Podcasts about chalcedonian

This is part 2 of our response series on The Incarnate Christ and His Critics. Most of us understand of what deity means. Generally we think to be God is to be eternal, uncaused, and indestructible. This gets at the word aseity, which is a fancy philosophical term for a being that doesn’t depend on anyone or anything else for existence. To be a se (from the Latin a = from, and se = self) is to be uncaused and non-contingent. This cuts to the very essence of what it means to be God in the proper sense of the word. So, if Jesus is God in the same way in which the Father is God, then Jesus, too, must have aseity. Right? We’ll see about that in today’s episode. But, here’s the thing. It’s actually even harder than establishing Jesus’s aseity. To claim Christ’s deity, entails claiming he has all the other divine attributes as well. Deity-of-Christ apologists like Bowman and Komoszewski know that this is a problem. In fact, in part two of their book, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics, they outline seven conflicting attributes between Jesus’s alleged divine and human natures. They say he is both eternal and born, immutable and able to grow, impeccable and tempted, omnipresent and able to walk, omniscient and not knowing something, omnipotent and capable of sleep, and lastly, immortal and mortal–all at the same time. Although they revel in such “paradoxes,” this list presents grave difficulties for the classic dual natures view from Chalcedon that we covered last week. In this episode we’ll consider several of these contradictions as part of our second episode on whether or not Jesus had the divine attributes.   Listen on Spotify   Listen on Apple Podcasts —— Links —— Check out Andrew Perriman’s book, In the Form of a God for an in-depth explanation of Philippians 2.6-10 Read Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John by Dustin Smith for an excellent exploration of the prologue of John Also on John 1, watch What John 1 Meant by Dale Tuggy on YouTube Check out episode 503: The Dual Natures Controversy of the Fifth Century to learn more about the politics behind the development of the Chalcedonian definition of the dual natures of Christ Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on X @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Get Finnegan’s book, Kingdom Journey to learn about God’s kingdom coming on earth as well as the story of how Christianity lost this pearl of great price. Get the transcript of this episode Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library.

John and Ron take the next step in their series on the creeds by looking at the Chalcedonian definition. Nicaea definitively answered some questions, but it left others wide open. How do the human and divine natures combine in Jesus Christ? How do Christians talk about that? That's where Chalcedon picks [...] The post The Creeds, pt 4: Chalcedon appeared first on Orthodocs.faith.

John of Ephesus, a 6th-century Syriac Orthodox bishop, is highlighted as a crucial historian providing a Miaphysite perspective on a turbulent era in the Byzantine Empire. His surviving "Ecclesiastical History" offers eyewitness accounts of religious persecution and wars, contrasting with Chalcedonian viewpoints. Furthermore, his "Lives of the Eastern Saints" illuminates the practices of Miaphysite communities. As a primary source and a voice for a marginalized religious group, John's writings offer invaluable insights into Byzantine society, religious controversies, and the interplay between Syriac and Greek cultures. His works are essential for understanding Late Antiquity and the diversity of early Byzantine Christianity. for more online courses : www.twinsbiblicalacademy.com  

In this podcast of season 9 we will dig deep in the life and influential career of Philoxenus of Mabbug, a prominent Miaphysite bishop, theologian, and writer within the 5th and 6th-century Syriac Christian tradition. The source outlines his theological contributions, particularly his staunch defense of Cyrillian Christology against Chalcedonian and Nestorian views. It highlights his role in the Christological debates of the era, his significant literary output including the Philoxenian New Testament, and his lasting legacy within the Oriental Orthodox churches, where he is revered as a key figure in shaping their doctrine and spirituality. Ultimately, the text paints a portrait of a dedicated and impactful church leader during a period of significant theological division. www.twinsbiblicalacademy.com

Join the conversation as Matt and John talk about the starting rumblings of college basketball, Chalcedon, and Rudy Gobert.   0:00- intro 2:54- sports 17:05- Chalcedonian creed 38:26- sports 45:46- one thing   https://tournament.fantasysports.yahoo.com/mens-basketball-bracket/group/16282/invitation?key=79c850a462b0f254

This week Dr. Jenkins looks at three defenders of Chalcedon and touches on a fourth, and treats their varied approaches to the question, each of which aims to show that Cyril of Alexandria was a Chalcedonian.

What separates the Orthodox Church and the various Non-Chalcedonian churches? Is it merely semantics and misunderstandings, as some today proclaim? The Holy Monastery of Gregoriou on Mount Athos, in this 1994 treatise, gives a detailed examination of the issues and offers much for anyone interested in the truth of Christ, His Church, and the Non-Chalcedonian heresy.

This episode Dr. Jenkins begins looking at the variegated and often troubled relationship between the Church and the empire, and how this relationship played a key role in the shape the history of the Chalcedonian and monophysite controversy.

Jordan Wood, in this lecture discusses the personhood of Christ, the role or meaning of such terms as natural, Logos, and hypostatic union, and he critiques the work of David Bentley Hart in failing to grasp the implications of the neo-Chalcedonian understanding. Become a Patron! If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work.

Popularly considered the last of the church fathers, John of Damascus gathered up the fruit of early church reflection on the Trinity and the person of Christ in his learned tome, The Orthodox Faith. But in addition to the usual wrangling with the Greek philosophical heritage and the monotheistic challenge of Judaism, John had a new adversary to consider: the even more radically monotheistic Islam. In this episode, Dad and I sort through John's record of Chalcedonian orthodoxy from the 8th century, his "double-mindedness," and what pressures led to the enormous internal doctrinal tensions that he passed on to the generations to follow. Such that, in this episode, Sarah admits defeat. Notes: 1. Can't get enough of Trinity and christology, especially with respect to Greek metaphysics? Then by all means rush right out and get yourself a copy of Dad's Divine Complexity and also Divine Simplicity 2. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith (and generally speaking checking out the great selection in the Popular Patristics series) 3. Related episodes: Atonement, Image of God, Melanchthon's Loci Communes, Oh, Anselm!!!, Gregory of Nazianzus, Irenaeus, Athanasius Holy moly! Six years of top-quality theological podcasting! Why not show your support by becoming a Patron?

The Council of Chalcedon (451) gave us the famous christological formula that Jesus Christ is one person in two natures, without change, division, separation, or confusion. It also gave us a lot of conundrums, enough to cause the first major split of the church between the Syriacs and the Greeks. Among others trying to sort out the perplexities of Chalcedon was Martin Luther himself, whose own christological formulations might just run afoul of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. So in today's episode we entertain the question: was Martin Luther a Chalcedonian heretic? Or should we possibly say, was Chalcedon a Lutheran heretic? Notes: 1. Zachhuber, Luther's Christological Legacy 2. Cross, Communicatio Idiomatum 3. McCormack, The Humility of the Eternal Son Holy moly! Six years of top-quality theological podcasting! Why not show your support by becoming a Patron?

Delegates from throughout the ecumenical (universal or "catholic") church met in Chalcedon in 451 AD to address the emergence of certain heresies surrounding the person and nature of Christ. Some were teaching that Jesus merely took on the material aspects of a human body (Apollinarianism). Others so distinguished Jesus' humanity and divinity that they conceived of each as involving a distinct person (Nestorianism). Finally, some so emphasized Christ's unity that they spoke of his divinity blending with his humanity to form a new mixed nature (Eutychianism or Monophysitism). The Council of Chalcedon thus responded to these errors, producing a confession of orthodoxy known as The Chalcedonian Definition (or the Symbol of Chalcedon). It affirmed that the incarnate Christ is one person with both a human and divine nature. But why does this statement matter, and are its distinctions all that important? What, if anything, can we learn from it today? Dr. Stephen Wellum joins Kirk in this episode to discuss the meaning and significance of this important historical document.

The Council of Chalcedon, as read by Maximus the Confessor, provides a solution to the issue of difference and unity, the problem of the one and the many, or the answer to how their can be unifying love in a universe seemingly built on dualism, difference, and multiplicity. Become a Patron! If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work.

I was watching the Super Bowl this past February, expecting to see the newest commercials from Doritos and Budweiser and Coca-Cola, when this unusual music began to play. On the screen were still shots of kids doing adorable things — helping each other, hugging, arm around the family dog. At the end the words came up, Jesus didn't want us to act like adults. . . . He gets us. It was a heart-warming riff on Jesus's teaching about being childlike. I liked it. This is the Super Bowl, with hundreds of millions of people watching, and a 30-second spot comes up commending Jesus. I love Jesus. I worship Jesus. Yeah, let's commend Jesus.Then another spot came up in the second half. Harsher music. Pictures of adults demonstrating manifest outrage and hatred, in each other's faces. Sometimes it's a physical altercation — and all from the last three years. Then the message: Jesus loved the people we hate. . . . He gets us. And my response was, Ouch and yes.The ads are from a non-profit looking to “put Jesus in the middle of culture.” They paid $20 million for the Super Bowl ads and plan to spend $3 billion in the coming years.So, I've seen more of these “He gets us” ads in recent months. Sometimes, I like them. Other times I cringe a little, concerned it will give a skewed impression about Jesus. Jesus was judged wrongly.Jesus had strained relationships, too.Jesus welcomes the weird.Jesus was fed up with politics, too.Jesus invited everyone to sit at his table.Jesus chose forgiveness. Then last week I took my twin sons to their first Minnesota Wild hockey game at the X, and now there's a hockey “He gets us” on the thin digital screens around the side of the arena: Jesus had great lettuce, too. Lettuce means hockey hair. I had to ask my boys for help on that. I don't want to be too picky, but I wonder if “great lettuce” might represent some mission drift for the “He gets us” campaign. Admittedly, it doesn't speak to me personally like it would if it said, “Jesus was losing his hair, too.”Our Pioneer and ChampionHebrews 2 is a “he gets us” passage. But it's also clear that he not only gets us, but he helps us. He rescues us. Saves us. Getting us is good; as we'll see, that can lead to real, genuine help for us in our need. But getting us, on its own, doesn't do a whole lot for us. Yes, he gets us. He really does. And this is a slice of what we celebrate in Advent. But there's no real joy in Advent if he only gets us and doesn't also help us, save us, change us, lift us up. In Advent, we celebrate that he became man, fully human like us, not just to be one of us but to save us.Verse 10 has a name for Jesus that I've come to love, and it's hard to find an equivalent word for it in English. The ESV has founder: God “make[s] the founder of [our] salvation perfect through suffering.” Founder is a good translation. But I want to fill out the meaning for us a little bit.The Greek word is archegos. It's built on the word archē, which means beginning. So archegos, we might say, is “the originator” or “the beginner.” The problem is we mean something else by “beginner” in English: “a person just starting to learn a skill or take part in an activity.” Jesus is not a “beginner” in that sense. Rather, he's a “beginner” in the sense that he's the leader who goes first and others follow him. Like a pioneer. But he doesn't just go first into uncharted territory, but into battle. So “champion” or “hero” could be a good translation of archegos as well.And he's a champion who we don't just watch from afar. We're connected to him and come with him. He doesn't just fight for us; he leads the charge; we follow in his wake.So, Jesus as our archegos, is both our hero and example. He is “the beginner” in that he births the people, and he leads into the battle, and he rescues us through faith in him, and then also he inspires us as our model who we follow. We benefit from what he does for us, and couldn't do for ourselves, and yet in his work for us, he opens up a path that we might follow in his steps.And Advent is where our “beginner” begins, so to speak. That is, Advent is the beginning of his humanity, and his getting us, and saving us, and helping us; but Advent is not the beginning of his person. So, let's walk with Hebrews chapter 2 through the Advent drama of our “beginner,” our “champion,” from the very beginning until now. There are four distinct stages here in the drama of Hebrews 2 — four movements in the story of Advent.1) Jesus did not start like us.That is, our champion, our “beginner,” did not begin like we did. His person was not created like ours. He is a divine person, the second person of the eternal Threeness. His humanity was created, conceived in Mary's womb and born in Bethlehem, but not his person.The book of Hebrews begins with glimpses of his godhood. Before any world, any creation existed, he existed and was “appointed the heir of all things.” Then through him God (the Father) made the world. “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” — he is distinct from the Father in his person and same as his Father in divine nature. “And,” verse 3 adds, “he upholds the universe by the word of his power” — as only God can do.So, the story of Advent begins before time, before creation, before “the beginning.” Jesus himself is God, and if you have eyes to see, it's all over the New Testament.Greg Lanier, in his recent book Is Jesus Truly God?, shows how the deity of Christ shines through, on just about every page in the New Testament, in five ways other than the simple declaration that he is God (theos) and other exalted terms:1. He is preexistent before Advent, and before creation.2. He is the unique “Son” of the heavenly Father, eternally begotten.3. He is called “Lord” which refers to God's Old Testament covenant name (Yahweh).4. He receives worship.5. He relates to the Father and Spirit in ways that reveal his person as one of the divine Threeness.So, let's get this clear before we move on to talk about his humanity and his getting us. In Jesus, a man did not become God. Rather, God became man. We say that Jesus is fully God and fully man in one person, but we do not mean that he became God and man at the same time. There is a profound asymmetry in the story of the God-man: he has been God for all eternity, and he became man at the first Christmas.2) Jesus was made like us.Now we come to his first Advent and the first Christmas, when God made God in the image of God. Without ceasing to be God, God the Son took on humanity. He added humanity to his divine person. Humanity, as a created nature, is “compatible” with the uncreated divine nature. Deity and humanity are not a zero-sum game. The divine Son did not have to jettison any eternal deity (as if that's even possible) to take on humanity. Uncreated deity and created humanity operate at different levels of reality, so to speak. Without ceasing, in any way, to be fully God, the Son took on our full created nature and became fully human. As verse 17 says, he was “made like his brothers in every respect.” Look at verses 11–14: For he who sanctifies [Jesus] and those who are sanctified [us] all have one source [one nature]. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying, “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.” 13 And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Behold, I and the children God has given me.” 14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things . . . We'll come back to finish verse 14. But let me just say about these Old Testament quotations in verses 13–14 that Pastor Jonathan explained them so well in the sermon on February 12 as pointing to Jesus's solidarity with us in our suffering. “Flesh and blood” in verse 14 refers to our humanity. We are flesh and blood, and so Jesus became one of us — to which Hebrews 4:15 adds, “without sin.” Sin is not an essential part of what it means to be human. Jesus was fully human, made like us in every respect, and “without sin.”So, then, what's included in this “every respect” of our humanity? What does it mean for Jesus to be fully human, like us?One of the biggest moments in the collective formation of early Christians in saying what the Scriptures teach about the humanity of Christ is a church council called Chalcedon in 451 AD. The Chalcedonian creed says Jesus is “perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body.” Jesus has a fully human body. He “became flesh,” which means at least a human body. He was born and grew and grew tired. He became thirsty and hungry. He suffered, and he died. And his human body was raised and glorified, and he sits right now, on heaven's throne, in a risen, glorified human body.But becoming fully human also involved taking “a rational soul,” or “the inner man,” including human emotions. He marveled. He expressed sorrow. He was “deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled” and wept (John 11:33–35). And he rejoiced and was happy. John Calvin memorably summed it up, “Christ has put on our feelings along with our flesh.”A “rational soul” also includes a human mind, in addition to his divine mind. So, Jesus “increased in wisdom” as well as in stature (Luke 2:52), and most strikingly, he says about the timing of his second coming, “Concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32). With respect to his humanity, and his human mind, there are things he does not know. His human knowledge is limited, like all human minds. Yet, at the same time, for this unique two-natured person of Christ, he also knows all things with respect to his divine mind. As one-natured humans, this is beyond our experience and ability to understand, but divine and human minds are compatible, and this is no contradiction for the unique person of Christ but a unique glory.So too with his human will, in addition to the divine will. Jesus says, “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me” (John 6:38). Jesus, speaking with respect to his human will, says that he came “not of [his] own will” but his Father's. And that divine will, while not proper to his humanity, is proper to his person as God. So, when he prays in Gethsemane, “Not as I will, as you will,” he aligns his human will with the divine will, which also is his as God.So, Jesus has a fully human body and emotions and mind and will. And verse 11 says, “That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers.” He is not ashamed to call you brother, or sister.Jesus could have been a brother in our nature, and yet ashamed to call us his brothers. But mark this, he is not the kind of brother. He is not ashamed of his siblings. He's not worried that our weaknesses and immaturities, or even our follies, will mar his reputation. He's not stuck with us and embarrassed by it.That's not how Jesus is with me, and with us. I want to be like Jesus is with me. I want to be like this as a dad, and be like this as a friend, and be like this as a pastor: not mainly concerned about how others' behavior reflects on me, but mainly concerned about my brother or sister in Christ, so that I can be loving, rather than self-focused, and especially in the very moment when love is needed most.3) Jesus suffered like us.That is, being fully human, he suffered both with us and for us.Suffering is an important aspect as his being fully human, and saving us in his full humanity. As God only, he could not suffer. God is “impassible,” unable to be afflicted or be moved from outside. But not humanity. So, Jesus becoming fully human involved not only a human body and reasoning human soul, and emotions, and mind, and will, but also he entered as man into our fallen world, which is under the curse of sin, and even though he himself was not a sinner, he was, as a creature, susceptible to the afflictions and assaults and sufferings and pains of our world. He entered into our suffering, and did so in two senses.One, he suffered with us. He knows what it's like to suffer in created flesh and blood. And verse 10 says that he was made “perfect through suffering.” This language of “perfect” or “complete” is important in Hebrews. Verse 10 doesn't mean that Jesus was imperfect, or sinful, but that he was made ready, or made complete, for his calling, as our champion and high priest, through his suffering. Having become man, he was not yet complete, not yet ready, but needed to be made ready, complete, perfected through suffering. Hebrews 5:8 says, Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him. Which leads, then, to a second sense in which he suffered: for us. Not only does he, as man, suffer with us, but he, as the God-man, suffers for us, in our place, in our stead. Which leads to the connection here between suffering and death. Verse 9 introduced “the suffering of death,” of Jesus suffering and dying for us, in our place: “by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone.” Jesus not only experienced suffering with us but for us. He not only gets us, but saves us, and that “through death.” Now look at the rest of verse 14 and verse 15, and two achievements of Jesus for us through his human “suffering of death” at the cross. Pick it up in the middle of verse 14: Jesus shared in our humanity, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. The first achievement through his human death is that he defeated Satan. His suffering unto death conquers the one who had the power of death. We should not forget this as a Christmas theme: “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8) How? “he appeared in order to take away sins.” (1 John 3:5) They go together. Jesus destroys the devil by taking away sins. The weapon Satan had against us was unforgiven sin, “the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.” But through the suffering of death, Jesus “set [this] aside, nailing it to the cross” and in so doing, God “disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in [Jesus]” (Colossians 2:14–15).So, the first achievement is destroying Satan, and second in Hebrews 2:15 is delivering us. How? We might expect what follows in verse 17, but not expect verse 18.Verse 17 gives us one reason that he had to be made like us in every respect: so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. We had sinned and needed covering before the holy God. We had a “record of debt that stood against us” because we were humans with sin. So, to rescue us, God needed not only to become fully man, and suffer with us, but suffer for us, unto death, that his death might be for us, his brothers, the death we deserved for our sins. That's what it means when the high priest “makes propitiation for the sins of the people.” The people's sin against the holy and infinitely worthy God deserves his righteous, omnipotent wrath. And in becoming human, and suffering with us, and unto death, for us, Jesus absorbs the just penalty due us that we might be delivered from hell and the justice due our sin.And verse 18 gives us one more reason, embedded in the first, for why Jesus was made like us, in every respect, including suffering, and suffering unto death in our place.4) Jesus helps us right now.Verse 17 is amazing in that he deals with our sin, and gets us right with God, and verse 18 is amazing in that he's ready and eager to help us right now. He both makes atonement for us in his death, and he rises again, and sends his Spirit, that he might help us in our struggles right now. Look at verse 18: For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. Because Jesus suffered, he can help us in our suffering. That is, because he suffered unto death to atone for our sins, he is able to indwell us by his Spirit, draw near to us in our time of need, and help us in whatever tests and challenges and trials and temptations we face in the ongoing struggle of the Christian life.Jesus not only saves us out of sin's curse, but also through sin's temptations. He atones for our sins, and stands ready to come to our aid in temptation and in our own suffering. Having saved us from sin's guilt, he is poised to save us from sin's power.So, as Hebrews 12:2 says, Jesus is not only the founder, the archegos, the beginner, the champion of our faith, but also the finisher.He's not only the beginner but finisher. Our champion not only leads the way and goes ahead of us to face the foe, but he also doubles back to check on us, to help us, to keep us.So, let's close with this question: What help do you need this Advent? How are you suffering? What's your present trial, or trials? What's testing your faith most right now? What's tempting you to sin or give up? What's your biggest need this Advent?In Advent, we don't just remember what he did in the past; we remember who he is in the present. Christmas is not only a was; it's an is. Get his help. He not only gets us; he helps us.What Child Is This?So, as we come to the Table here in Advent, let's ask for his help afresh. What need do you bring to the Table this morning? How do you need his help to persevere?The one who meets us here at the Table is fully divine, the second person of the eternal Godhead, who in his happy, expansive, overflowing, gracious nature, took our full humanity to come rescue us. And he suffered with us, and for us unto death. He destroyed Satan, and he delivers from our sins. And he rose from the dead, and ascended, and he is now enthroned in heaven, and he stands ready, by his Spirit, to help us in the fight of faith.

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts Let's face it the New Testament probably calls Jesus God (or god) a couple of times and so do early Christian authors in the second century. However, no one offers much of an explanation for what they mean by the title. Did early Christians think Jesus was God because he represented Yahweh? Did they think he was God because he shared the same eternal being as the Father? Did they think he was a god because that's just what they would call any immortalized human who lived in heaven? In this presentation I focus on the question from the perspective of Greco-Roman theology. Drawing on the work of David Litwa, Andrew Perriman, Barry Blackburn, and tons of ancient sources I seek to show how Mediterranean converts to Christianity would have perceived Jesus based on their cultural and religious assumptions. This presentation is from the 3rd Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference on October 20, 2023 in Springfield, OH. Here is the original pdf of this paper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Z3QbQ7dHc —— Links —— See more scholarly articles by Sean Finnegan Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Introduction When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” (or “God”) what did they mean?[1] Modern apologists routinely point to pre-Nicene quotations in order to prove that early Christians always believed in the deity of Christ, by which they mean that he is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. However, most historians agree that Christians before the fourth century simply didn't have the cognitive categories available yet to think of Christ in Nicene or Chalcedonian ways. If this consensus is correct, it behooves us to consider other options for defining what early Christian authors meant. The obvious place to go to get an answer to our initial question is the New Testament. However, as is well known, the handful of instances in which authors unambiguously applied god (θεός) to Christ are fraught with textual uncertainty, grammatical ambiguity, and hermeneutical elasticity.[2]  What's more, granting that these contested texts[3] all call Jesus “god” provides little insight into what they might mean by that phrase. Turning to the second century, the earliest handful of texts that say Jesus is god are likewise textually uncertain or terse.[4] We must wait until the second half of the second century and beyond to have more helpful material to examine. We know that in the meanwhile some Christians were saying Jesus was god. What did they mean? One promising approach is to analyze biblical texts that call others gods. We find helpful parallels with the word god (אֱלֹהִים) applied to Moses (Exod 7.1; 4.16), judges (Exod 21.6; 22.8-9), kings (Is 9.6; Ps 45.6), the divine council (Ps 82.1, 6), and angels (Ps 8.6). These are texts in which God imbues his agents with his authority to represent him in some way. This rare though significant way of calling a representative “god,” continues in the NT with Jesus' clever defense to his accusers in John 10.34-36. Lexicons[5] have long recognized this “Hebraistic” usage and recent study tools such as the New English Translation (NET)[6] and the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary[7] also note this phenomenon. But, even if this agency perspective is the most natural reading of texts like Heb 1.8, later Christians, apart from one or two exceptions appear to be ignorant of this usage.[8] This interpretation was likely a casualty of the so-called parting of the ways whereby Christianity transitioned from a second-temple-Jewish movement to a Gentile-majority religion. As such, to grasp what early postapostolic Christians believed, we must turn our attention elsewhere. Michael Bird is right when he says, “Christian discourses about deity belong incontrovertibly in the Greco-Roman context because it provided the cultural encyclopedia that, in diverse ways, shaped the early church's Christological conceptuality and vocabulary.”[9] Learning Greco-Roman theology is not only important because that was the context in which early Christians wrote, but also because from the late first century onward, most of our Christian authors converted from that worldview. Rather than talking about the Hellenization of Christianity, we should begin by asking how Hellenists experienced Christianization. In other words, Greco-Roman beliefs about the gods were the default lens through which converts first saw Christ. In order to explore how Greco-Roman theology shaped what people believed about Jesus as god, we do well to begin by asking how they defined a god. Andrew Perriman offers a helpful starting point. “The gods,” he writes, “are mostly understood as corporeal beings, blessed with immortality, larger, more beautiful, and more powerful than their mortal analogues.”[10] Furthermore, there were lots of them! The sublunar realm was, in the words of Paula Fredriksen, “a god-congested place.”[11] What's more, “[S]harp lines and clearly demarcated boundaries between divinity and humanity were lacking."[12] Gods could appear as people and people could ascend to become gods. Comprehending what Greco-Roman people believed about gods coming down and humans going up will occupy the first part of this paper. Only once we've adjusted our thinking to their culture, will we walk through key moments in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to hear the story with ancient Mediterranean ears. Lastly, we'll consider the evidence from sources that think of Jesus in Greco-Roman categories. Bringing this all together we'll enumerate the primary ways to interpret the phrase “Jesus is god” available to Christians in the pre-Nicene period. Gods Coming Down and Humans Going Up The idea that a god would visit someone is not as unusual as it first sounds. We find plenty of examples of Yahweh himself or non-human representatives visiting people in the Hebrew Bible.[13] One psalmist even referred to angels or “heavenly beings” (ESV) as אֱלֹהִים (gods).[14] The Greco-Roman world too told stories about divine entities coming down to interact with people. Euripides tells about the time Zeus forced the god Apollo to become a human servant in the house of Admetus, performing menial labor as punishment for killing the Cyclopes (Alcestis 1). Baucis and Philemon offered hospitality to Jupiter and Mercury when they appeared in human form (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.26-34). In Homer's Odyssey onlookers warn Antinous for flinging a stool against a stranger since “the gods do take on the look of strangers dropping in from abroad”[15] (17.534-9). Because they believed the boundary between the divine realm and the Earth was so permeable, Mediterranean people were always on guard for an encounter with a god in disguise. In addition to gods coming down, in special circumstances, humans could ascend and become gods too. Diodorus of Sicily demarcated two types of gods: those who are “eternal and imperishable, such as the sun and the moon” and “the other gods…terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honour”[16] (The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian 6.1). By some accounts, even the Olympian gods, including Kronos and Uranus were once mortal men.[17] Among humans who could become divine, we find several distinguishable categories, including heroes, miracle workers, and rulers. We'll look at each briefly before considering how the story of Jesus would resonate with those holding a Greco-Roman worldview. Deified Heroes Cornutus the Stoic said, “[T]he ancients called heroes those who were so strong in body and soul that they seemed to be part of a divine race.” (Greek Theology 31)[18] At first this statement appears to be a mere simile, but he goes on to say of Heracles (Hercules), the Greek hero par excellence, “his services had earned him apotheosis” (ibid.). Apotheosis (or deification) is the process by which a human ascends into the divine realm. Beyond Heracles and his feats of strength, other exceptional individuals became deified for various reasons. Amphiarus was a seer who died in the battle at Thebes. After opening a chasm in the earth to swallow him in battle, “Zeus made him immortal”[19] (Apollodorus, Library of Greek Mythology 3.6). Pausanias says the custom of the inhabitants of Oropos was to drop coins into Amphiarus' spring “because this is where they say Amphiarus rose up as a god”[20] (Guide to Greece 1.34). Likewise, Strabo speaks about a shrine for Calchas, a deceased diviner from the Trojan war (Homer, Illiad 1.79-84), “where those consulting the oracle sacrifice a black ram to the dead and sleep in its hide”[21] (Strabo, Geography 6.3.9). Though the great majority of the dead were locked away in the lower world of Hades, leading a shadowy pitiful existence, the exceptional few could visit or speak from beyond the grave. Lastly, there was Zoroaster the Persian prophet who, according to Dio Chrysostom, was enveloped by fire while he meditated upon a mountain. He was unharmed and gave advice on how to properly make offerings to the gods (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 36.40). The Psuedo-Clementine Homilies include a story about a lightning bolt striking and killing Zoroaster. After his devotees buried his body, they built a temple on the site, thinking that “his soul had been sent for by lightning” and they “worshipped him as a god”[22] (Homily 9.5.2). Thus, a hero could have extraordinary strength, foresight, or closeness to the gods resulting in apotheosis and ongoing worship and communication. Deified Miracle Workers Beyond heroes, Greco-Roman people loved to tell stories about deified miracle workers. Twice Orpheus rescued a ship from a storm by praying to the gods (Diodorus of Sicily 4.43.1f; 48.5f). After his death, surviving inscriptions indicate that he both received worship and was regarded as a god in several cities.[23] Epimenides “fell asleep in a cave for fifty-seven years”[24] (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.109). He also predicted a ten-year period of reprieve from Persian attack in Athens (Plato Laws 1.642D-E). Plato called him a divine man (θεῖος ἀνήρ) (ibid.) and Diogenes talked of Cretans sacrificing to him as a god (Diogenes, Lives 1.114). Iamblichus said Pythagoras was the son of Apollo and a mortal woman (Life of Pythagoras 2). Nonetheless, the soul of Pythagoras enjoyed multiple lives, having originally been “sent to mankind from the empire of Apollo”[25] (Life 2). Diogenes and Lucian enumerate the lives the pre-existent Pythagoras led, including Aethalides, Euphorbus, Hermotimus, and Pyrrhus (Diogenes, Life of Pythagoras 4; Lucian, The Cock 16-20). Hermes had granted Pythagoras the gift of “perpetual transmigration of his soul”[26] so he could remember his lives while living or dead (Diogenes, Life 4). Ancient sources are replete with Pythagorean miracle stories.[27] Porphyry mentions several, including taming a bear, persuading an ox to stop eating beans, and accurately predicting a catch of fish (Life of Pythagoras 23-25). Porphyry said Pythagoras accurately predicted earthquakes and “chased away a pestilence, suppressed violent winds and hail, [and] calmed storms on rivers and on seas” (Life 29).[28] Such miracles, argued the Pythagoreans made Pythagoras “a being superior to man, and not to a mere man” (Iamblichus, Life 28).[29] Iamblichus lays out the views of Pythagoras' followers, including that he was a god, a philanthropic daemon, the Pythian, the Hyperborean Apollo, a Paeon, a daemon inhabiting the moon, or an Olympian god (Life 6). Another pre-Socratic philosopher was Empedocles who studied under Pythagoras. To him sources attribute several miracles, including stopping a damaging wind, restoring the wind, bringing dry weather, causing it to rain, and even bringing someone back from Hades (Diogenes, Lives 8.59).[30] Diogenes records an incident in which Empedocles put a woman into a trance for thirty days before sending her away alive (8.61). He also includes a poem in which Empedocles says, “I am a deathless god, no longer mortal, I go among you honored by all, as is right”[31] (8.62). Asclepius was a son of the god Apollo and a human woman (Cornutus, Greek Theology 33). He was known for healing people from diseases and injuries (Pindar, Pythian 3.47-50). “[H]e invented any medicine he wished for the sick, and raised up the dead”[32] (Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2.26.4). However, as Diodorus relates, Hades complained to Zeus on account of Asclepius' diminishing his realm, which resulted in Zeus zapping Asclepius with a thunderbolt, killing him (4.71.2-3). Nevertheless, Asclepius later ascended into heaven to become a god (Hyginus, Fables 224; Cicero, Nature of the Gods 2.62).[33] Apollonius of Tyana was a famous first century miracle worker. According to Philostratus' account, the locals of Tyana regard Apollonius to be the son of Zeus (Life 1.6). Apollonius predicted many events, interpreted dreams, and knew private facts about people. He rebuked and ridiculed a demon, causing it to flee, shrieking as it went (Life 2.4).[34] He even once stopped a funeral procession and raised the deceased to life (Life 4.45). What's more he knew every human language (Life 1.19) and could understand what sparrows chirped to each other (Life 4.3). Once he instantaneously transported himself from Smyrna to Ephesus (Life 4.10). He claimed knowledge of his previous incarnation as the captain of an Egyptian ship (Life 3.23) and, in the end, Apollonius entered the temple of Athena and vanished, ascending from earth into heaven to the sound of a choir singing (Life 8.30). We have plenty of literary evidence that contemporaries and those who lived later regarded him as a divine man (Letters 48.3)[35] or godlike (ἰσόθεος) (Letters 44.1) or even just a god (θεός) (Life 5.24). Deified Rulers Our last category of deified humans to consider before seeing how this all relates to Jesus is rulers. Egyptians, as indicated from the hieroglyphs left in the pyramids, believed their deceased kings to enjoy afterlives as gods. They could become star gods or even hunt and consume other gods to absorb their powers.[36] The famous Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great, carried himself as a god towards the Persians though Plutarch opines, “[he] was not at all vain or deluded but rather used belief in his divinity to enslave others”[37] (Life of Alexander 28). This worship continued after his death, especially in Alexandria where Ptolemy built a tomb and established a priesthood to conduct religious honors to the deified ruler. Even the emperor Trajan offered a sacrifice to the spirit of Alexander (Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.30). Another interesting example is Antiochus I of Comagene who called himself “Antiochus the just [and] manifest god, friend of the Romans [and] friend of the Greeks.”[38] His tomb boasted four colossal figures seated on thrones: Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, and himself. The message was clear: Antiochus I wanted his subjects to recognize his place among the gods after death. Of course, the most relevant rulers for the Christian era were the Roman emperors. The first official Roman emperor Augustus deified his predecessor, Julius Caesar, celebrating his apotheosis with games (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 88). Only five years after Augustus died, eastern inhabitants of the Roman Empire at Priene happily declared “the birthday of the god Augustus” (ἡ γενέθλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ)[39] to be the start of their provincial year. By the time of Tacitus, a century after Augustus died, the wealthy in Rome had statues of the first emperor in their gardens for worship (Annals 1.73). The Roman historian Appian explained that the Romans regularly deify emperors at death “provided he has not been a despot or a disgrace”[40] (The Civil Wars 2.148).  In other words, deification was the default setting for deceased emperors. Pliny the Younger lays it on pretty thick when he describes the process. He says Nero deified Claudius to expose him; Titus deified Vespasian and Domitian so he could be the son and brother of gods. However, Trajan deified Nerva because he genuinely believed him to be more than a human (Panegyric 11). In our little survey, we've seen three main categories of deified humans: heroes, miracle workers, and good rulers. These “conceptions of deity,” writes David Litwa, “were part of the “preunderstanding” of Hellenistic culture.”[41] He continues: If actual cases of deification were rare, traditions of deification were not. They were the stuff of heroic epic, lyric song, ancient mythology, cultic hymns, Hellenistic novels, and popular plays all over the first-century Mediterranean world. Such discourses were part of mainstream, urban culture to which most early Christians belonged. If Christians were socialized in predominantly Greco-Roman environments, it is no surprise that they employed and adapted common traits of deities and deified men to exalt their lord to divine status.[42] Now that we've attuned our thinking to Mediterranean sensibilities about gods coming down in the shape of humans and humans experiencing apotheosis to permanently dwell as gods in the divine realm, our ears are attuned to hear the story of Jesus with Greco-Roman ears. Hearing the Story of Jesus with Greco-Roman Ears How would second or third century inhabitants of the Roman empire have categorized Jesus? Taking my cue from Litwa's treatment in Iesus Deus, I'll briefly work through Jesus' conception, transfiguration, miracles, resurrection, and ascension. Miraculous Conception Although set within the context of Jewish messianism, Christ's miraculous birth would have resonated differently with Greco-Roman people. Stories of gods coming down and having intercourse with women are common in classical literature. That these stories made sense of why certain individuals were so exceptional is obvious. For example, Origen related a story about Apollo impregnating Amphictione who then gave birth to Plato (Against Celsus 1.37). Though Mary's conception did not come about through intercourse with a divine visitor, the fact that Jesus had no human father would call to mind divine sonship like Pythagoras or Asclepius. Celsus pointed out that the ancients “attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos” (Origen, Against Celsus 1.67). Philostratus records a story of the Egyptian god Proteus saying to Apollonius' mother that she would give birth to himself (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.4). Since people were primed to connect miraculous origins with divinity, typical hearers of the birth narratives of Matthew or Luke would likely think that this baby might be either be a descended god or a man destined to ascend to become a god. Miracles and Healing As we've seen, Jesus' miracles would not have sounded unbelievable or even unprecedent to Mediterranean people. Like Jesus, Orpheus and Empedocles calmed storms, rescuing ships. Though Jesus provided miraculous guidance on how to catch fish, Pythagoras foretold the number of fish in a great catch. After the fishermen painstakingly counted them all, they were astounded that when they threw them back in, they were still alive (Porphyry, Life 23-25). Jesus' ability to foretell the future, know people's thoughts, and cast out demons all find parallels in Apollonius of Tyana. As for resurrecting the dead, we have the stories of Empedocles, Asclepius, and Apollonius. The last of which even stopped a funeral procession to raise the dead, calling to mind Jesus' deeds in Luke 7.11-17. When Lycaonians witnessed Paul's healing of a man crippled from birth, they cried out, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14.11). Another time when no harm befell Paul after a poisonous snake bit him on Malta, Gentile onlookers concluded “he was a god” (Acts 28.6). Barry Blackburn makes the following observation: [I]n view of the tendency, most clearly seen in the Epimenidean, Pythagorean, and Apollonian traditions, to correlate impressive miracle-working with divine status, one may justifiably conclude that the evangelical miracle traditions would have helped numerous gentile Christians to arrive at and maintain belief in Jesus' divine status.[43] Transfiguration Ancient Mediterranean inhabitants believed that the gods occasionally came down disguised as people. Only when gods revealed their inner brilliant natures could people know that they weren't mere humans. After his ship grounded on the sands of Krisa, Apollo leaped from the ship emitting flashes of fire “like a star in the middle of day…his radiance shot to heaven”[44] (Homeric Hymns, Hymn to Apollo 440). Likewise, Aphrodite appeared in shining garments, brighter than a fire and shimmering like the moon (Hymn to Aphrodite 85-89). When Demeter appeared to Metaneira, she initially looked like an old woman, but she transformed herself before her. “Casting old age away…a delightful perfume spread…a radiance shone out far from the goddess' immortal flesh…and the solid-made house was filled with a light like the lightning-flash”[45] (Hymn to Demeter 275-280). Homer wrote about Odysseus' transformation at the golden wand of Athena in which his clothes became clean, he became taller, and his skin looked younger. His son, Telemachus cried out, “Surely you are some god who rules the vaulting skies”[46] (Odyssey 16.206). Each time the observers conclude the transfigured person is a god. Resurrection & Ascension In defending the resurrection of Jesus, Theophilus of Antioch said, “[Y]ou believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that Aesculapius [Asclepius], who was struck with lightning, was raised”[47] (Autolycus 1.13). Although Hercules' physical body burnt, his transformed pneumatic body continued on as the poet Callimachus said, “under a Phrygian oak his limbs had been deified”[48] (Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis 159). Others thought Hercules ascended to heaven in his burnt body, which Asclepius subsequently healed (Lucian, Dialogue of the Gods 13). After his ascent, Diodorus relates how the people first sacrificed to him “as to a hero” then in Athens they began to honor him “with sacrifices like as to a god”[49] (The Historical Library 4.39). As for Asclepius, his ascension resulted in his deification as Cyprian said, “Aesculapius is struck by lightning, that he may rise into a god”[50] (On the Vanity of Idols 2). Romulus too “was torn to pieces by the hands of a hundred senators”[51] and after death ascended into heaven and received worship (Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.41). Livy tells of how Romulus was “carried up on high by a whirlwind” and that immediately afterward “every man present hailed him as a god and son of a god”[52] (The Early History of Rome 1.16). As we can see from these three cases—Hercules, Asclepius, and Romulus—ascent into heaven was a common way of talking about deification. For Cicero, this was an obvious fact. People “who conferred outstanding benefits were translated to heaven through their fame and our gratitude”[53] (Nature 2.62). Consequently, Jesus' own resurrection and ascension would have triggered Gentiles to intuit his divinity. Commenting on the appearance of the immortalized Christ to the eleven in Galilee, Wendy Cotter said, “It is fair to say that the scene found in [Mat] 28:16-20 would be understood by a Greco-Roman audience, Jew or Gentile, as an apotheosis of Jesus.”[54] Although I beg to differ with Cotter's whole cloth inclusion of Jews here, it's hard to see how else non-Jews would have regarded the risen Christ. Litwa adds Rev 1.13-16 “[W]here he [Jesus] appears with all the accoutrements of the divine: a shining face, an overwhelming voice, luminescent clothing, and so on.”[55] In this brief survey we've seen that several key events in the story of Jesus told in the Gospels would have caused Greco-Roman hearers to intuit deity, including his divine conception, miracles, healing ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension. In their original context of second temple Judaism, these very same incidents would have resonated quite differently. His divine conception authenticated Jesus as the second Adam (Luke 3.38; Rom 5.14; 1 Cor 15.45) and God's Davidic son (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7; Lk 1.32, 35). If Matthew or Luke wanted readers to understand that Jesus was divine based on his conception and birth, they failed to make such intentions explicit in the text. Rather, the birth narratives appear to have a much more modest aim—to persuade readers that Jesus had a credible claim to be Israel's messiah. His miracles show that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power…for God was with him” (Acts 10.38; cf. Jn 3.2; 10.32, 38). Rather than concluding Jesus to be a god, Jewish witnesses to his healing of a paralyzed man “glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Mat 9.8). Over and over, especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus directs people's attention to his Father who was doing the works in and through him (Jn 5.19, 30; 8.28; 12.49; 14.10). Seeing Jesus raise someone from the dead suggested to his original Jewish audience that “a great prophet has arisen among us” (Lk 7.16). The transfiguration, in its original setting, is an eschatological vision not a divine epiphany. Placement in the synoptic Gospels just after Jesus' promise that some there would not die before seeing the kingdom come sets the hermeneutical frame. “The transfiguration,” says William Lane, “was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus' sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the Parousia, when he will come ‘with power and glory.'”[56] If eschatology is the foreground, the background for the transfiguration was Moses' ascent of Sinai when he also encountered God and became radiant.[57] Viewed from the lenses of Moses' ascent and the eschaton, the transfiguration of Jesus is about his identity as God's definitive chosen ruler, not about any kind of innate divinity. Lastly, the resurrection and ascension validated Jesus' messianic claims to be the ruler of the age to come (Acts 17.31; Rom 1.4). Rather than concluding Jesus was deity, early Jewish Christians concluded these events showed that “God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). The interpretative backgrounds for Jesus' ascension were not stories about Heracles, Asclepius, or Romulus. No, the key oracle that framed the Israelite understanding was the messianic psalm in which Yahweh told David's Lord to “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110.1). The idea is of a temporary sojourn in heaven until exercising the authority of his scepter to rule over earth from Zion. Once again, the biblical texts remain completely silent about deification. But even if the original meanings of Jesus' birth, ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension have messianic overtones when interpreted within the Jewish milieu, these same stories began to communicate various ideas of deity to Gentile converts in the generations that followed. We find little snippets from historical sources beginning in the second century and growing with time. Evidence of Belief in Jesus' as a Greco-Roman Deity To begin with, we have two non-Christian instances where Romans regarded Jesus as a deity within typical Greco-Roman categories. The first comes to us from Tertullian and Eusebius who mention an intriguing story about Tiberius' request to the Roman senate to deify Christ. Convinced by “intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity”[58] Tiberius proposed the matter to the senate (Apology 5). Eusebius adds that Tiberius learned that “many believed him to be a god in rising from the dead”[59] (Church History 2.2). As expected, the senate rejected the proposal. I mention this story, not because I can establish its historicity, but because it portrays how Tiberius would have thought about Jesus if he had heard about his miracles and resurrection. Another important incident is from one of the governor Pliny the Younger's letters to the emperor Trajan. Having investigated some people accused of Christianity, he found “they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god”[60] (Letter 96). To an outside imperial observer like Pliny, the Christians believed in a man who had performed miracles, defeated death, and now lived in heaven. Calling him a god was just the natural way of talking about such a person. Pliny would not have thought Jesus was superior to the deified Roman emperors much less Zeus or the Olympic gods. If he believed in Jesus at all, he would have regarded him as another Mediterranean prophet who escaped Hades to enjoy apotheosis. Another interesting text to consider is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This apocryphal text tells the story of Jesus' childhood between the ages of five and twelve. Jesus is impetuous, powerful, and brilliant. Unsure to conclude that Jesus was “either god or angel,”[61] his teacher remands him to Joseph's custody (7). Later, a crowd of onlookers ponders whether the child is a god or a heavenly messenger after he raises an infant from the dead (17). A year later Jesus raised a construction man who had fallen to his death back to life (18). Once again, the crowd asked if the child was from heaven. Although some historians are quick to assume the lofty conceptions of Justin and his successors about the logos were commonplace in the early Christianity, Litwa points out, “The spell of the Logos could only bewitch a very small circle of Christian elites… In IGT, we find a Jesus who is divine according to different canons, the canons of popular Mediterranean theology.”[62] Another important though often overlooked scholarly group of Christians in the second century was led by a certain Theodotus of Byzantium.[63] Typically referred to by their heresiological label “Theodotians,” these dynamic monarchians lived in Rome and claimed that they held to the original Christology before it had been corrupted under Bishop Zephyrinus (Eusebius, Church History 5.28). Theodotus believed in the virgin birth, but not in his pre-existence or that he was god/God (Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2). He thought that Jesus was not able to perform any miracles until his baptism when he received the Christ/Spirit. Pseudo-Hippolytus goes on to say, “But they do not want him to have become a god when the Spirit descended. Others say that he became a god after he rose from the dead.”[64] This last tantalizing remark implies that the Theodotians could affirm Jesus as a god after his resurrection though they denied his pre-existence. Although strict unitarians, they could regard Jesus as a god in that he was an ascended immortalized being who lived in heaven—not equal to the Father, but far superior to all humans on earth. Justin Martyr presents another interesting case to consider. Thoroughly acquainted with Greco-Roman literature and especially the philosophy of Plato, Justin sees Christ as a god whom the Father begot before all other creatures. He calls him “son, or wisdom, or angel, or god, or lord, or word”[65] (Dialogue with Trypho 61).  For Justin Christ is “at the same time angel and god and lord and man”[66] (59). Jesus was “of old the Word, appearing at one time in the form of fire, at another under the guise of incorporeal beings, but now, at the will of God, after becoming man for mankind”[67] (First Apology 63). In fact, Justin is quite comfortable to compare Christ to deified heroes and emperors. He says, “[W]e propose nothing new or different from that which you say about the so-called sons of Jupiter [Zeus] by your respected writers… And what about the emperors who die among you, whom you think worthy to be deified?”[68] (21). He readily accepts the parallels with Mercury, Perseus, Asclepius, Bacchus, and Hercules, but argues that Jesus is superior to them (22).[69] Nevertheless, he considered Jesus to be in “a place second to the unchanging and eternal God”[70] (13). The Father is “the Most True God” whereas the Son is he “who came forth from Him”[71] (6). Even as lates as Origen, Greco-Roman concepts of deity persist. In responding to Celsus' claim that no god or son of God has ever come down, Origen responds by stating such a statement would overthrow the stories of Pythian Apollo, Asclepius, and the other gods who descended (Against Celsus 5.2). My point here is not to say Origen believed in all the old myths, but to show how Origen reached for these stories as analogies to explain the incarnation of the logos. When Celsus argued that he would rather believe in the deity of Asclepius, Dionysus, and Hercules than Christ, Origen responded with a moral rather than ontological argument (3.42). He asks how these gods have improved the characters of anyone. Origen admits Celsus' argument “which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus” might have force, however in light of the disreputable behavior of these gods, “how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?”[72] (3.42). Origen's Christology is far too broad and complicated to cover here. Undoubtedly, his work on eternal generation laid the foundation on which fourth century Christians could build homoousion Christology. Nevertheless, he retained some of the earlier subordinationist impulses of his forebearers. In his book On Prayer, he rebukes praying to Jesus as a crude error, instead advocating prayer to God alone (10). In his Commentary on John he repeatedly asserts that the Father is greater than his logos (1.40; 2.6; 6.23). Thus, Origen is a theologian on the seam of the times. He's both a subordinationist and a believer in the Son's eternal and divine ontology. Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that all early Christians believed Jesus was a deified man like Asclepius or a descended god like Apollo or a reincarnated soul like Pythagoras. More often than not, thinking Christians whose works survive until today tended to eschew the parallels, simultaneously elevating Christ as high as possible while demoting the gods to mere demons. Still, Litwa is inciteful when he writes: It seems likely that early Christians shared the widespread cultural assumption that a resurrected, immortalized being was worthy of worship and thus divine. …Nonetheless there is a difference…Jesus, it appears, was never honored as an independent deity. Rather, he was always worshiped as Yahweh's subordinate. Naturally Heracles and Asclepius were Zeus' subordinates, but they were also members of a larger divine family. Jesus does not enter a pantheon but assumes a distinctive status as God's chief agent and plenipotentiary. It is this status that, to Christian insiders, placed Jesus in a category far above the likes of Heracles, Romulus, and Asclepius who were in turn demoted to the rank of δαίμονες [daimons].[73] Conclusion I began by asking the question, "What did early Christians mean by saying Jesus is god?" We noted that the ancient idea of agency (Jesus is God/god because he represents Yahweh), though present in Hebrew and Christian scripture, didn't play much of a role in how Gentile Christians thought about Jesus. Or if it did, those texts did not survive. By the time we enter the postapostolic era, a majority of Christianity was Gentile and little communication occurred with the Jewish Christians that survived in the East. As such, we turned our attention to Greco-Roman theology to tune our ears to hear the story of Jesus the way they would have. We learned about their multifaceted array of divinities. We saw that gods can come down and take the form of humans and humans can go up and take the form of gods. We found evidence for this kind of thinking in both non-Christian and Christian sources in the second and third centuries. Now it is time to return to the question I began with: “When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” what did they mean?” We saw that the idea of a deified man was present in the non-Christian witnesses of Tiberius and Pliny but made scant appearance in our Christian literature except for the Theodotians. As for the idea that a god came down to become a man, we found evidence in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Justin, and Origen.[74] Of course, we find a spectrum within this view, from Justin's designation of Jesus as a second god to Origen's more philosophically nuanced understanding. Still, it's worth noting as R. P. C. Hanson observed that, “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355.”[75] Whether any Christians before Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria held to the sophisticated idea of consubstantiality depends on showing evidence of the belief that the Son was coequal, coeternal, and coessential with the Father prior to Nicea. (Readers interested in the case for this view should consult Michael Bird's Jesus among the Gods in which he attempted the extraordinary feat of finding proto-Nicene Christology in the first two centuries, a task typically associated with maverick apologists not peer-reviewed historians.) In conclusion, the answer to our driving question about the meaning of “Jesus as god” is that the answer depends on whom we ask. If we ask the Theodotians, Jesus is a god because that's just what one calls an immortalized man who lives in heaven.[76] If we ask those holding a docetic Christology, the answer is that a god came down in appearance as a man. If we ask a logos subordinationist, they'll tell us that Jesus existed as the god through whom the supreme God created the universe before he became a human being. If we ask Tertullian, Jesus is god because he derives his substance from the Father, though he has a lesser portion of divinity.[77] If we ask Athanasius, he'll wax eloquent about how Jesus is of the same substance as the Father equal in status and eternality. The bottom line is that there was not one answer to this question prior to the fourth century. Answers depend on whom we ask and when they lived. Still, we can't help but wonder about the more tantalizing question of development. Which Christology was first and which ones evolved under social, intellectual, and political pressures? In the quest to specify the various stages of development in the Christologies of the ante-Nicene period, this Greco-Roman perspective may just provide the missing link between the reserved and limited way that the NT applies theos to Jesus in the first century and the homoousian view that eventually garnered imperial support in the fourth century. How easy would it have been for fresh converts from the Greco-Roman world to unintentionally mishear the story of Jesus? How easy would it have been for them to fit Jesus into their own categories of descended gods and ascended humans? With the unmooring of Gentile Christianity from its Jewish heritage, is it any wonder that Christologies began to drift out to sea? Now I'm not suggesting that all Christians went through a steady development from a human Jesus to a pre-existent Christ, to an eternal God the Son, to the Chalcedonian hypostatic union. As I mentioned above, plenty of other options were around and every church had its conservatives in addition to its innovators. The story is messy and uneven with competing views spread across huge geographic distances. Furthermore, many Christians probably were content to leave such theological nuances fuzzy, rather than seeking doctrinal precision on Christ's relation to his God and Father. Whatever the case may be, we dare not ignore the influence of Greco-Roman theology in our accounts of Christological development in the Mediterranean world of the first three centuries.    Bibliography The Homeric Hymns. Translated by Michael Crudden. New York, NY: Oxford, 2008. Antioch, Theophilus of. To Autolycus. Translated by Marcus Dods. Vol. 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Aphrahat. The Demonstrations. Translated by Ellen Muehlberger. Vol. 3. The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. Edited by Mark DelCogliano. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022. Apollodorus. The Library of Greek Mythology. Translated by Robin Hard. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998. Appian. The Civil Wars. Translated by John Carter. London, UK: Penguin, 1996. Arnobius. Against the Heathen. Translated by Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell. Vol. 6. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 1971. Bird, Michael F. Jesus among the Gods. Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991. Callimachus. Hymn to Artemis. Translated by Susan A. Stephens. Callimachus: The Hymns. New York, NY: Oxford, 2015. Cicero. The Nature of the Gods. Translated by Patrick Gerard Walsh. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008. Cornutus, Lucius Annaeus. Greek Theology. Translated by George Boys-Stones. Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018. Cotter, Wendy. "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew." In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Edited by David E. Aune. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Cyprian. Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols. Translated by Ernest Wallis. Vol. 5. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Dittenberger, W. Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae. Vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960. Eusebius. The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Fredriksen, Paula. "How High Can Early High Christology Be?" In Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Edited by Matthew V. Novenson. Vol. 180.vol. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Hanson, R. P. C. Search for a Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Hart, George. The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York, NY: Penguin, 1997. Iamblichus. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Thomas Taylor. Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras. Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Laertius, Diogenes. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David R. Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Pamela Mensch. Edited by James Miller. New York, NY: Oxford, 2020. Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. Nicnt, edited by F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Litwa, M. David. Iesus Deus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Livy. The Early History of Rome. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 2002. Origen. Against Celsus. Translated by Frederick Crombie. Vol. 4. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pausanias. Guide to Greece. Translated by Peter Levi. London, UK: Penguin, 1979. Perriman, Andrew. In the Form of a God. Studies in Early Christology, edited by David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022. Philostratus. Letters of Apollonius. Vol. 458. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006. Plutarch. Life of Alexander. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff. The Age of Alexander. London, UK: Penguin, 2011. Porphyry. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Pseudo-Clement. Recognitions. Translated by Thomas Smith. Vol. 8. Ante Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pseudo-Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by David Litwa. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Pseudo-Thomas. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Translated by James Orr. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903. Psuedo-Clement. Homilies. Translated by Peter Peterson. Vol. 8. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897. Siculus, Diodorus. The Historical Library. Translated by Charles Henry Oldfather. Vol. 1. Edited by Giles Laurén: Sophron Editor, 2017. Strabo. The Geography. Translated by Duane W. Roller. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020. Tertullian. Against Praxeas. Translated by Holmes. Vol. 3. Ante Nice Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Tertullian. Apology. Translated by S. Thelwall. Vol. 3. Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Younger, Pliny the. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. Translated by Betty Radice. London: Penguin, 1969. End Notes [1] For the remainder of this paper, I will use the lower case “god” for all references to deity outside of Yahweh, the Father of Christ. I do this because all our ancient texts lack capitalization and our modern capitalization rules imply a theology that is anachronistic and unhelpful for the present inquiry. [2] Christopher Kaiser wrote, “Explicit references to Jesus as ‘God' in the New Testament are very few, and even those few are generally plagued with uncertainties of either text or interpretation.” Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God: A Historical Survey (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982), 29. Other scholars such as Raymond Brown (Jesus: God and Man), Jason David BeDuhn (Truth in Translation), and Brian Wright (“Jesus as θεός: A Textual Examination” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament) have expressed similar sentiments. [3] John 20.28; Hebrews 1.8; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; Romans 9.5; and 1 John 5.20. [4] See Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 12.2 where a manuscript difference determines whether or not Polycarp called Jesus god or lord. Textual corruption is most acute in Igantius' corpus. Although it's been common to dismiss the long recension as an “Arian” corruption, claiming the middle recension to be as pure and uncontaminated as freshly fallen snow upon which a foot has never trodden, such an uncritical view is beginning to give way to more honest analysis. See Paul Gilliam III's Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy (Leiden: Brill, 2017) for a recent treatment of Christological corruption in the middle recension. [5] See the entries for  אֱלֹהִיםand θεός in the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon (BDB), Eerdmans Dictionary, Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, the Bauer Danker Arndt Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG), Friberg Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. [6] See notes on Is 9.6 and Ps 45.6. [7] ZIBBC: “In what sense can the king be called “god”? By virtue of his divine appointment, the king in the ancient Near East stood before his subjects as a representative of the divine realm. …In fact, the term “gods“ (ʾelōhı̂m) is used of priests who functioned as judges in the Israelite temple judicial system (Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; see comments on 58:1; 82:6-7).” John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” in The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 5 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 358. [8] Around a.d. 340, Aphrahat of Persia advised his fellow Christians to reply to Jewish critics who questioned why “You call a human being ‘God'” (Demonstrations 17.1). He said, “For the honored name of the divinity is granted event ot rightoues human beings, when they are worthy of being called by it…[W]hen he chose Moses, his friend and his beloved…he called him “god.” …We call him God, just as he named Moses with his own name…The name of the divinity was granted for great honor in the world. To whom he wishes, God appoints it” (17.3, 4, 5). Aphrahat, The Demonstrations, trans., Ellen Muehlberger, vol. 3, The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022), 213-15. In the Clementine Recognitions we find a brief mention of the concept:  “Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honour of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends, as is often done in respect of angels: for when they appear to a man, if he is a wise and intelligent man, he asks the name of him who appears to him, that he may acknowledge at once the honour of the sent, and the authority of the sender” (2.42). Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions, trans., Thomas Smith, vol. 8, Ante Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [9] Michael F. Bird, Jesus among the Gods (Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022), 13. [10] Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God, Studies in Early Christology, ed. David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 130. [11] Paula Fredriksen, "How High Can Early High Christology Be?," in Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Matthew V. Novenson, vol. 180 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 296, 99. [12] ibid. [13] See Gen 18.1; Ex 3.2; 24.11; Is 6.1; Ezk 1.28. [14] Compare the Masoretic Text of Psalm 8.6 to the Septuagint and Hebrews 2.7. [15] Homer, The Odyssey, trans., Robert Fagles (New York, NY: Penguin, 1997), 370. [16] Diodorus Siculus, The Historical Library, trans., Charles Henry Oldfather, vol. 1 (Sophron Editor, 2017), 340. [17] Uranus met death at the brutal hands of his own son, Kronos who emasculated him and let bleed out, resulting in his deification (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.10). Later on, after suffering a fatal disease, Kronos himself experienced deification, becoming the planet Saturn (ibid.). Zeus married Hera and they produced Osiris (Dionysus), Isis (Demeter), Typhon, Apollo, and Aphrodite (ibid. 2.1). [18] Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, Greek Theology, trans., George Boys-Stones, Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018), 123. [19] Apollodorus, The Library of Greek Mythology, trans., Robin Hard (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998), 111. [20] Pausanias, Guide to Greece, trans., Peter Levi (London, UK: Penguin, 1979), 98. [21] Strabo, The Geography, trans., Duane W. Roller (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020), 281. [22] Psuedo-Clement, Homilies, trans., Peter Peterson, vol. 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897). Greek: “αὐτὸν δὲ ὡς θεὸν ἐθρήσκευσαν” from Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca, taken from Accordance (PSCLEMH-T), OakTree Software, Inc., 2018, Version 1.1. [23] See Barry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions (Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 32. [24] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, trans., Pamela Mensch (New York, NY: Oxford, 2020), 39. [25] Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Thomas Taylor, Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras (Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023), 2. [26] Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 142. [27] See the list in Blackburn, 39. He corroborates miracle stories from Diogenus Laertius, Iamblichus, Apollonius, Nicomachus, and Philostratus. [28] Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 128-9. [29] Iamblichus,  68. [30] What I call “resurrection” refers to the phrase, “Thou shalt bring back from Hades a dead man's strength.” Diogenes Laertius 8.2.59, trans. R. D. Hicks. [31] Laertius, "Lives of the Eminent Philosophers," 306. Two stories of his deification survive: in one Empedocles disappears in the middle of the night after hearing an extremely loud voice calling his name. After this the people concluded that they should sacrifice to him since he had become a god (8.68). In the other account, Empedocles climbs Etna and leaps into the fiery volcanic crater “to strengthen the rumor that he had become a god” (8.69). [32] Pausanias,  192. Sextus Empiricus says Asclepius raised up people who had died at Thebes as well as raising up the dead body of Tyndaros (Against the Professors 1.261). [33] Cicero adds that the Arcadians worship Asclepius (Nature 3.57). [34] In another instance, he confronted and cast out a demon from a licentious young man (Life 4.20). [35] The phrase is “περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ θεοῖς εἴρηται ὡς περὶ θείου ἀνδρὸς.” Philostratus, Letters of Apollonius, vol. 458, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006). [36] See George Hart, The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005), 3. [37] Plutarch, Life of Alexander, trans., Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff, The Age of Alexander (London, UK: Penguin, 2011), 311. Arrian includes a story about Anaxarchus advocating paying divine honors to Alexander through prostration. The Macedonians refused but the Persian members of his entourage “rose from their seats and one by one grovelled on the floor before the King.” Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 1971), 222. [38] Translation my own from “Ἀντίοχος ὁ Θεὸς Δίκαιος Ἐπιφανὴς Φιλορωμαῖος Φιλέλλην.” Inscription at Nemrut Dağ, accessible at https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm32. See also https://zeugma.packhum.org/pdfs/v1ch09.pdf. [39] Greek taken from W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, vol. 2 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1960), 48-60. Of particular note is the definite article before θεός. They didn't celebrate the birthday of a god, but the birthday of the god. [40] Appian, The Civil Wars, trans., John Carter (London, UK: Penguin, 1996), 149. [41] M. David Litwa, Iesus Deus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 20. [42] ibid. [43] Blackburn, 92-3. [44] The Homeric Hymns, trans., Michael Crudden (New York, NY: Oxford, 2008), 38. [45] "The Homeric Hymns," 14. [46] Homer,  344. [47] Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, trans., Marcus Dods, vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). [48] Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis, trans., Susan A. Stephens, Callimachus: The Hymns (New York, NY: Oxford, 2015), 119. [49] Siculus,  234. [50] Cyprian, Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols, trans., Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [51] Arnobius, Against the Heathen, trans., Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell, vol. 6, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [52] Livy, The Early History of Rome, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 2002), 49. [53] Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, trans., Patrick Gerard Walsh (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008), 69. [54] Wendy Cotter, "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew," in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. David E. Aune (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 149. [55] Litwa, 170. [56] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, Nicnt, ed. F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974). [57] “Recent commentators have stressed that the best background for understanding the Markan transfiguration is the story of Moses' ascent up Mount Sinai (Exod. 24 and 34).” Litwa, 123. [58] Tertullian, Apology, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [59] Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 54. [60] Pliny the Younger, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, trans., Betty Radice (London: Penguin, 1969), 294. [61] Pseudo-Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, trans., James Orr (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903), 25. [62] Litwa, 83. [63] For sources on Theodotus, see Pseduo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2; Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 8.2; Eusebius, Church History 5.28. [64] Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, trans., David Litwa (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016), 571. [65] I took the liberty to decapitalize these appellatives. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, trans. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 244. [66] Justin Martyr, 241. (Altered, see previous footnote.) [67] Justin Martyr, 102. [68] Justin Martyr, 56-7. [69] Arnobius makes a similar argument in Against the Heathen 1.38-39 “Is he not worthy to be called a god by us and felt to be a god on account of the favor or such great benefits? For if you have enrolled Liber among the gods because he discovered the use of wine, and Ceres the use of bread, Aesculapius the use of medicines, Minerva the use of oil, Triptolemus plowing, and Hercules because he conquered and restrained beasts, thieves, and the many-headed hydra…So then, ought we not to consider Christ a god, and to bestow upon him all the worship due to his divinity?” Translation from Litwa, 105. [70] Justin Martyr, 46. [71] Justin Martyr, 39. [72] Origen, Against Celsus, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [73] Litwa, 173. [74] I could easily multiply examples of this by looking at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and many others. [75] The obvious exception to Hanson's statement were thinkers like Sabellius and Praxeas who believed that the Father himself came down as a human being. R. P. C. Hanson, Search for a Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), xix. [76] Interestingly, even some of the biblical unitarians of the period were comfortable with calling Jesus god, though they limited his divinity to his post-resurrection life. [77] Tertullian writes, “[T]he Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son” (Against Praxeas 9). Tertullian, Against Praxeas, trans., Holmes, vol. 3, Ante Nice Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

Pastor Jared talks about the three most famous Christian creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, Chalcedonian). Submit your ideas for Off Script topics at https://www.kirbywoods.org/offscript. Follow us online! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kirbywoodsmemphis Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kirbywoodsmemphis YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@kirbywoods Podcast: https://kirbywoodspodcast.buzzsprout.com

This is part 22 of the Early Church History class. This episode aims to wrap up our early church history class. We'll cover relics and pilgrimage, emperors Zeno and Justinian, as well as the theological battles that continued to rage in the 5th and 6th centuries. Unsurprisingly the christological controversy of the 5th century did not come to an end when the emperor endorsed the Council of Chalcedon of 451 that declared Jesus to have two natures "unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably." In addition to covering the Second Council of Constantinople of 553, we'll also briefly consider how the dual natures doctrine continued to foment division resulting in the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 and the Second Council of Nicea in 787. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59zyj9dMH4k&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=22 —— Links —— More Restitutio resources on Christian history See other classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Byzantine Beginnings 293 Diocletian initiated the division between east and west with his tetrarchy. 330 Constantine built a “New Rome” on the cite of old Byzantium, naming it Constantinople. Constantine's mother, Helena, initiated the pilgrimage movement. 381 Egeria wrote a travelogue to her friends that influenced later pilgrimages. Helena also sent Constantine relics of the true cross. 397 Martin of Tours died, leaving behind his cloak, which became a famous relic. Fifth Century Developments Theodosius I (r. 379-392) had outlawed pagan sacrifices and endorsed Trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Arian Germanic tribes moved into the western Roman Empire and began taking territory. 378 Visigoths win at Adrianople. 410 Alaric sacked Rome. 455 Vandals sacked Rome. 476 Odoacer deposes the last Roman Augustus. 493 Theodoric and the Ostrogoths took Italy. Zeno's Henotikon 451 Chalcedon affirmed the dyophysite position (two natures in one person). 488 Byzantine Emperor Zeno attempted to reconcile monophysites and dyophysites by condemning Eutyches and Nestorius and approving Cyril's 12 anathemas (Henotikon). Chalcedon remained controversial with Christianity now split into several groups: Arian Germanic kingdoms, monophysites (Egypt and Ethiopia), Chalcedonian dyophysites (Rome & Constantinople), and Nestorian dyophysites (Syria and Persia). Justinian (482-565) 525 Justinian married Theodora and became co-emperor with Justin. 527 Justinian became the sole emperor. 528 He initiated legal reforms under John the Cappadocian and Tribonian. 532 Nika riots 537 He finished Hagia Sophia, whispering, “O Solomon, I have surpassed you!” 555 He had retaken much of the Roman Empire, including Italy, North Africa, and part of Spain. More Christology Councils 553 Justinian called for the Second Council of Constantinople. Condemned the 3 chapters Condemned Nestorius Condemned Origen of Alexandria 681 Third Council of Constantinople Condemned monotheletism, concluding that Jesus had 2 wills that never conflict. 787 Second Council of Nicaea Iconoclasts were fighting with iconodules. Some considered icons Nestorian while others called them Monophysite. Affirmed veneration of icons. 843 Iconaclasm controversy broke out. Empress Theodora upheld the ruling of Nicaea II. Review In 293, Diocletian split the administration of the Roman Empire into east and west, appointing an Augustus in each. In 330, Constantine founded Constantinople in the old town of Byzantium, making it his administrative capital. While the west fell to Germanic Arians and the Huns, the Roman Empire in the east continued until 1453. Byzantine emperors played barbarian warlords off each other in an attempt to keep them from taking Constantinople. From the fourth century onwards, Byzantines embraced relics and pilgrimages to holy places. Byzantine emperor Justinian made a lasting impact on law via the work of Tribonian to identify, harmonize, and codify Roman law. Justinian succeeded, mostly due to the military genius of Belisarius, to retake northern Africa, Italy, and part of Spain. Justinian built and improved several churches, the most notable of which was his renovation of the Hagia Sophia. In 553, the Second Council of Constantinople condemned three writings critical of Cyril of Alexandria to reunite with the Egyptian and Syrian churches, but ultimately failed. In 681, the Third Council of Constantinople condemned monothelitism, affirming that Christ had two wills. In 787, the Second Council of Nicaea affirmed the veneration of icons, denying icons either were too monophysite or Nestorian.

This is part 21 of the Early Church History class. In the fifth century Christians waged a theological civil war that ended in a massive church split. The issue was over the dual natures of Christ. How was he both divine and human? Did he have a human soul and a divine soul? Did his two natures fuse into one new nature? Although such abstruse distinctions would hardly get anyone's blood boiling today, these doctrinal distinctives resulted in a zero sum war for supremacy involving not only theological argumentation, but also political conniving and outright gangster tactics in the battles that led to the famous Council of Chalcedon in 451. Though church history textbooks often whitewash this period of theological creativity, this episode will give you a brief but unapologetic overview of the major players and their deeds in the dual natures controversy. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKQafdCPXAk&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=21&pp=iAQB —— Links —— More Restitutio resources on Christian history See other classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Options for Two Natures Athanasius (c. 357) affirmed Jesus as God and man but did not explain how the natures united. He called Mary Theotokos (God-bearer). Apollinarius of Laodicea (d. 382) said the Word became flesh without assuming a human mind (Apollinarianism). Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390) condemned Apollinarius and said that what God has not assumed, he has not healed. Eutyches of Constantinople (380-456) said the divine and human natures combined to form one new nature (Eutychianism/Monophysitism) Nestorius (c. 429) denied Mary as Theotokos, calling her instead Christotokos, and allegedly taught that Christ had two distinct natures in two persons (Nestorianism/dyophysitism). Leo I said Christ had two natures united in person, though the two natures remained distinct (Chalcedonian dyophysitism). Condemning John Chrysostom John Chrysostom represented the Antiochene school of thought (as opposed to the Alexandrian). 397 Chrysostom became bishop of Constantinople. Eudoxia, wife of the emperor Arcadius, worked with Theophilus of Alexandria to depose Chrysostom. 403 Synod of the Oak deposed Chrysostom. 404 Chrysostom exiled. 407 Chrysostom marched to death Condemning Nestorius 428 Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople. He immediately began persecuting “heretics” as a defender of orthodoxy. 429 Anastasius of Antioch preached in Constantinople that no one should call Mary Pulcheria, sister of emperor Theodosius II, worked with Cyril of Alexandria to depose Nestorius. 431 1st Council of Ephesus deposed Nestorius. Condemning Flavian 446 Flavian became bishop of Constantinople. 448 Held a synod that interrogated and condemned Eutyches 449 2nd Council of Ephesus reinstated Eutyches and condemned Flavian. Dioscorus of Alexandria instigated violence against Flavian that resulted in his death. Known to history as the “Robber Synod” Chalcedon 450 Theodosius II fell from his horse and died, leaving Pulcheria, his sister the nun, to marry Marcian, the new emperor. 451 Marcian and Pulcheria called the council at Chalcedon to reverse the 2nd Council of Ephesus and depose Dioscorus. Pope Leo's tome was read and accepted. After much debate, they codified the definition of Chalcedon, declaring Mary as Theotokos and Christ as having two natures in one person. When Nestorius read Leo's tome, he agreed with him and called it orthodox. Several important groups of churches, both Nestorian and Monophysite, rejected Chalcedon, including Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, and Persia. Review Deciding how the divine and human natures worked in Christ became the chief focus for many Christians in the fifth century. Apollinarius of Laodice proposed that the logos (Word) replaced the human mind, the rational part of the soul, in Christ (Apollinarianism). Eutyches proposed that Christ was one nature after the union of the divine and human (monophysitism). Pope Leo I said the two natures retained their distinctive characters in the one person of Christ (dyophysitism). Nestorius allegedly taught that the two natures in Christ were not united in one person (Nestorianism), though this was probably a misrepresentation of Cyril of Alexandria. Powerful Alexandrian bishops worked with powerful empresses to outmaneuver and depose Constantinopolitan bishops John Chrysostom in 404 and Nestorius in 431. Nestorius tried to steer people away from calling Mary Theotokos (God-bearer) by calling her Christotokos (Christ-bearer), but this offended many. Alexandrian bishops from Theophilus to Cyril to Dioscorus increasingly used gangster tactics to intimidate, coerce, beat, and even kill their theological-political opponents. The Chalcedonian definition of 451 condemned Nestorius and Eutyches while endorsing Cyril and Leo, promoting a diophysite statement of two natures in one person, united but not confused. Though trumpeted as "orthodox", Chalcedon alienated a huge portion of Christianity, including the Coptic Church, Ethiopian Church, Syrian Church, Armenian Church, and Assyrian Church.

We continue our series on historical creeds and confessions as we look at the Chalcedonian definition or Creed

Sin's remedy needs the right recipe. We conclude our 4-week series on the gift of Creeds the church has received from its forebears, looking at the ingredients of the incarnation and how a meticulous God planned our salvation so perfectly.

In this final episode on the Christological Controversies, Tom, Trevor, and Chad work their way through the Chalcedonian definition and what that means for how Christians understand the two natures of Christ.

Paul Axton preaches - Christ as the truth resolves the trouble of dialectic through identity and difference. Maximus the Confessor describes Christ, based on the Chalcedonian formula, as a new form of rationality, bringing together absolute transcendence and immanence in the person of Christ - redefining all of these categories in the process. Become a Patron! If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work.

Resources Mentioned: https://tinyurl.com/2y9yn88k

In this special episode, Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP, speaks about Chalcedonian Christology and the concept of pure nature. This was a keynote address given at the 2022 Sacra Doctrina Project annual conference.

In this episode, Tom, Trevor, and Chad return to the format of earlier podcasts and discuss a few texts from early Christian thinkers. In this case, we are talking about Apollinaris of Laodicea and Theodore of Mopsuestia. They represent early christological thinking from an Alexandrian and Antiochene point of view. Thanks for listening and I hope you enjoy these episodes

The Belgic Confession was written by a Reformed pastor, Guy de Bres (1522–1567), who adopted the Reformed faith as a young man and studied with several Reformed luminaries, including John Calvin, before serving as a pastor, church planter, and chaplain in France . . . Continue reading →

https://focusonthekingdom.org/Some%20Questions.pdf

FORESEE - His eyes are foresee - be aware of beforehand; predict. The eye is the lamp of the body. If then your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light. Matthew 6:22 For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭13:12‬ For God, who said “Let light shine out of darkness,” is the one who shined in our hearts to give us the light of the glorious knowledge of God in the face of Christ.” ‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭4:6 πρόσωπον prosōpon face; presence - DBL Greek face; person; surface; appearance; presence; in front of - NASB Dictionaries an eye; face; the face the front of the human head - countenance, look 1. the face so far forth as it is the organ of sight, and by it various movements and changes) the index of the inward thoughts and 2 Corfeelings 2. the appearance one presents by his wealth or property, his rank or low condition 1. outward circumstances, external condition 2. used in expressions which denote to regard the person in one's judgment and treatment of men - the outward appearance of inanimate things Prosopon originally meant "face" or "mask" in Greek and derives from Greek theatre, in which actors on a stage wore masks to reveal their character and emotional state to the audience. When a loss of identity occurs due to persona identification, what we are bearing witness to is an individual becoming a vessel for an archetypal figure. As stated previously, archetypes need a vessel to come into conscious view. “For we who are alive are constantly being handed over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our mortal body.” 2 Corinthians‬ ‭4:11‬ ‭NET‬‬ Hillman stated, “persona here no longer means outward show, a staged performance that hides a true self; it now is the true self in its archetypal enactment” The mask of the persona provides the means to be in relation with the Gods, as it provides power. The act of taking up the mask of the persona and not removing it effectively removes a person's identity (ego). In short, these individuals become more like a vessel as they are providing an image for the archetypal figures to manifest themselves. Hillman, J. (1992). The myth of analysis: Three essays in archetypal psychology. New York, NY: HarperPerennial, 46. The Prosopon of the Hypostasis of Christ - To give a direct account of Leontius' probable meaning in speaking of the “prosopon of the hypostasis of Christ” it is worth keeping all of this in mind. One of the problems that Leontius faces is the conviction that since every nature must be hypostatic, the Chalcedonian claim that there are two natures in Christ seems to indicate that there are two hypostaseis in Christ. Leontius accepts the conviction that natures must be hypostatic but argues that this does not mean that the natures in Christ are hypostaseis. For Leontius, the human nature does not introduce a second hypostasis alongside that of the Word, since it is by the union that the human nature become hypostatic. For Leontius to speak of nature is not to identify a particular hypostasis, since one can speak of the nature as that which is shared by many hypostaseis. On the other hand, to speak of hypostasis means to speak of a really existing thing, and as such one includes its nature, both the nature that it shares with others (physis), and those individuating features that belong that that hypostasis alone. In Christ, we are confronted not just by humanity in general, but also by the particular humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. Decrease time over target: PayPal.me/mzhop or Venmo @clastronaut

Tony joins the guys from Distilling Theology for two distinct podcasts, and one episode, just for this week.

Tony joins the guys from Distilling Theology for two distinct podcasts, and one episode, just for this week.

The guys are joined by our friend Tony Arsenal of Reformed Brotherhood Podcast to discuss the application of Chalcedonian Christology.  We shuffled our release order slightly from our recordings, so we reference an episode on Christ the Mediator which will come out next. The trio kick back, sip Vermont Spirits No 14 Bourbon, and dive deep into why getting our Christology right is so essential to the Christian faith. Enjoy extended episodes, watch us live stream our episodes before they are released, and get access to exclusive bonus content on Patreon, starting at just $4.99 per month: https://patreon.com/distillingtheologyJoin us at $14.99 per month for some extra perks, including a Patreon-exclusive coffee mug after your first 3 months as a thank you for your support.Or, join us at our new $29.99 per month  level and after your first 3 months, we'll send you a Patreon Exclusive frosted DT glencairn glass - or at $49.99 per month, we'll send you a pair of those exclusive frosted glasses after your first 3 months.Distilling Theology is a proud member of the Society of Reformed Podcasts - a network of doctrinally sound podcasts from a Reformed perspective. You can get all the shows in the network by subscribing to the megafeed at https://reformedpodcasts.com/Thanks for listening and as always, whatever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God.Soli Deo Gloria!Support the show

This week, the guys kick back, sip some barrel proof 291 Single Barrel bourbon and discuss the Chalcedonian Definition as a way to dip into our Christology series.

This week, the guys kick back, sip some barrel proof 291 Single Barrel bourbon and discuss the Chalcedonian Definition as a way to dip into our Christology series. We announce the winners of our None Greater + Simply Trinity giveaway at the end of the episode.  Next week, we'll be back with more Christology, and a rye whiskey! Enjoy extended episodes, watch us live stream our episodes before they are released, and get access to exclusive bonus content on Patreon, starting at just $4.99 per month: https://patreon.com/distillingtheologyJoin us at $14.99 per month for some extra perks, including a Patreon-exclusive coffee mug after your first 3 months as a thank you for your support.Or, join us at our new $29.99 per month  level and after your first 3 months, we'll send you a Patreon Exclusive frosted DT glencairn glass - or at $49.99 per month, we'll send you a pair of those exclusive frosted glasses after your first 3 months.Distilling Theology is a proud member of the Society of Reformed Podcasts - a network of doctrinally sound podcasts from a Reformed perspective. You can get all the shows in the network by subscribing to the megafeed at https://reformedpodcasts.com/Thanks for listening and as always, whatever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God.Soli Deo Gloria!Support the show

Fr. Thomas Joseph White O.P - "Chalcedonian Christology and the Concept of Pure nature" by Angelicum Thomistic Institute

A special reading for the Advent Season.

Fr. Costas joins us once more with another list. This time it is 50 Ways to Fight Temptation. We will also continue to discuss more "random questions from listeners" on subjects such as our relationship with the non-Chalcedonian (i.e., "Oriental Orthodox") Churches.

Fr. Costas joins us once more with another list. This time it is 50 Ways to Fight Temptation. We will also continue to discuss more "random questions from listeners" on subjects such as our relationship with the non-Chalcedonian (i.e., "Oriental Orthodox") Churches.

Fr. Costas joins us once more with another list. This time it is 50 Ways to Fight Temptation. We will also continue to discuss more "random questions from listeners" on subjects such as our relationship with the non-Chalcedonian (i.e., "Oriental Orthodox") Churches.

The Hypostatic Union; The Condemnation of Eutychianism; And Chalcedonian DefinitionDonate (Paypal)https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=GC2Z86XHHG4X6___________________________________________________________________________________Exclusive Content (Patreon)https://www.patreon.com/TheRemnantRadio__________________________________________________________________________________We're social! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRemnantRadioInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/theremnantradio/___________________________________________________________________________________Our Favorite Bookshttps://www.amazon.com/shop/theremnantradio___________________________________________________________________________________Michael Rowntree's Church Wellspringhttps://wellspringdfw.org/___________________________________________________________________________________Michael Miller's Church Reclamation Churchhttps://reclamationdenver.com/___________________________________________________________________________________Conferencehttp://propheticreformationokc.com/___________________________________________________________________________________Kairos Classroom: Use Promo Code Remnant for 10% offhttps://kairosclassroom.com/classes

As the early church started to grow and include the gentiles, they faced many problems that jeopardized the unity that our Lord had so earnestly prayed to the Father for.

We continue our study of the Chalcedonian Creed

We continue our study of the Chalcedonian Creed

We begin a study of the Chalcedonian Creed

We begin a study of the Chalcedonian Creed

On today’s Equipping You in Grace show, Dave and Dr. Stephen Wellum discuss how the storyline of the Bible helps us know Jesus, how Christians should respond to attacks on Jesus, and how church history can help us do so, along with his book, The Person of Christ: An Introduction (Crossway, 2021). What you’ll hear in this episode Why it is so important to have a biblical understanding of Jesus. What a theology from below verses a theology from above means in reference to the person and work of Jesus. How the storyline of the Bible helps us know Jesus. How important it is that Christians have a basic understanding of the Council of Chalcedon. Some of the disputes that the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds resolved. How the Nicene and Chalcedonian Councils help Christians respond to attacks on the person and work of Jesus. How Christians should respond to attacks on Jesus. How Christians can recover the centrality of Christ in our day. About the Guest Stephen J. Wellum (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is professor of Christian theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and editor of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Stephen and his wife, Karen, have five adult children. Subscribing, sharing, and your feedback You can subscribe to Equipping You in Grace via iTunes, Google Play, or your favorite podcast catcher. If you like what you’ve heard, please consider leaving a rating and share it with your friends (it takes only takes a second and will go a long way to helping other people find the show). You can also connect with me on Twitter at @davejjenkins, on Facebook, or via email to share your feedback. Thanks for listening to this episode of Equipping You in Grace!

On today’s Equipping You in Grace show, Dave and Dr. Stephen Wellum discuss how the storyline of the Bible helps us know Jesus, how Christians should respond to attacks on Jesus, and how church history can help us do so, along with his book, The Person of Christ: An Introduction (Crossway, 2021). What you’ll hear in this episode Why it is so important to have a biblical understanding of Jesus. What a theology from below verses a theology from above means in reference to the person and work of Jesus. How the storyline of the Bible helps us know Jesus. How important it is that Christians have a basic understanding of the Council of Chalcedon. Some of the disputes that the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds resolved. How the Nicene and Chalcedonian Councils help Christians respond to attacks on the person and work of Jesus. How Christians should respond to attacks on Jesus. How Christians can recover the centrality of Christ in our day. About the Guest Stephen J. Wellum (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is professor of Christian theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and editor of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Stephen and his wife, Karen, have five adult children. Subscribing, sharing, and your feedback You can subscribe to Equipping You in Grace via iTunes, Google Play, or your favorite podcast catcher. If you like what you’ve heard, please consider leaving a rating and share it with your friends (it takes only takes a second and will go a long way to helping other people find the show). You can also connect with me on Twitter at @davejjenkins, on Facebook, or via email to share your feedback. Thanks for listening to this episode of Equipping You in Grace!

We made our way through the three ecumenical creeds and now we find ourselves on the brink of starting some historic confessions. Before we jump in the deep end we thought we would wade through the Chalcedonian Definition. Is this simply a recapitulation of the creeds, or does it stand on its own? Tune in to learn more!    The article mentioned in the episode: https://mereorthodoxy.com/mary-evangelicals/   Do you want to follow us? Find us on: Email: doxologypodcast@gmail.com Twitter: @doxologypodcast Instagram: @doxologypodcast   Do you want to receive our weekly newsletter to remain up to date on the latest Doxology Podcast news? Sign up here: https://mailchi.mp/0e7b881f95d9/doxologypodnewsletter

A new MP3 sermon from Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Brief Introduction to Creeds & Confessions: The Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedonian Creeds Subtitle: Topical Teaching Speaker: Traever Guingrich Broadcaster: Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church Event: Midweek Service Date: 12/16/2020 Bible: 1 Timothy 3:16; Deuteronomy 6:4 Length: 42 min.

A new MP3 sermon from Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Brief Introduction to Creeds & Confessions: The Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedonian Creeds Subtitle: Topical Teaching Speaker: Traever Guingrich Broadcaster: Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church Event: Midweek Service Date: 12/16/2020 Bible: 1 Timothy 3:16; Deuteronomy 6:4 Length: 42 min.

As traditionally the oldest form of Christianity, along with the ancient or first millennial Eastern Orthodox Church, the non-Chalcedonian or Oriental Churches, and the Church of the East,[1] the history of the Catholic Church is integral to the history of Christianity as a whole. It is also, according to church historian, Mark A. Noll, the "world's oldest continuously functioning international institution."[2] This article covers a period of just under two thousand years Over time, schisms have disrupted the unity of Christianity. The major divisions occurred in c.144 with Marcionism,[3] 318 with Arianism, 451 with the Oriental Orthodox, 1054 to 1449 (see East-West Schism) during which time the Orthodox Churches of the East parted ways with the Western Church over doctrinal issues (see the filioque) and papal primacy, and in 1517 with the Protestant Reformation, of which there were many divisions, resulting in over 200 denominations. This Church has been the driving force behind some of the major events of world history including the Christianization of Western and Central Europe and Latin America, the spreading of literacy and the foundation of the universities, hospitals, the Western tradition of monasticism, the development of art and music, literature, architecture, contributions to the scientific method, just war theory and trial by jury. It has played a powerful role in global affairs, including the Reconquista, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Investiture Controversy, the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe in the late 20th century. Subscribe at https://sdcason.com/subscribe --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/shalonecason1/message

Full Text of ReadingsMemorial of Saint Leo the Great, Pope and Doctor of the Church Lectionary: 492All podcast readings are produced by the USCCB and are from the Catholic Lectionary, based on the New American Bible and approved for use in the United States _______________________________________The Saint of the day is Pope St. Leo the GreatNov. 10 is the Roman Catholic Churchs liturgical memorial of the fifth-century Pope Saint Leo I, known as St. Leo the Great, whose involvement in the fourth ecumenical council helped prevent the spread of error on Christ's divine and human natures.St. Leo intervened for the safety of the Church in the West as well, persuading Attila the Hun to turn back from Rome.Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians also maintain a devotion to the memory of Pope St. Leo the Great. Churches of the Byzantine tradition celebrate his feast day on Feb. 18.As the nickname soon attributed to him by tradition suggests, Pope Benedict XVI said in a 2008 general audience on the saint, he was truly one of the greatest pontiffs to have honoured the Roman See and made a very important contribution to strengthening its authority and prestige.Leos origins are obscure and his date of birth unknown. His ancestors are said to have come from Tuscany, though the future pope may have been born in that region or in Rome itself. He became a deacon in Rome in approximately 430, during the pontificate of Pope Celestine I.During this time, central authority was beginning to decline in the Western portion of the Roman Empire. At some point between 432 and 440, during the reign of Pope St. Celestines successor Pope Sixtus III, the Roman Emperor Valentinian III commissioned Leo to travel to the region of Gaul and settle a dispute between military and civil officials.Pope Sixtus III died in 440 and, like his predecessor Celestine, was canonized as a saint. Leo, away on his diplomatic mission at the time of the Popes death, was chosen to be the next Bishop of Rome. Reigning for over two decades, he sought to preserve the unity of the Church in its profession of faith, and to ensure the safety of his people against frequent barbarian invasions.Leo used his authority, in both doctrinal and disciplinary matters, against a number of heresies troubling the Western church including Pelagianism (involving the denial of Original Sin) and Manichaeanism (a gnostic system that saw matter as evil). In this same period, many Eastern Christians had begun arguing about the relationship between Jesus humanity and divinity.As early as 445, Leo had intervened in this dispute in the East, which threatened to split the churches of Alexandria and Constantinople. Its eventual resolution was, in fact, rejected in some quarters leading to the present-day split between Eastern Orthodoxy and the so-called non-Chalcedonian churches which accept only three ecumenical councils.As the fifth-century Christological controversy continued, the Pope urged the gathering of an ecumenical council to resolve the matter. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Popes teaching was received as authoritative by the Eastern bishops, who proclaimed: Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.Leos teaching confirmed that Christs eternal divine personhood and nature did not absorb or negate the human nature that he assumed in time through the Incarnation. Instead, the proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person.So without leaving his Father's glory behind, the Son of God comes down from his heavenly throne and enters the depths of our world, the Pope taught. Whilst remaining pre-existent, he begins to exist in time. The Lord of the universe veiled his measureless majesty and took on a servant's form. The God who knew no suffering did not despise becoming a suffering man, and, deathless as he is, to be subject to the laws of death.In 452, one year after the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo led a delegation which successfully negotiated with the barbarian king Attila to prevent an invasion of Rome. When the Vandal leader Genseric occupied Rome in 455, the Pope confronted him, unarmed, and obtained a guarantee of safety for many of the citys inhabitants and the churches to which they had fled.Pope St. Leo the Great died on Nov. 10, 461. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pope Benedict XIV in 1754. A large collection of his writings and sermons survives, and can be read in translation today. Saint of the Day Copyright CNA, Catholic News Agency

* So we did! Ha! 8/14/20 Update: The Cancel Culture got to our petition. Change.org took down our Russia Pulitizer petition because "it violated our Community Guidelines."  Right. By telling the truth (Gal. 4:16). See this now on BEL's List of When We've Been Dissed! 8/18 Update: Here's a knockoff petition! 8/20 Update: Now they squashed even the knockoff petition. Sheesh! * First Time BEL Takes a Trump Suggestion and This Happens: Earlier this week on the Fox News Channel on Hannity president Trump said, "Frankly, [somebody] ought to start a petition to return the Pulitzer prize because they were all wrong." So we did. Until change.org unceremonisously quashed our petition it was at change.org/p/ny-times-and-washington-post-must-return-russia-pulitzer. Here's a red-lettered screenshot: In Text: KGOV Petition NY Times and Washington Post Must Return Russia Pulitzer The New York Times and Washington Post connected hundreds of dots that had no actual connections in what Pulitzer ironically called their "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage... of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its CONNECTIONS to the Trump campaign..." Trump/Russian collusion is known today to be false including through the investigations of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, and the Inspector General of the Justice Department. Rather, the actual collusion to interfere in the election was committed when Hillary Clinton spent millions purchasing the anonymous Russian disinformation that filled the falsified Steele dossier used by the Obama/Biden administration's weaponized law enforcement and intelligence communities to spy on their political opponents and attempt to undermine the election and their later attempt at a treasonous coup against a duly elected American president. Donald Trump on Aug. 11, 2020 said on Hannity on the Fox News Channel, "about Russia... the New York Times... and the Washington Post... they got the Pulitzer Prize. The Pulitzer Prize is worthless as far as I'm concerned..." Pulitzer Board, rescind the prize. NY Times, stop the lies. And with the Washington Post, return the prize. * Also on today's program: We discussed Obama's Safe School's Czar, our lawsuit announced on yesterday's program Bob Sues the Government, our brief email reply to a leftist anti-Trumper who's been trolling Bob, and Bob's reply to leftist listener who wrote in that Christians should all believe the earth is flat because the Bible says it's flat. * Obama's Safe School's director and GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings who promotes pedophiles through his praise of pedophilia advocate  Harry Hay who worked with NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association dedicated to repeal age of consent laws and end the "opression of men and boys in consensual relationships"), who thanks the 25-year-old man who raped him when he was 14, and who wished that experience on other boys, sometimes saying, "13, 14, 15-year old kids [who] would be welcoming this", and at other times, lowering that age, as he did speaking publicly in San Francisco in a forum titled, Man/Boy Love and Sexual Liberation, "I think that the 12-year-old, 13-year-old boy approaching puberty knows [what] he needs... and he wants very much to reach out and find someone who will give this to him." Pervert freak. And Jennings is just as bad for honoring Hay, and Obama is worse for absurdly giving Jennings a "safe schools" appointment. (Find this at kgov.com/pedophiles, kgov.com/homos, and kgov.com/superfluous.) * Christian Religious Orders that Taught a Flat Earth: Which of the following Christian authorities and organizations taught the flat Earth? - Of Catholic religious orders...   (Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, Benedictines, Trappists, Carmelites, etc.) - Of Protestant denominations...   (Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Church of Christ, Baptists, etc.)  - Of Eastern Christianity...   (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental, Ethiopian, Eastern Catholic, Assyrian) - Of the Popes of the Roman Catholic Church...   (which among all 266 of them) - Of the councils...   (Jerusalem, Rome, Ephesus, Carthage, Antioch, Nicea, etc.) - Of the creeds...   (Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedonian, Athanasian, etc.) - Of the confessions   (Augsburg, Confession of Faith, Heidelberg, 95 Theses, Canons of Dordt, Westminster, etc.) - Of the Reformation's universities...   (Universities of Geneva, Jena, Leiden, Dublin, Groningen, Strasbourg, Utrecht, etc.) - Of the Christian-founded universities of the Middle Ages...   (Oxford, Cambridge, Universities of Paris, Bologna, Rome, Toulouse, Pisa, Orleans, Prague, Salamanca, Florence, Monpellier, Naples, Dublin, Vienna, Heidelberg, Cologne, Barcelona, Basel, Glasgow, Tübingen, Aberdeen, Frankfurt, Copenhagen, Bonaventure, St. Andrews, etc.) - Of the church's leading historical theologians and authors...   (Justin Martyr d. 165, Athenagros, 190, Clement 216, Tertullian 220, Origen 254, Cyprian 258, Athanasius 373, Basil 379, Gregory 395, Ambrose 397, Chrysostom 407, Jerome 420, Augustine 430, Cyril 444, Boethius 525, Gregory the Great 604, Anselm 1109, Hildegard 1179, Magnus 1280, Francis 1286, Bonaventure 1274, Aquinas 1274, John Duns Scotus 1308, William of Ockham 1347, Wycliffe 1384, Zwingli 1531, Erasmus 1535, Luther 1546, Servetus 1553, Ignatius 1556, Melanchthon 1560, Menno 1561, Calvin 1564, Knox 1572, John Foxe 1587, Arminius 1609, John Milton 1674, Owen 1683, John Bunyan 1688, Whitefield 1770, Wesley 1791, etc.) Answer: NONE OF THEM. If the Bible actually taught a flat Earth, and especially prior to Copernican heliocentrism, one would expect the church to have taught the flat Earth. But the Bible doesn't, and the church never has. Against the truth, millions of atheists, etc., continue to allege that the church has historically taught a flat earth either because those materialists are uneducated or because they are willing to make false accusations. See the links at rsr.org/flat-earth#prof for University of California history professor Dr. Jeffrey Russell's writings Inventing the Flat Earth and The Myth of the Flat Earth. Today though, combining the negative effects of social media with the low-quality science education of our public schools, and we have a global phenomenon whereby, as per above, 10% of the population of France (a secular society) is unsure about a spherical Earth, and remember, according to LiveScience the president of the Flat Earth Society Daniel Shenton is a Darwinist. (Find this at rsr.org/flat-earth.) * Bob Sues the Government: Bob Enyart, as the pastor of Denver Bible Church, along with pastor Joey Rhoads, of Brighton Colorado's Community Baptist Church, through their attorneys Rebecca Messall and Brad Bergford, have filed suit against the federal and state governments. If we here at BEL present this lawsuit in the vernacular using our typical talk-radio street-talk style, please don't hold that against our attorneys who have dotted every i and crossed every t. We've sued Steve Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, Alex Azar, HHS Secretary, Chad Wolf, Homeland Security Secretary, and the vacant Office of the Governor, State of Colorado, and Jill Ryan, director of the Colorado Deparment of Health. DBC v. the Federal and Colorado Governments is case #1:20-cv-02362.  

The "extra Calvinisticum" and the coherence of Chalcedonian christology.

Lecture 3: Silence through schism and two Reformations: 451-1500 The significance of the threeway split in Christianity after the Council of Chalcedon (451). The purposeful Chalcedonian forgetting of Evagrius Ponticus and the contribution of an anonymous theologian who took the name Dionysius the Areopagite. The role of Augustine in the Western Church: a theologian of words, not silence. The transformation in the use of silence and its function after the Carolingian expansion of Benedictine monastic life (together with the West’s discovery of pseudo-Dionysius), and the further development through the great years of Cluny Abbey. Counter-currents on silence in the medieval West, and the significance of the Iconoclastic controversy, and later hesychasm, in the Byzantine world. Tensions between clerical and lay spirituality in the late medieval West. Recorded 26 April 2012 at St Cecilia's Hall, Edinburgh. Audio version.

Prof. James K. A. Smith: Christ and Creation Conference

Church History: Chapter 20 – Turning Points: Mohammad and Islam Muhammad, was born around 570 A.D. Both of his parents died before he was six years old and he became a nomad joining a tribe of one of his relatives. Most of the information we have about him is second hand. He had numerous visions or dreams where he was “told by Gabriel” to “Recite.” These visions became commandments that were recorded in the Koran. He was rejected by many because he taught a monotheism which upset the idol worshippers of the time. Islam claims that Mohammad fulfilled a prophecy of Jesus in that he was the counselor Jesus promised. Key Words Goths, Vandals, Lombards, Arabs, Islam, Muslims, Sunnis, Shiites, ISIS, Constantinople, “Byzantine”, “Near East”, Sasian Kingdom, Sasanian Empire, Semitic, Shem, Zoroastrianism, Zoroaster, “Angra Mainyu”, “Ahura Mazda”, Nestorius, nomadic peoples, tents, families, clans, tribes, Mecca, Arabian Peninsula, cube, Ka’ba, Koran, Quraysh tribe, Zamzam spring, Hashimite clan, monotheist, hunafa, Mount Hira, Ramadan, Gabriel, “Jibra’eel”, The “Messenger of God”, paraklete, counselor, Yathrib, Medina, Najran, Yemen, Euthyches, Chalcedonian council, Sabaeans, Allah, Abu Bakr, Umar, Utham, Hadith, five “pillars”, “Salah”’ “Zakat”, “Sawm”, “Hajj”, visions descended

Lecture 3: Silence through schism and two Reformations: 451-1500The significance of the threeway split in Christianity after the Council of Chalcedon (451). The purposeful Chalcedonian forgetting of Evagrius Ponticus and the contribution of an anonymous theologian who took the name Dionysius the Areopagite. The role of Augustine in the Western Church: a theologian of words, not silence. The transformation in the use of silence and its function after the Carolingian expansion of Benedictine monastic life (together with the West's discovery of pseudo-Dionysius), and the further development through the great years of Cluny Abbey. Counter-currents on silence in the medieval West, and the significance of the Iconoclastic controversy, and later hesychasm, in the Byzantine world. Tensions between clerical and lay spirituality in the late medieval West.Recorded 26 April 2012 at St Cecilia's Hall, Edinburgh. Audio version.

Lecture 3: Silence through schism and two Reformations: 451-1500 The significance of the threeway split in Christianity after the Council of Chalcedon (451). The purposeful Chalcedonian forgetting of Evagrius Ponticus and the contribution of an anonymous theologian who took the name Dionysius the Areopagite. The role of Augustine in the Western Church: a theologian of words, not silence. The transformation in the use of silence and its function after the Carolingian expansion of Benedictine monastic life (together with the West’s discovery of pseudo-Dionysius), and the further development through the great years of Cluny Abbey. Counter-currents on silence in the medieval West, and the significance of the Iconoclastic controversy, and later hesychasm, in the Byzantine world. Tensions between clerical and lay spirituality in the late medieval West. Recorded 26 April 2012 at St Cecilia's Hall, Edinburgh.

This episode is titled – The Divide.I begin with a quote from a man known to scholars as Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite. In a commentary on the names of God he wrote . . .The One is a Unity which is the unifying Source of all unity and a Super-Essential Essence, a Mind beyond the reach of mind and a Word beyond utterance, eluding Discourse, Intuition, Name, and every kind of being. It is the Universal Cause of existence while Itself existing not, for It is beyond all Being and such that It alone could give a revelation of Itself.If that sounds more like something an Eastern guru would come up with, don't worry, you're right. Dionysius isn't called Pseudo for nothing.We'll get to him a bit deeper into this episode.The late 5th & 6th Cs saw important developments in the Eastern church. It's the time of the premier Byzantine Emperor, Justinian. But 2 contemporaries of his also made important contributions to the most important institutions of the medieval church in the West. One of them we've already mentioned in brief, the other we'll devote an episode to; Benedict of Nursia & Pope Gregory the Great.By the end of the 6th C, the unique characteristics of the Eastern and Western churches had coalesced in two different traditions. While the West remained loyal to the pattern held at Rome, the East emerged in 3 directions.The major Councils held at Ephesus & Chalcedon to decide the issue raised by the debate between Cyril of Alexandria & Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, over the nature of Christ, produced a 3-way split in the Eastern church. That split continues to this day and is seen in what's called the . . .(1) Chalcedonian or Byzantine Orthodox church(2) Those called Monophysites or Oriental Orthodox, which follows the theological line of Cyril &(3) The Nestorian Church of the East.Without going into all the intricate details of the debates, suffice it to say the Eastern Church wasn't satisfied with the Western-inspired formula describing the nature of Jesus adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. In a scenario reminiscent of what had happened all the way back at the first council at Nicaea in 325, while they concluded the council at Chalcedon with an agreed creed, some bishops later hemmed & hawed over the verbiage. To those Eastern bishops beholden to Cyril, Chalcedon sounded too Nestorian to swallow. Chalcedon said Jesus was “1 person in 2 natures.” The balking bishops wanted to alter that to say he was “out of 2 natures” before the incarnation, but after he was 1 nature.Now, for those listening to several of these podcasts in a row rather than spaced out over several weeks, I know this is repetitious. In a brief summary let me recap Cyril's & Nestorius' views. Regarding how to understand who Jesus is; that is, how His identities as both God & Man related to each other . . .Cyril said he was both God & Man, but that the divine so overwhelmed the human it became virtually meaningless. The analogy was that his humanity was a drop of ink in the ocean of His divinity. Therefore, Mary was the Theotokos – the mother of God.Nestorius, balked at that title, saying Mary was Jesus human mother who became the means by which Jesus was human but that she should not be called the mother of God. Nestorius said Jesus was both human & divine and emphasized his humanity and the role it played in the redemption of lost sinners.Because Nestorius reacted to what he considered the aberrant position of Cyril, and because he lacked tact and a knew when to shut up, his opponents claimed he taught Jesus wasn't just of 2 natures but was 2 persons living in the same body. For this, he was branded a heretic.But when the Council of Chalcedon finally issued its official stand on what compromised Christian orthodoxy regarding the person & natures of Christ, Nestorius said they'd only articulated what he'd always taught.So it's little wonder post-Chalcedon bishops of the Cyrillian slant rejected Chalcedon. Their view left the humanity of Christ as an abstract and impersonal dimension of His nature. Because they SO emphasized His deity, at the cost of his humanity, they were branded as “Monophysites” or sometimes you'll hear it pronounced as “muh-noph–uh-sites.” Sadly, just as those labeled Nestorian weren't heretical as the name came to mean, the term Monophysite is also inaccurate because they did not DENY Jesus' humanity.The Greek prefix mono implies “only one” nature. A better descriptor is monophysite. Hen- is the Greek prefix meaning one, but without the “only” limiter.But the Eastern push-back on Chalcedon wasn't just theological; it was also nationalistic. The church in Egypt went into revolt after the Council because their patriarch Dioscorus was deposed!Then in Canon 28 of the Council's creed, Constantinople was elevated as 2nd only to Rome in terms of prestige, so both Alexandria & Antioch got their togas in a bunch. Those bishops who supported Chalcedon were labeled “Melchites,” meaning royalists because they supported the Imperial church.We've noted that while the Western Emperor was out of the picture by this time, so that the Roman pope stood as a kind of lone figure leading the West, the Eastern Emperor at Constantinople still wielded tremendous authority in the Church. We might wonder therefore why they didn't step in to settle the issue about the nature of Christ.  They wanted to. Several of them would have liked to repudiate Chalcedon, but their hands were tied, because there was one part of the Council they wanted to keep – Canon 28, setting up Constantinople as technically Rome's second, but in reality, her equal.Now, as I studied the material that follows the debates between the Henophysites & Chalcedonians I found myself at a loss on how to relate it without boring the bejeebers out of you. I spent quite a bit of time working, editing, re-editing, deleting, restoring, and deleting again before deciding to just say that in the East during the 5th & 6th Cs, just about everybody was caught up in this thing. Emperors, bishops, patriarchs, metropolitans, monks, priests, & the common people. There are technical words like Encyclion, Henoticon, Severan, Acacian that are employed to define the different sides taken in the debate, and those who tried to forge a compromise. And let me tell you – THOSE guys failed miserably in working a compromise. They got hammered by BOTH sides.Regarding the long debate over the natures of Christ in the East, Everett Ferguson says that the irony is that the Chalcedonians, Henophysites, and the Church of the East were really trying to say the same thing about Jesus. He was somehow at the same time 2 somethings, but a single individual. Their different starting points gave different formulations their opponents couldn't accept for theological reasons and wouldn't for political reasons.Switching gears: Around 500 one of the most influential thinkers in Greek Orthodox spirituality made his mark, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. His real name is unknown. He claimed to be Dionysius, one of Paul's Athenian converts mentioned in Acts 17. His contemporaries accepted his writings as legit. We know now they weren't.Pseudo-Dionysius combined Christianity & Neoplatonism into a mish-mash slap-dash theology that appealed to both Chalcedonians and Henophysites. Probably because when you read it you inwardly say, “What?” but had to nod your head saying how amazing it was so you wouldn't appear stupid. Like when I read or listen to Stephen Hawking waxing eloquent on some tangent of astrophysics; I say, “Wow! That guy's brilliant!” But don't ask me to explain what I just heard. He speaks English, but it might as well be ancient Akkadian.Besides being a Neoplatonist, Pseudo-Dionysius was also a mystic, meaning someone who claimed to have had an experience of union with God, not just a deep sense of connection to Him, but an actual uniting with the essence of deity. Pseudo-Dionysius became the author of a branch of Christian mysticism that was hugely influential in Eastern Christianity. When his work was translated into Latin in the 9th C, he became influential in the West as well.Pseudo-Dionysius writings stressed a tendency already found in Greek Christian authors like Origen, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nyssa who said the goal of human salvation was a kind of making humans divine.We need to be careful here, because as soon as I say that, all the Western Christians say, “Wait! What?!!?!? Back the truck up Billy Bob. I think we just ran over something.”There is in Eastern Orthodoxy a different understanding of salvation from that of Roman Catholicism & Classic Protestantism.Eastern Orthodoxy understands that the saved are destined to a level of glory in heaven that is on an order of existence that can only properly be described as divine.No; humans don't become gods; not like the one true and only Creator God. But they were created in His image and will be restored to & completed in that image so that they will be as much LIKE God as a created being can be and still not be God.This quasi-deification is attained by purification, illumination, and perfection, meaning union with God, which became the three stages of enlightenment espoused by classic mysticism.Okay, hang with me as we go deep. Pseudo-Dionysius identified three stages in how someone seeking the fullness of salvation can describe God:1) Giving Him a name was affirmative theology.2) Denying that name was negative theology. And …3) Then reconciling the contradiction by looking beyond language was superlative theology.The way of negation led to the contemplation that marks mystical theology, which was considered a simpler and purer way to understand God. In other words, it's easier to know who and what God is by concentrating on what He's not. And if that seems backward and nonsensical – welcome to the club of those who aren't mystics and just scratch their heads when the mystics start talking.Pseudo-Dionysius' arrangement of angels into nine levels became the basis for the medieval doctrine of angels.Reading Pseudo-Dionysius can be frustrating for those who try to parse out his logic and seek to discern in his words some profound truths. While all very spiritual sounding, they're typical of many such mystical tomes; a cascade of words that defy interpreting. The mind is set in a place of trying to reconcile competing, and ultimately contradictory ideas. This tension causes the reader to mentally shut down, and it's in that state of suspended reason that the soul is supposed to be able to connect to God. It's the same effect as repeated mantras and eastern style meditation.Still, Pseudo-Dionysius was extremely influential in shaping how countless Christians of the 6th through 10th Cs went about seeking to grow in their relationship with God. Today, we dismiss him by calling him Pseudo-, Fake-, Fraud-, Poser-Dionysius.