Jesus Christ: A regional deity?

[angellous_evangellous]

I am developing a thought here.... I've been reading and thinking about 1 and 2 Thessalonians lately, and it looks to me like the apocalypses (= end of the world / second coming talk) is highly regionalized. That is, the coming of the Lord and the resurrection, the lawless one (the anti-Christ) and even the final judgment in 2 Thess 1 and 2 seem to apply only to that city.

From my interpretation, which I'm not sure that I can explain here - I plan on publishing it at some point - the church in that city suffered greatly... the resurrection talk in the first letter is about how some people who have died will be included in the exitement of Jesus's return, and 2 Thess 1 and 2 focuses only on the people that have afflicted the church and by no means is applicable to the entire world.

I call it "the little apocalypse."

Anyhew, I thought that this may interest some of you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

One difficulty is the mentioning of the temple in 2 Thess -- I haven't descided what to do with that yet.

Perhaps the lawless one sets himself up as God in a pagan temple in the city...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I suppose a one-on-one debate would be interesting.

If Jesus is a regional deity, why is he referred to elsewhere as the Savior of the world (= cosmos in Greek)?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I suppose a one-on-one debate would be interesting.

If Jesus is a regional deity, why is he referred to elsewhere as the Savior of the world (= cosmos in Greek)?

I am specifically addressing the Thessalonian correspondence (1 and 2 Thessalonians), where I don't think that phrase occurs -- I'm sure that you're willing to double-check.

Besides, the case has been made that the writers of the NT do not include peoples outside of the Roman world (eg, the 'civilized' world) when using the word "cosmos." Every tounge, tribe, and nation is within a certain frame of reference... only after Christianity passed into unknown lands did the "cosmos" include nations outside of the civilized world.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am specifically addressing the Thessalonian correspondence (1 and 2 Thessalonians), where I don't think that phrase occurs -- I'm sure that you're willing to double-check.

You're right. I can't even find the Greek word kosmos in the Thessalonian letters, but there are some verses that may give you some trouble:

Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? ( I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?

ESV Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

ESV Galatians 6:14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're right. I can't even find the Greek word kosmos in the Thessalonian letters, but there are some verses that may give you some trouble:


Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? ( I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?


ESV Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

ESV Galatians 6:14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.​

Excellent. I am glad that you only quoted Paul!

I think that we can readily dismiss Galatians 6.14. The referant is not the entire known world, but all that Paul conceptually viewed as evil. It's theological.

The same may be said of Romans 3.19, but Paul's theologizing there is not to the exclusion of actual people because of Romans 1. The world here refers to Gentiles who are hostile to God - known Gentiles, that is.

But Romans 6.14, that's a problem. Paul obviously does not regard God as a deity confined to one area -- God is Lord over all things known. The question in my mind has to do with worldview - could Paul conceptualize a world completely unknown to himself, or is he able to apply the lordship of Jesus and God to unknown worlds?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The question in my mind has to do with worldview - could Paul conceptualize a world completely unknown to himself, or is he able to apply the lordship of Jesus and God to unknown worlds?

Have you considered Philippians 2?

5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,[b] being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Have you considered Philippians 2?


5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,[b] being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This still does not answer the question.

He could conceive of every knee on and under the earth as a finite number of people in the world known or imagined to him.

I have been obsessing over the apocalyptic nature of Christianity as focused on the fall of the Roman Empire (eg, John's Revelation) and the destruction of benefactors in certain cities who opposed Paul (1 and 2 Thess). Incidentally, Philippians - as you know, was in Macedonia, close to Thessalonica.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have been obsessing over the apocalyptic nature of Christianity as focused on the fall of the Roman Empire (eg, John's Revelation) and the destruction of benefactors in certain cities who opposed Paul (1 and 2 Thess). Incidentally, Philippians - as you know, was in Macedonia, close to Thessalonica.

So the Roman Empire is "regional"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So the Roman Empire is "regional"?

Yes. I think that Paul thought only of people groups that he knew of, and compartmentalized these groups into Roman regions.

People outside of these regions may as well be aliens from another world - their religion unknown - maybe even untouched by sin - who knows?.....

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This still does not answer the question.

He could conceive of every knee on and under the earth as a finite number of people in the world known or imagined to him.

I have been obsessing over the apocalyptic nature of Christianity as focused on the fall of the Roman Empire (eg, John's Revelation) and the destruction of benefactors in certain cities who opposed Paul (1 and 2 Thess). Incidentally, Philippians - as you know, was in Macedonia, close to Thessalonica.

So the earliest Christians envisioned a return of Christ that was centered specifically on those who persecuted them locally as well as the overthrow of the Roman Empire in general (which is the cosmos), with Jesus Christ supplanting the Emperor?

So John 3.16 is

"For God so loved all the people in the {Roman Empire} that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (= salvation from God's judgment on the Empire)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So the earliest Christians envisioned a return of Christ that was centered specifically on those who persecuted them locally as well as the overthrow of the Roman Empire in general (which is the cosmos), with Jesus Christ supplanting the Emperor?


So John 3.16 is

"For God so loved all the people in the {Roman Empire} that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (= salvation from God's judgment on the Empire)

Exactly.

So in my opinion, Christianity needed to be seriously overhauled when it became the religion of the Empire under Constantine.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Exactly.

So in my opinion, Christianity needed to be seriously overhauled when it became the religion of the Empire under Constantine.

Fascinating!

Being in your mind is more fun than the DaVinci Code!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Fascinating!

Being in your mind is more fun than the DaVinci Code!

: hamster :

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Fascinating!

Being in your mind is more fun than the DaVinci Code!

There is more if you'd like to hear - but you will owe me a beer.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is more if you'd like to hear - but you will owe me a beer.

In the immortal words of Mrs. Angellous -

"Speak, Enlightened One"

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In the immortal words of Mrs. Angellous -

"Speak, Enlightened One"

Ah, yes. I remember that.

I was going to say that several scholars think that Jesus and Paul tried to overhaul the Empire socially - turning institutions like patronage on its head through service and love.

However, my research indicates that there were other people - we call them idealists - that taught that patron/client relationships were to be based on love and service and not selfishness -- they reasoned that the patron/client relationships as they existed could be based on love and service without turning the system on its head.

That is a significant point!

Jesus and Paul were not overhauling a system - they were re-enforcing it just as other moralists did. But they faced persecution and condemned the afflictors to hell - not everyone in the world!!

Very un-ironically, the Roman Church continued after the fall of the Empire with the same patron/client relationships perfectly in place: the preisthood - based on the ideal of love and service even to this day - but, as we know, that is an ideal that was rarely achieved.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ah, yes. I remember that.

I was going to say that several scholars think that Jesus and Paul tried to overhaul the Empire socially - turning institutions like patronage on its head through service and love.

However, my research indicates that there were other people - we call them idealists - that taught that patron/client relationships were to be based on love and service and not selfishness -- they reasoned that the patron/client relationships as they existed could be based on love and service without turning the system on its head.

That is a significant point!

Jesus and Paul were not overhauling a system - they were re-enforcing it just as other moralists did. But they faced persecution and condemned the afflictors to hell - not everyone in the world!!

Very un-ironically, the Roman Church continued after the fall of the Empire with the same patron/client relationships perfectly in place: the preisthood - based on the ideal of love and service even to this day - but, as we know, that is an ideal that was rarely achieved.

but you will owe me a beer.

Have a well-deserved Killians on me.... well not "on" me - just drink the damn beer.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So in my opinion, Christianity needed to be seriously overhauled when it became the religion of the Empire under Constantine.

So Christianity went from a scattered group of people who were persecuted by local leaders and patrons like Pliny the Younger and later by Emperors - and looked forward to their destruction by God or Jesus.

But with Constantine, this paradigmn obviously shifted. The Empire is now good - and the apocalypse has to be applied to something else - perhaps all unbelievers rather than aggressors. Obviously, the theological enemies of Christians were persecuted for the first time - a disurbing precedence for the Church that has never been abandoned completely.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So Christianity went from a scattered group of people who were persecuted by local leaders and patrons like Pliny the Younger and later by Emperors - and looked forward to their destruction by God or Jesus.


But with Constantine, this paradigmn obviously shifted. The Empire is now good - and the apocalypse has to be applied to something else - perhaps all unbelievers rather than aggressors. Obviously, the theological enemies of Christians were persecuted for the first time - a disurbing precedence for the Church that has never been abandoned completely.

Yes. The original context of the apocalypse was all too quickly forgotten. The church knew that Christ had not come, but the persecution ended. No longer did the church need to hope for Christ's liberation but was in the unfortunate position to act as Christ's vicar of judgment as heads of state.