated, mysterious and indeed "mystical" doctrine no doubt, but its what we believe.
According to this source, "The Hellenization of Christianity was a complex interaction between Hellenistic philosophy and early Christianity during the first four centuries of the Common Era."
This makes me wonder... Were the earliest Christians at a disadvantage because these concepts were not a part of their understanding of God? Did the Jewish converts to Christianity truly understand who God was and what the relationship between the Father and the Son was? Personally, I believe they had a much better understanding of these things than did their descendants four and five hundred years down the road.
Among others the Apostolic Father Ignatius of Antioch dove pretty deep into this topic - and like from the very beginning (he died 117AD). It's true that 'doctrines' weren't 'formalized' till hundreds of years later, but their understandings are not at all ambiguous as we can witness their mind by their writings (which are all openly available on the web- free; I think meerkat posted some links sometime back).
I don't have time at this moment to 'pull quotes', but may at some time later.
One quick thought that's always resonated with me, is that we, man, are created as Mind + Body + Spirit, each unique but each making 'us', and there is just one 'us' - so that we are created in His image - "Let us create him in Our Image" - 'Our Image' being the Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit; each unique but also just One.
There's more, but I'm out of time...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
