Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

The book 'Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence' by James Dunn ("one of the world's top NT scholars) is referenced in the discussion of Jewish Christians in another thread.

The conclusion of the study of NT is that No, the earliest Christians did not Worship Jesus as a God.

Here is an excerpt from the book as quoted in the Amazon review:

"So our central question can indeed be answered negatively, and perhaps it should be. But not if the result is a far less adequate worship of God. For the worship that really constitutes Christianity and forms its distinctive contribution to the dialogue of the religions, is the worship of God as enabled by Jesus, the worship of God as revealed in and through Jesus. Christianity remains a monotheistic faith. The only one to be worshipped is the one God. But how can Christians fail to honor the one through whom it believes the only God has most fully revealed himself, the one through whom the only God has come closest to the condition of humankind? Jesus cannot fail to feature in their worship, their hymns of praise, their petitions to God. But such worship is always, should always be offered to the glory of God the Father. Such worship is always, should always be offered in the recognition that God is all in all, and that the majesty of the Lord Jesus in the end of the day expresses and affirms the majesty of the one God more clearly than anything else in the world."

http://www.amazon.com/Did-First-Christi ... 0664231969

i.e. The earliest Christians did not worship Jesus as God.

Cheers,
Shafique

Thanks for the review. It's interesting you happened to quote a book by Dunn. You, of course, have never read a single sentence Dunn has written so it's quite ironic for you to quote him in ignorance since his views on Christianity are at complete contradiction with your own. I happened to have read Dunn's work regarding the New Perspective and so I'm familiar with him as a scholar/writer. I have not read this current book but am familiar with arguments that cut both ways - including the writings of the earliest extant writings of Christians in the late first century/early 2nd that demonstrate worship of Jesus occured within living memory of the apostles; indeed, these early Christians were disciples of the first apostles - Peter and John. What I learned in the review is that Dunn was in communication with New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado who has come to the exact opposite conclusions as Dunn in an earlier (?) book. What's interesting is what the reviewer says and Dunn concedes:

The book begins with an acknowledgment of two principal dialogue partners: Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham, both of whom have published numerous studies on this topic, interacting with Dunn and with one another. In posing the question that is the title of the book, and identifying his key conversation partners, Dunn also emphasizes that mere citation of texts will not answer the questions, and that his scholarly interaction with others is less a matter of "agreement" or "disagreement" than one of nuance and an attempt to bring further precision and clarity. The introduction ends with an identification of key sub-questions that will be the focus of the chapters in the remainder of the book.

I'm glad you're familiar with the work of Dunn and look forward to your review of his book and whether you agree with the conclusion of his book which I cited in the OP - i.e. that the earliest Christians did not worship Jesus as God according to the evidence in the NT.

This book is on Scribd, pdf and text, and I am reading it. We can share notes on it - I've already read quite a few reviews of it already so am familiar with what he says and concludes, but am reading it in full too. I've also read the first (and last chronologically) essay in the book of his you say you've read 'New Perspective on Paul' (I skipped over most of the footnotes though).

On pg 35 he makes a passing reference to Jewish 'separateness' - i.e. segregationism - an observation you seem to think equals anti-semitism when Karmi made reference to it:

At the other end of the scale we need only instance examples of apartheid, or racial segregation in the southern states of the USA, or the community tensions in Northern Ireland, or the massacres of Tutsis in Rwanda, or the internecine hos- tilities in former Yugoslavia — all involving Christians!1 3 4
Not to mention the tragic 'turning of the tables' when Judaism's separateness was horrifically over- taken by Christianity's supersessionism and anti-semitism.135

The discussion in NPP is interesting - particularly on the central issue of works and faith - but one I'll file away for later reading, and finish off his latest book first.

As you say, Dunn has looked at the 'arguments that cut both ways'. He examined it against the evidence in the NT and his conclusion is as per the thread title. Those that 'believe' Trinity was taught by Jesus etc will of course disagree with Dunn's conclusion - but will do so from a matter of belief rather than evidence.

Dunn's conclusion is in accordance with what I've been saying from the outset of our discussions, is indeed satisfying. I've said that Muslims agree with the view of the earliest Christians that Jesus isn't God and that he was the Messiah for the Jews, did not advocate his followers not following Judaic law etc. I've always said that the main deification of Jesus is a later interpretation in Christianity and was a choice made by men who came after Jesus.

This thread is about the NT evidence that the earliest Christians did not worship Jesus as God. By an eminent NT scholar. That you want to make it about me is flattering, but misses the point completely.

As a Christian Dunn disagrees with other aspects of what Islam teaches Jesus' message and mission was. However this thread is not about 'other theological issues' but about the specific point of whether the earliest Christians worshipped Jesus as God. They didn't, he concludes.

Cheers,
Shafique

There's a level of stupidity in your posts that only you are capable of. Dunn applies a level of exegesis to the New Testament you reject for the Koran or New Testament when it doesn't suit you. In this case, Dunn argues that "worship" in Greek at the time doesn't necessarily mean worship as we know it in the modern sense. The New Testament is full of passages where the apostles "worship" Jesus (you claim you're reading the book, right?); Dunn's argument here is that "worship" in Greek 2,000 years ago had a broader meaning than today. That's a great argument demonstrating the level of higher criticism present in Biblical scholarship but Dunn's thesis cannot be proven from this line of argument - he is only offering alternative interpretations for whether Jesus is actually worshiped in the New Testament. The rest of your post is full of the usual empty filler, such as claiming Christians who disagree with Dunn can only rely on belief - that's ignoring that these Christians actually rely on numerous passages from the New Testament.

shafique wrote:Dunn's conclusion is in accordance with what I've been saying from the outset of our discussions, is indeed satisfying...that he was the Messiah for the Jews

I've yet to read Dunn's book but the trendy belief among many New Testament scholars is that Jesus was NOT considered the Messiah for the Jews. This is viewed as a development after Jesus' death the same way these SAME scholars regard Jesus' progression toward a deity. But hey, if you have a relevant passage from Dunn saying he believed Jesus was considered the Messiah by the earliest Christian community then please post away.

shafique wrote:did not advocate his followers not following Judaic law etc.

Huh? Have you actually read the book? Dunn does not question Jesus' antithesis of the Law according to the review *you* linked. I also doubt Dunn questions the abrogation of the law concerning sacrifice and forgiveness of sin.

shafique wrote:I've always said that the main deification of Jesus is a later interpretation in Christianity and was a choice made by men who came after Jesus.

And modern scholars make the same argument regarding Jesus being the Messiah. This is how easy it is to spot that you don't read actual scholarly works on religion. You simply make yourself out to be a fool with each and every post you make.

shafique wrote:This thread is about the NT evidence that the earliest Christians did not worship Jesus as God. By an eminent NT scholar.

Thanks for the revelation what this thread is about, but Dunn doesn't argue that the New Testament, when read literally, doesn't say Jesus' followers did not worship him.

shafique wrote:On pg 35 he makes a passing reference to Jewish 'separateness' - i.e. segregationism - an observation you seem to think equals anti-semitism when Karmi made reference to it:

You really never disappoint in sheer stupidity. It was your taking incidents of some Jews and blaming Judaism that I said was anti-Semitic *based* (and here you show off your stupidity like a champ) on YOUR definition of "Islamophobia" by simply changing Islam for Judaism and Muslims for Jews.

rayznack wrote:Have you actually read the book?

Yes, I have - I've just finished it. At 150 pages it is quite an easy read (certainly more accessible than New Perspective on Paul).

rayznack wrote:Thanks for the revelation what this thread is about, but Dunn doesn't argue that the New Testament, when read literally, doesn't say Jesus' followers did not worship him.

Actually what Dunn says is that the earliest Christians did NOT worship Jesus as God. (Chapter 1 is on the language of worship, Chapter 2 is on the practice of worship - and he builds on this in subsequent chapters)

pg 27/28 on specific issue of worship:

In the case of the most common words for praise and thanksgiving (eucharistein), they too are never offered to Christ. More common is the giving of thanks to God for what Jesus has done. In all this we would have to speak of something like a reserve or caution in the language of worship insofar as it was used in reference to Jesus. The first answer to our question, 'Did the first Christians worship Jesus?', would therefore seem to be, 'Generally no', or 'Only occasionally', or 'Only with some reserve.'

Dunn makes the point that Revelations is not to be taken literally - and I loved this turn of phrase on pg 132:

The hermeneutical rule governing the interpretation of apocalypses should not be forgotten: to interpret them literally is to misinterpret them.

Ch 4 - Dunn makes the pretty categoric claim that Jesus was a Monotheist - and concludes (pg146):

So when we transpose our findings into an answer to our central question, the dominant answer for Christian worship seems to be that the first Christians did not think of Jesus as to be worshipped in and for himself. He was not to be worshipped as wholly God, or fully identified with God, far less as a god.

In his conclusion, he introduces us to a term 'jesus-olatory' on pg 147:

One is that there are some problems, even dangers, in Christian worship if it is defined too simply as worship of Jesus. For, if what has emerged in this inquiry is taken seriously, it soon becomes evident that Christian worship can deteriorate into what may be called Jesus-olatry. That is, not simply into worship of Jesus, but into a worship that falls short of the wor- ship due to the one God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I use the term 'Jesus-olatry' as in an important sense parallel or even close to 'idolatry'.

The quote in the OP are the final words of the book. On pg 149 he also says:

In the light of such reflection and conclusion the particular question, 'Did the first Christians worship Jesus?', can be seen to be much less relevant, less important and potentially misleading. It can be answered simply, or simplistically, even dismissively, with a mainly negative answer. No, by and large the first Christians did not worship Jesus as such. Worship language and practice at times do appear in the New Testament in reference to Christ. But on the whole, there is more reserve on the subject. Christ is the subject of praise and hymn-singing, the content of early Christian worship, more than the one to whom the worship and praise is offered.

When you have read the book, I'd be happy to discuss this further with you.

(BTW - I chuckled at your name calling and your spin of the alleged anti-semitism by Karmi. In reality Dunn has made the same point Karmi made.)

Cheers,
Shafique

PS - Dunn tackles Baukham and Hurtado's arguments head on particularly see pgs 112 (footnote) and pg113 as examples.

shafique wrote:Actually what Dunn says is that the earliest Christians did NOT worship Jesus as God. (Chapter 1 is on the language of worship

Actually, Dunn, as I just explained, does say Jesus was worshiped. He qualifies worship as an act of reverence.

So, worship = praise but not the most straightforward meaning we use today.

That's Dunn's argument. This is higher criticism that you're incapable (laughably) of consistently applying to either the Koran or Bible in times past.

(BTW - I chuckled at your name calling and your spin of the alleged anti-semitism by Karmi. In reality Dunn has made the same point Karmi made.)

As "Islamophobes" have made about Islam. Still chuckling?

Btw, I chuckled at your quotation of Dunn regarding Revelation (not Revelations (sic)) since it's always been interpreted non-literally by mainstream Christian groups when you and your gurus have taken Revelation literally (lol).

Well, the conclusion of Dunn is that Jesus was not worshipped as a God by the earliest Christians. (Which is what I stated in the OP)

When you've read what Dunn has actually written, you'll see that Dunn explains that Jesus did worship the one God and instructed his followers to do the same. He explains that this IS worship, and explains how the earliest Christians did not worship Jesus in this manner.

Here's a quote from Ch 1:

More typically in the New Testament, proskynein is used of the worship (prostration) due to God, and to God alone. We should recall once again the rebuke of Jesus to the tempter: '(You shall) worship (proskyneseis) the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve' (Matt. 4.10/Luke 4..

Dunn then explains how this description of worship is not used for Jesus in the NT except for a few examples, and he tackles the examples.

This is indeed intriguing. The number of references to Jesus being worshipped (proskynein) is surprisingly few.

He also tackles the other Greek words that are translated as 'worship'.

When you have read the book you'll be able to confirm this.

But at least we seem to agree on the conclusion - Jesus was not worshipped as a God by the earliest Christians. Jesus did Worship God, and did ask his followers to Worship God

Interesting to note that worship=proskynseis, where "proskynein is the regular translation of the Hebrew shachah. Shachah in the Hebrew Bible has the basic meaning of 'bow down, prostrate oneself, make obeisance before'."

Shachah is therefore equivalent of the Arabic 'sajdah' = to prostrate, where Masjid = mosque = place of prostration comes from. (Worship in Arabic is Ibadah though = obedience, submission, and devotion to Allah (God) along with the ultimate love for Him)

Cheers,
Shafique

Well, the conclusion of Dunn is that Jesus was not worshipped as a God by the earliest Christians. (Which is what I stated in the OP)

The conclusion of Dunn is in contradiction with the conclusion of Hurtado who has written a 768 page tome on the subject (and has had favorable reviews):

http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Jesus-Christ ... ewpoints=1

you'll see that Dunn explains that Jesus did worship the one God and instructed his followers to do the same

I don't think that's a disputed point. But good for you for bringing something up to look like you have a rebuttal.

More typically in the New Testament, proskynein is used of the worship (prostration) due to God, and to God alone. We should recall once again the rebuke of Jesus to the tempter: '(You shall) worship (proskyneseis) the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve' (Matt. 4.10/Luke 4

This is indeed intriguing. The number of references to Jesus being worshipped (proskynein) is surprisingly few.

Few, not absent. At least Dunn acknowledges that Jesus was worshiped and the Greek used is "proskynein", a term that denotes worship/prostration.

So, the big-thing point is that proskynein is used when referring to the worship of God many times in the New Testament and also for worshiping Jesus. Well, I don't think much more needs to be said here.

But at least we seem to agree on the conclusion - Jesus was not worshipped as a God by the earliest Christians. Jesus did Worship God

Sorry, I must have been absent when someone typed a post for me. Where have I agreed with this conclusion? Just highlight the post where I say this.

Btw, I'm curious where Dunn agrees with you regarding Jesus being the Messiah. Did he say the earliest Christians held this belief? That might be somewhat controversial as I said because higher criticism is currently of the position that Jesus was not viewed as the Messiah and that this was a progression.

rayznack wrote:The conclusion of Dunn is in contradiction with the conclusion of Hurtado

As I said, when you read Dunn's book you'll see he addresses Hurtado head on. Hurtado is a believing Christian and therefore does provide arguments in support of the orthodox view that Jesus is a God and was worshipped as such from outset.

Dunn shows the evidence in the NT does not back up this view. Jesus was not worshipped as a God by the earliest Christians.

rayznack wrote:Btw, I'm curious where Dunn agrees with you regarding Jesus being the Messiah. Did he say the earliest Christians held this belief?

Yes, he does:

On pg 145, Conclusion, Dunn opens the section with this:

The results of this survey are astonishing. Here was the man Jesus of Nazareth, who had been executed within the lifetime of most of those who wrote the New Testament writings. He had made a huge impact as a prophet and exceptional teacher during his mission. He was regarded by his followers as the Messiah that Israel had longed for.

QED

I suggest you read the book rather than continue to make assumptions which are proved wrong (as you've done repeatedly in this thread).

Cheers,
Shafique

I suggest you read the book rather than continue to make assumptions which are proved wrong (as you've done repeatedly in this thread).

A question isn't an assumption, stupid.

Hurtado is a believing Christian and therefore does provide arguments in support of the orthodox view that Jesus is a God and was worshipped as such from outset.

This comment isn't worth a response. Your only response to Hurtado's groundbreaking tome is that he's a Christian so he's automatically biased. His credentials in academia and the fact his work has been praised can so easily be dismissed.

I don't what's worse - that you think this line of argument is even valid or that you're too stupid to realize that Dunn himself is a practicing Christian.

Dunn shows the evidence in the NT does not back up this view. Jesus was not worshipped as a God by the earliest Christians.

Dunn has not shown that from the New Testmament. Did you even read the first chapeter, liar? It is about worship (the following chapter is about prayer, so on) where Dunn concedes there are passages unique to both Jesus and the Father being worshiped. One example is from Revelation where the lamb (Jesus) is worshiped alongside the Father. You're a funny and delusional troll. Keep up the nice effort in failing.

So, Dunn does say the early Christians considered Jesus the Messiah of the Jews - care to elaborate on your earlier comments on how 'modern scholarship' does not view this to be the case?

shafique wrote:Dunn shows the evidence in the NT does not back up this view. Jesus was not worshipped as a God by the earliest Christians.

rayznack wrote:Dunn has not shown that from the New Testmament.

Your denial does not change the fact that Dunn has indeed shown this to be the case. Chapter 1 is all about distinguishing between the Worship of God (as Jesus worshipped God) and the lesser reverence shown to teachers and prophets.

The evidence in the NT is that the earliest Christians did not worship Jesus as God - i.e. didn't worship Jesus as Jesus worshipped God and instructed his followers to Worship God.



Fascinating to see you try and spin a book you haven't actually read yet. You first started off by assuming/accusing me of not reading the book and you've gone downhill since.



Cheers,

Shafique

So, Dunn does say the early Christians considered Jesus the Messiah of the Jews - care to elaborate on your earlier comments on how 'modern scholarship' does not view this to be the case?

Sure, there are numerous scholars who are of this position. I hardly said scholarship was uniformal - the fact that scholars such as Hurtado disagree is evidence of that (you'd have to be pretty dumb at this point not to have realized this point).

Chapter 1 is all about distinguishing between the Worship of God

Read the chapter again, dunce. Dunn parses examples he believes distinguish worship fromt the Father from Jesus and accepts the existence of several verses where worship of Jesus (Revelation and the worship of the lamb) is present in the New Testament. Claiming Dunn says otherwise ignores his examples he acknowledges and his own conclusion.

The evidence in the NT is that the earliest Christians did not worship Jesus as God - i.e. didn't worship Jesus as Jesus worshipped God and instructed his followers to Worship God.

You've repeated yourself several times now. Seems like we've reached the depth of your ability to construct an argument.

That Dunn's conclusion is clear was what I stated in the OP. You're the one that appeared to be in denial of what Dunn concludes (despite not reading his book), and even now are trying to spin what he concluded.

The earliest Christians did not worship Jesus as a God. This is exactly what I have always stated to you in our discussions. What's new is that Dunn shows this to be the case using NT evidence (and directly addresses the points Hurtado makes and shows why he's wrong).

As for Dunn mentioning that Jesus is mentioned as the object of worship in a limited number of places - I've already stated this in a post on this page above (you really should learn to be careful about understanding what you read, eh):

shafique wrote:Dunn then explains how this description of worship is not used for Jesus in the NT except for a few examples, and he tackles the examples.

This is indeed intriguing. The number of references to Jesus being worshipped (proskynein) is surprisingly few.

He also tackles the other Greek words that are translated as 'worship'.

You can't spin yourself out of this one.

Dunn's conclusion that the early Christians did NOT worship Jesus as God are despite these limited examples in the Bible.

Cheers,
Shafique