Old Christianity Versus New Christianity

[PoS]

Let's start: Old Christianity came about during the early days of the church during the First Century, when there were multiple ideas and interpretations over who and what Jesus was. There was a myriad amount of different dogmas, and people were free to choose what teachings they followed.

But then New Christianity came along. This heresy began during the Nicene Council of 325AD. This was more of a political move by Emperor Constantine, and he basically guided the attending bishops to set up an unyielding doctrine that included the divinity of Jesus (established by vote, no less), the silly, false logic of the trinity and other fake teachings like the apostles creed (falsely attributed, since the apostles never said such things). New Christians then forcefully censored and condemned the other sects, calling them heretics, and they wiped out many old teachings and gospels before coming out a censored version of their own book called the NT at around the 5th and 6th Centuries.

So its clear that New Christianity is in fact the false religion after they wiped out the vestiges of the older sects.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

:fueltofir

opcorn:

 

[Angel]

So, on the OP "reasoning," "New Christianity" is 1700 years old; "Old Christianity" lasted 300 years and is defunct for the past 1700 years.
Also, on the OP "reasoning," that which comes earlier in the history of ideas is true, and that which comes later false. Today's science, on this "reasoning," is false.
And what, one may ask, did the Protestant Reformation produce? New Old Christianity? Old New Christianity?
With "reasoning" like this New Atheism continues to pollute religious discourse today.

 

[PoS]

The Reformation was inevitable. The corruption and lies of the New Christians ultimately proved their undoing, and many formerly lost Old Christian beliefs began to regain their rightful place as the true religion of Jesus.

 

[jmotivator]

So, on the OP "reasoning," "New Christianity" is 1700 years old; "Old Christianity" lasted 300 years and is defunct for the past 1700 years.
Also, on the OP "reasoning," that which comes earlier in the history of ideas is true, and that which comes later false. Today's science, on this "reasoning," is false.
And what, one may ask, did the Protestant Reformation produce? New Old Christianity? Old New Christianity?
With "reasoning" like this New Atheism continues to pollute religious discourse today.

His "Old Christianity", by his argument, would be largely undocumented, and he guesses at what constituted it. He now assumes that what was codified no longer resembles the Christianity he can't actually know.

Some historian. :roll:

 

[Airyaman]

What about the newer Christianity of Martin Luther?

 

[Rich2018]

In old Christianity, if you doubted god existed, they burned you at the stake.

In new Christianity, they threaten you with Hell on internet forums.

 

[PoS]

His "Old Christianity", by his argument, would be largely undocumented, and he guesses at what constituted it. He now assumes that what was codified no longer resembles the Christianity he can't actually know.

Some historian. :roll:

What is known is that the concepts of Jesus's divinity and the trinity were inventions that came about around the time of the Nicene council, otherwise they would have been codified earlier. It's as simple as that.

 

[it's just me]

Let's start: Old Christianity came about during the early days of the church during the First Century, when there were multiple ideas and interpretations over who and what Jesus was. There was a myriad amount of different dogmas, and people were free to choose what teachings they followed.

But then New Christianity came along. This heresy began during the Nicene Council of 325AD. This was more of a political move by Emperor Constantine, and he basically guided the attending bishops to set up an unyielding doctrine that included the divinity of Jesus (established by vote, no less), the silly, false logic of the trinity and other fake teachings like the apostles creed (falsely attributed, since the apostles never said such things). New Christians then forcefully censored and condemned the other sects, calling them heretics, and they wiped out many old teachings and gospels before coming out a censored version of their own book called the NT at around the 5th and 6th Centuries.

So its clear that New Christianity is in fact the false religion after they wiped out the vestiges of the older sects.

Tell us all about it. Tell us all about the "myriad dogmas" were, who advocated for them, and what made them superior to what we know as Christianity today.

I would also like to see proof of your claim that the Apostles never said the things in the Apostles creed.

As a matter of fact, how about documenting all of these claims?

 

[it's just me]

The Reformation was inevitable. The corruption and lies of the New Christians ultimately proved their undoing, and many formerly lost Old Christian beliefs began to regain their rightful place as the true religion of Jesus.

I suppose it's escaped your attention that the Churches that sprang from the reformation are all Trinitarian, Catholic in character, and nothing even remotely close to the old heresies you advocate?

 

[it's just me]

His "Old Christianity", by his argument, would be largely undocumented, and he guesses at what constituted it. He now assumes that what was codified no longer resembles the Christianity he can't actually know.

Some historian. :roll:

He doesn't know what he's talking about but he can't stop talking about it.

 

[Elora]

The Reformation was inevitable. The corruption and lies of the New Christians ultimately proved their undoing, and many formerly lost Old Christian beliefs began to regain their rightful place as the true religion of Jesus.

Mant but not all...true worship still prevails and always will, when false teachings are long gone...

“As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant.” Daniel 12:4

The prophet Daniel was given a preview of events to occur in the distant future. Thereafter he was told: “And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant.”​—Da 12:4.

Concerning this text, commentator Thomas Scott, in the first half of the 19th century, observed: “The angel, by way of conclusion, intimated to Daniel, that this prophecy would remain obscure, and as ‘a sealed book,’ of which little would be understood, ‘till the time of the end’ . . . The fact has evidenced this to be the case: immense difficulties have always been acknowledged in many of Daniel’s prophecies, and they have been ‘as words shut up’ even from believers in general. . . . In these latter ages many have bestowed great pains, in searching into history, to illustrate those parts of these prophecies which are already accomplished; and by comparing them with other scriptures, to form some judgment of what yet remains to be fulfilled: and thus much light has been thrown on them. As they shall gradually be more and more accomplished, they will be better understood: and future generations will be far more surprised and instructed by them, than we are.” (Scott’s Explanatory Notes, 1832) The lack of understanding concerning Daniel’s prophecies in the early part of the 19th century indicated that this foretold “time of the end” was yet future, since those “having insight,” God’s true servants, were to understand the prophecy in “the time of the end.”​—Da 12:9, 10.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004409#h=2:161-3:1286

 

[jmotivator]

What is known is that the concepts of Jesus's divinity and the trinity were inventions that came about around the time of the Nicene council, otherwise they would have been codified earlier. It's as simple as that.

That is patently false. The last book of the New Testament was written between 94 and 96 AD. To argue that the Divinity of Jesus was an invention of the Nicene council in the face of actual historical documents proclaiming the divinity of Jesus 229 years BEFORE the Nicene council is just ahistorical nonsense on your part.

 

[PoS]

That is patently false. The last book of the New Testament was written between 94 and 96 AD. To argue that the Divinity of Jesus was an invention of the Nicene council in the face of actual historical documents proclaiming the divinity of Jesus 229 years BEFORE the Nicene council is just ahistorical nonsense on your part.

Wrong. There were works by early church fathers questioning the divinity of Jesus long before that, and the issue wasnt decided until the vote at the council during 325AD.

Tell us all about it. Tell us all about the "myriad dogmas" were, who advocated for them, and what made them superior to what we know as Christianity today.

I would also like to see proof of your claim that the Apostles never said the things in the Apostles creed.

As a matter of fact, how about documenting all of these claims?

There have been plenty, from the Gospel of Thomas, to other works that were suppressed by the New Christian sect. Origen was considered a very important church leader until he was declared a heretic centuries after he died, and his views suppressed.

There was no Apostel's Creed prior to the Nicea council either. That was pure invention by them. There is no proof of the trinity in the bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology

 

[RAMOSS]

That is patently false. The last book of the New Testament was written between 94 and 96 AD. To argue that the Divinity of Jesus was an invention of the Nicene council in the face of actual historical documents proclaiming the divinity of Jesus 229 years BEFORE the Nicene council is just ahistorical nonsense on your part.

The books of Luke and Acts could have actually be written at late as the early part of the second century.

 

[Elora]

Wrong. There were works by early church fathers questioning the divinity of Jesus long before that, and the issue wasnt decided until the vote at the council during 325AD.



There have been plenty, from the Gospel of Thomas, to other works that were suppressed by the New Christian sect. Origen was considered a very important church leader until he was declared a heretic centuries after he died, and his views suppressed.

There was no Apostel's Creed prior to the Nicea council either. That was pure invention by them. There is no proof of the trinity in the bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology

The Apocryphal Writings were excluded for good reason...their content was basically false...

How Are the Apocryphal Writings Different?
The apocryphal writings are quite different from the canonical writings. These apocryphal books date from about the middle of the second century, much later than the canonical writings. They paint a picture of Jesus and Christianity that is not in harmony with the inspired Scriptures.

For example, the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas ascribes a number of strange utterances to Jesus, such as saying that he would transform Mary into a male to make it possible for her to enter into the Kingdom of heaven. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas describes young Jesus as a mean-spirited child who deliberately caused another child’s death. The apocryphal Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter emphasize complete abstinence from sexual relations and even depict the apostles as urging women to separate from their husbands. The Gospel of Judas depicts Jesus as laughing at his disciples for praying to God in connection with a meal. Such notions are at odds with what is found in the canonical books.​—Mark 14:22; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5; Galatians 3:28; Hebrews 7:26.

Many of the apocryphal writings reflect beliefs of the Gnostics, who held that the Creator, Jehovah, is not a good God. They also believed that the resurrection is not literal, that all physical matter is evil, and that Satan was the source of marriage and procreation.

A number of the apocryphal books are attributed to Bible characters but falsely so. Did some dark conspiracy exclude these books from the Bible? One expert on the apocrypha, M. R. James, said: “There is no question of any one’s having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves.”

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010253#h=23:0-23:215

These writings manifest an attempt to provide information that the inspired writings deliberately omit, such as the activities and events relating to Jesus’ life from his early childhood on up to the time of his baptism, or an effort to manufacture support for doctrines or traditions that find no basis in the Bible or are in contradiction to it. Thus the so-called Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Protevangelium of James are filled with fanciful accounts of miracles supposedly wrought by Jesus in his childhood. But the whole effect of the picture they draw of him is to cause Jesus to appear as a capricious and petulant child endowed with impressive powers. (Compare the genuine account at Lu 2:51, 52.) The Apocryphal “Acts,” such as the “Acts of Paul” and the “Acts of Peter,” lay heavy stress on complete abstinence from sexual relations and even depict the apostles as urging women to separate from their husbands, thus contradicting Paul’s authentic counsel at 1 Corinthians 7.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000305#h=46:0-46:709

 

[jmotivator]

The books of Luke and Acts could have actually be written at late as the early part of the second century.

Well, no, the Gospel of Luke is estimated to have been written between 80 and 110 AD, with 94-96 AD as a median.

 

[jmotivator]

Wrong. There were works by early church fathers questioning the divinity of Jesus long before that, and the issue wasnt decided until the vote at the council during 325AD.

YOU have made the dubious argument that your chosen non-divinity position was actually the standard in early Christian faith, and that the Nicean Council invented the divinity of Christ. Your argument is a historical and logical dead end. People have disagreed on matters of faith forever, you can't seem to manage to establish your assertion of the prominence of this non-divinity sect of Christianity beyond you think it existed.

News flash: The divinity of Jesus is still in dispute today.The belief in the divinity of Jesus and the non-Divinity of Jesus have been contemporary beliefs since forever. Your silly atheist declaration of non-reality and some breakthrough zing against Christianity is both ironic and strange for someone who wants to be taken seriously as a historian.

There have been plenty, from the Gospel of Thomas, to other works that were suppressed by the New Christian sect. Origen was considered a very important church leader until he was declared a heretic centuries after he died, and his views suppressed.

There are plenty of historical secular documents that are believed to not be accurate historical record, or of questionable provenance. The chief job of ancient historians is to find the commonality in historical text and then form the understanding of history from there. Your argument is like saying that Historians invented Genghis Khan in the process of filtering out questionable historical accounts...

There was no Apostel's Creed prior to the Nicea council either. That was pure invention by them. There is no proof of the trinity in the bible.

And? Again, there is an entire new testament of books written on the divinity of Christ before the Nicea council, the faith in that creed didn't originate with the writing of the creed. I mean, you could use that absurd logic to rule out almost all of human history because it was written after the fact, and rarely by the subject of the writing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology

Show me the absence of Christian diversity in "modern Christianity"? :roll:

I mean, in arguing that "Modern Christianity" is the true heresy because ancient Christians didn't all agree with "Modern Christianity" seems bizarre when your own evidence shows that ancient Christians didn't agree either. (which sect is Modern Christianity, anyway? Calvinists? Lutherans? Universalists?...) But you have asserted that the divinity of Christ is a fabrication of the Nicean Council, against all evidence in the historical documents of the Christian faith, and even in posting a wiki article on ancient Christianity that itself shows that most of those ancient Christian faiths believed in the divinity of Christ.

 

[Rich2018]

Well, no, the Gospel of Luke is estimated to have been written between 80 and 110 AD, with 94-96 AD as a median.

You realize that 110 AD is the early part of the 2nd century ?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Let's start: Old Christianity came about during the early days of the church during the First Century, when there were multiple ideas and interpretations over who and what Jesus was. There was a myriad amount of different dogmas, and people were free to choose what teachings they followed.

But then New Christianity came along. This heresy began during the Nicene Council of 325AD. This was more of a political move by Emperor Constantine, and he basically guided the attending bishops to set up an unyielding doctrine that included the divinity of Jesus (established by vote, no less), the silly, false logic of the trinity and other fake teachings like the apostles creed (falsely attributed, since the apostles never said such things). New Christians then forcefully censored and condemned the other sects, calling them heretics, and they wiped out many old teachings and gospels before coming out a censored version of their own book called the NT at around the 5th and 6th Centuries.

So its clear that New Christianity is in fact the false religion after they wiped out the vestiges of the older sects.

Does anyone dispute that Constantine set up the Council and led it or that he and the bishops under him decided what TRUE Christian doctrine would be going forward?

Just as a historical matter, setting aside who's right, wrong, true of false.

 

[jmotivator]

You realize that 110 AD is the early part of the 2nd century ?

Yes, I do, you realize that the average agreed on range that the book was written is not Second century? Claiming the outlier estimate as the most likely answer just comes off as needlessly contrarian and says more about the person arguing than it does the agreed on facts.

Either way it doesn't help PoS's assertion, since even 110 AD predates 325 AD by over two centuries.

 

[Visbek]

Let's start: Old Christianity came about during the early days of the church during the First Century, when there were multiple ideas and interpretations over who and what Jesus was. There was a myriad amount of different dogmas, and people were free to choose what teachings they followed.

But then New Christianity came along. This heresy began during the Nicene Council of 325AD....

Yeah, not so much. Maybe I missed it, but I've never heard Pauline Christianity referred to as "New Christianity." Nor would that make sense, as Pauline Christianity dates back to roughly 60 CE, and slowly grew to prominence over time.

Constantine did try to push a uniform theology, but it took centuries for the RC and Orthodox churches to really solidify as institutions, and they were moving in that direction on their own anyway -- e.g. Irenaeus was bashing various interpretations as "heretical" during the 2nd century. And of course, there were lots of developments in Christian institutions and theologies long after Constantine gave up the ghost.

So its clear that New Christianity is in fact the false religion after they wiped out the vestiges of the older sects.

That's... not clear at all.

What seems clear to me is that Pauline Christianity is one interpretation. Obviously, Roman Catholics will not accept that their views are "false," in the same way that most Protestants would object to anyone calling their beliefs false.

In fact, some might even say that classifying Jesus as a deity is the wrong interpretation, and not what Jesus intended -- he might have only wanted to purge Judea of the Romans, and the Temple of Roman collaborators.

The Reformation was inevitable. The corruption and lies of the New Christians ultimately proved their undoing, and many formerly lost Old Christian beliefs began to regain their rightful place as the true religion of Jesus.

Was the Reformation "inevitable?" Maybe, maybe not. Not all religions splinter, and it seems plausible that the RCC could have reformed itself and marginalized protests.

We should also note that the Reformation did not revive early Christian beliefs, as most of those texts were censored and/or lost until the middle of the 20th Century, when the Nag Hammadi texts were discovered. The changes in the Reformation were mostly inspired due to reactions against problems in the RCC, and maintained many key aspects of Pauline Christianity. E.g. Baptists bear no real resemblance to what we now call "Gnostic" sects like Valentinianism; Mormons were not inspired by lost texts like "The Thunder, Perfect Mind."

 

[jmotivator]

Does anyone dispute that Constantine set up the Council and led it or that he and the bishops under him decided what TRUE Christian doctrine would be going forward?

Just as a historical matter, setting aside who's right, wrong, true of false.

I think you will find EVERY belief you have about Ancient History was formed in a similar fashion. The assertion by PoS is that the determination of the Nicean Council is somehow different or divergent from the common belief of Christians before the Nicean Council. It is a wholly dubious and unsubstantiated claim.

For one, the belief in the divinity of Jesus unquestionably predates the Nicean Council by centuries. Religious tomes making that proclamation exist that date back to first century (and, indeed, were used by the Nicean Council to support their position)

And second, differing beliefs in the nature and divinity of Jesus predate AND postdate the Nicean Council. For PoS's assertion to be true he'd need to show that the position asserted by the Nicean Council was somehow a divergence from the common beliefs of Christians before the Council. In attempting this assertion PoS played down the fact that the Council put the question to a vote. the Council was called in 325 to solve an issue that was arsing in the Church due to the divergence caused by Arianism, a sect of Christianity that began around 280 AD that asserted that Jesus was not divine. But again, the history of the council shows the fault in PoS's position.

Arianism split from Christian orthodoxy in or around 280 AD. That would mean that the orthodox beliefs of the ancient Church -- how PoS defines Christian faith before the Nicean Council -- was that Jesus was divine. What PoS has attempted to do is make the exception the rule, which flies in the face of logic and history.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I think you will find EVERY belief you have about Ancient History was formed in a similar fashion. The assertion by PoS is that the determination of the Nicean Council is somehow different or divergent from the common belief of Christians before the Nicean Council. It is a wholly dubious and unsubstantiated claim.

For one, the belief in the divinity of Jesus unquestionably predates the Nicean Council by centuries. Religious tomes making that proclamation exist that date back to first century (and, indeed, were used by the Nicean Council to support their position)

And second, differing beliefs in the nature and divinity of Jesus predate AND postdate the Nicean Council. For PoS's assertion to be true he'd need to show that the position asserted by the Nicean Council was somehow a divergence from the common beliefs of Christians before the Council. In attempting this assertion PoS played down the fact that the Council put the question to a vote. the Council was called in 325 to solve an issue that was arsing in the Church due to the divergence caused by Arianism, a sect of Christianity that began around 280 AD that asserted that Jesus was not divine. But again, the history of the council shows the fault in PoS's position.

Arianism split from Christian orthodoxy in or around 280 AD. That would mean that the orthodox beliefs of the ancient Church -- how PoS defines Christian faith before the Nicean Council -- was that Jesus was divine. What PoS has attempted to do is make the exception the rule, which flies in the face of logic and history.

I wasn't adopting the position PoS seemed to posit in his OP. It was a bit confrontational and maybe (I'm not sure) historically presumptuous for me to get behind.

You are correct in noting that most of what I "know" about history is filtered through a similar process, however, those ideas are not being marketed as a religion I should dedicate my life to, and that's a HUGE difference.

Did the ideas attributed to Plato come from Plato? Did Plato exist? It doesn't really matter where they originated, and no one is selling them as literal divine revelation, aka the word of god.

Does it not follow that God would have had to be holding the hands (minds) of the folks in the Council as well as those of the Emperor? They were doing editorial work on God's word. They wrote the creed, which is not in the bible, themselves, basically dictating what it means to be a Christian. Thus we have Christians here calling Elvira a heretic for not believing the trinity or the creed. Neither of those things is in the bible. They were extrapolated. Editorial license, if you will.

 

[RAMOSS]

Well, no, the Gospel of Luke is estimated to have been written between 80 and 110 AD, with 94-96 AD as a median.

The terminus date for it is actually 130... and 110 is early second century btw. Acts was written after Luke (most likely) by the same person. It is very possible to be written before 100 c.e, and I suspect it was written after 95 myself.

And when it comes to the Gosepl of John, and 1 John through 3 john, very possible to be between 100 and 120 also, which is second century.

1 Timothy and 2 Timothy is almost certainly the first half of the second century, as is 2 Peter.