Quote:
Originally Posted by
Shaolin Wookie
Interestingly enough, <the alleged divinity of Jesus> was not consensus.....not until centuries later...Many of the primary theologans of the era were not convinced of <Jesus' divinity>.... But even then, not all of the first generation "disciples" were convinced of the "divinity of Christ."
Sure they were. While there were numerous Christological disputes throughout the first two-thirds of the first millenium, none of the representative movements denied Jesus' divinity outright. This is a relatively recent notion. (Please offer a reference for the contrary position if you maintain it's the case.)
Quote:
The divinity of Christ was voted on at the Nicean councils.
No, it wasn't. The specific nature of Christ's divinity was debated at the council. The dispute was between the Arians and the ****ousians. The former believed in a divine hierarchy with Jesus immediately below the Father. The latter, who eventually won consensus, believed that Jesus and the Father were equivalent. Neither believed that Jesus was a man. (cf. First Council of Nicaea, Arianism).
Quote:
the only reason <the nature of Jesus' divinity> was put to vote was that Constantine was sick and tired of the Christians fighting
You don't think an entrenched theological dispute would ever be broached by the Christianity community unless an emperor intervenes? This doesn't seem like a very likely position, and certainly seems at odd with the fact that the Christianity community was already in the middle of heated debates on the point before Constantine ever came around.
Quote:
<The notion of Jesus' divinity>, in all likelihood, was the tradition of the Pauline line. If you read the book Acts, you will find that Paul and his followers were followed around and harrassed by students of the other disciples, who claimed that Paul was an outsider, a fanatic, and was teaching against what Jesus taught. There were theological squabbles in the first generation.
I've already pointed out that none of the representative groups denied the divinity of Jesus entirely. There was certainly contention surrounding Paul's teachings: it concerned the relation of Christianity to Judaism. Paul's group upheld the notion that Christianity was distinct; that Gentiles could become Christian and were not, by this virtue, Jewish (and hence not under Jewish law). The contrary position was initially upheld by Peter, although he was soon won over by Paul. He initially saw Christianity as a continuation of Judaism and he and others had complained about sharing eating and living space with Gentiles who were not following Mosaic law. Note that none of this has anything to do with whether or not Jesus is undertsood as divince. (cf. Acts 15)
Quote:
I firmly believe this is why internal inconsistency is actually a part of Christian tradition.
There's disputes in the Christian tradition because Christians argue about what they believe? Well, yes.
Quote:
There were two traditions of the times. One tradition held Jesus to be a spiritual guide, a kind of rabinnical deconstructionist, who suggested a new, higher interpretation of scripture. This was the side upheld by Christ's "Jewish" followers, led by his "half-brother" James.
This is wrong. There was a competing tradition of Christianity, typically associated in retrospect with the trend we have labelled Gnosticism, which saw James as Jesus' primary disciple. However (i) it wasn't contemporary with Paul's preaching, but is, rather, essentially a fifth century movement. And (ii) it did not deny Jesus' divinity. Like the Arians, the Gnostic Christians saw Jesus as the second figure in a divine hierarchy. Rather than seeing Jesus as more human, this school actually completely denied Jesus' humanity, maintaining that his body was only an appearance and that he was actually a purely spiritual being. (van den Broek and Hanegraff's (eds.) Gnosis and Hermeticism is a good introduction to these themes; see particularly van den Broek's chapter on Gnosticism and Hermeticism in Antiquity and Helderman's commentary on the The Gospel of Truth). You seem to be conflating this movement with the aforementioned movement first championed by Peter against the Gentiles. They're completely different -- the apocrypha concerning James are Hellenic (and, as I mentioned, four centuries later). Also, the allegorical method of interpretation predated Christianity in some Jewish circles and reached its height during the early Christian era in Alexandria, at the hands of orthodox Christians (cf. Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology, Introduction and Ch 1. Byzantine Theology after Chalcedon).
Quote:
The other side of the coin is Paul's. He taught that Jesus was god, in human form, and that you had to follow him or go to hell.
Again, you seem to be conflating the dispute in Acts 15 between Paul and Peter, which had nothing to do with Jesus' divinity, and the 5th century Gnostic dispute, which had nothing to do with Paul. Neither of the prevailing theologies in these disputes endorsed an exclusivist soteriology (re: "that you had to follow him or go to hell") which would not be upheld by any mainstream church for a millenium still. (Again, please offer a reference of the contrary position if you think otherwise.)
Quote:
And it is pretty well known that two of the gospels have been appended and revised...
Where do you get this notion from?
Quote:
But most scholars surmise they were written generations after the first (original disciples).
Most scholars surmise the New Testament was written within the first century (1).
Quote:
It is interesting to note that we're all basing our opinions of the bible on a version organized by an English king approx. 400 years ago...
No we're not. I'm certainly not, for example.
Quote:
It's why I delved into hte history and wound up debunking it.
I think you need to delve a bit deeper if this is something you're interested in understanding.