Old Christianity Versus New Christianity

[jmotivator]

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.

I think there is a rich vein to be mined in your assertion. I would lean towards disagreeing with you.

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.

And are the teachings of the Bible invalidated if Jesus didn't exist? I'd say no. I think that even taken as a secular work of Philosophy the Bible is about as complete an owner's manual for human civilization as exists.

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.

Again, no, while the Catholic church asserts the divine guidance of the Council that is not the position of all or even most Christian sects today. In the end, the creed was the written position of orthodox Christianity that existed before and contemporary to the Nicean Council, and was written as a counterargument to Arianism, which was the divergent theology at the time. The creed is actually the majority decision of Christianity at the time of the Council, not anathema to it.

 

[jmotivator]

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.

I'm not disagreeing with the term "second century", I am stating that the agreed on median estimated date of the document is 94-96 AD.

You can say "Almost certainly" is you want, but their is no such certainty among historians. As such it only makes sense to accept a median of the estimates rather than plant your certainty flag at the extreme the best helps the argument.

Either way, all of the books predate the Nicean Council by centuries.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I think there is a rich vein to be mined in your assertion. I would lean towards disagreeing with you.

Feel free.

And are the teachings of the Bible invalidated if Jesus didn't exist? I'd say no. I think that even taken as a secular work of Philosophy the Bible is about as complete an owner's manual for human civilization as exists.

I agree. Read Jefferson's Bible. He removed the magic and left the teaching of Jesus.

There is a great deal of value in some of the lessons in the bible, and I'm not trying to sweep that away. I read from it pretty regularly. However, that isn't the only source of philosophical lessons in my view. If it works as an "owners manual" for you, that's great.

Again, no, while the Catholic church asserts the divine guidance of the Council that is not the position of all or even most Christian sects today. In the end, the creed was the written position of orthodox Christianity that existed before and contemporary to the Nicean Council, and was written as a counterargument to Arianism, which was the divergent theology at the time. The creed is actually the majority decision of Christianity at the time of the Council, not anathema to it.

The point was that they were extrapolating from the bible and bringing into being something that only exists via extrapolation (the trinity). As for the RCC, they added things like the Immaculate Conception - also not in the bible. That one became doctrine in 1854.

Yes, every sect has a slightly different take on the bible, but the vast majority subscribe to the Jesus IS God idea and the trinity. So much so that they accuse those who claim to be Christians that don't buy it of heresy.

 

[RAMOSS]

I'm not disagreeing with the term "second century", I am stating that the agreed on median estimated date of the document is 94-96 AD.

You can say "Almost certainly" is you want, but their is no such certainty among historians. As such it only makes sense to accept a median of the estimates rather than plant your certainty flag at the extreme the best helps the argument.

Either way, all of the books predate the Nicean Council by centuries.

You initially said 'by the first century', and not a median of the first century. The median for the ones i said 'almost certainly' is into the second century btw. I would be more inclined to say 'by the mid second century'. There were a lot of writings that were filtered out by the Nicean Council also... which they termed 'heresy'.

 

[jmotivator]

You initially said 'by the first century', and not a median of the first century. The median for the ones i said 'almost certainly' is into the second century btw. I would be more inclined to say 'by the mid second century'. There were a lot of writings that were filtered out by the Nicean Council also... which they termed 'heresy'.

I was speaking from the median age, you were speaking from the outlier estimate. My argument regarding "First Century" is more logical than denoting the century based on the outlier. Had the agreed on estimated age put it from, say, 98 AD - 105 AD then I would have said "first to early second century"... but since the median agreed on period is entirely within the first Century then their is no point.

And I'm not sure the point of "a lot of writings that were filtered out by the Nicean Council" as it relates to the debate. The purpose for the Nicean Council was in answer to relatively recent divergence om Christian theology.

Also, you'd need to define "a lot" and second, my argument is with the assertion that the Nicean Council's conclusion is the outlier against all evidence that it was a reaffirmation of the common Christian belief against the contemporary rise of Arianism. Arianism in the age of the Nicean Council was the relative newcomer, not the version of Christianity affirmed by the council, as PoS argues.

 

[PoS]

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 would assume its both. Constantine wanted a uniform set of doctrine for Christianity because it was divided from the very beginning. Once that had been done, he then used the power of the Roman Empire to enforce it, but it didnt completely come together because his own son was an Arianist, who nearly undid everything after his death- it took several more councils over the centuries to get rid of all the other alternative theories.

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.

I will just address this point, since the rest of your argument centers on it.

The point I was making is that Old Christianity held a whole bunch of beliefs as to whether Jesus was divine or not (amongst other things), but that Nicea pretty much put these matters at an end, for at least that time. The religion then became an intolerant one of following only one type of creed, even though it is not how it began.

Prior to Nicea there was no standard- it was in this council that created that standard, and it was done by vote- thereby making it all political, it had nothing to do with divine inspiration or whatever. Orthodox Christianity became a religion created by committee.

 

[ataraxia]

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.

You speak of “Old Christianity” as if it was some unified, conherent entity. It was not. It was just a hodge pudge of all sorts of often vague and contradictory narratives and teachings. Since the Emperor Constantine wanted to use this new religion for political purposes, namely to serve as a unifying force in the empire, he convened the Council of Nicea to force the church to start saying something coherent and finally take a position on various things. So they did. It wasn’t so much censoring as it was an attempt to try to say something coherent and unified for once.

But there was no “true” original teaching that has now been corrupted or obscured. Like all religions, this stuff is all man-made. It has ALL evolved as various people tried to impose and project their own opinions and ideals to a heaven of immutable eternity and certainty as a religion. But it’s all, after all, still very human. There is no golden nugget of truth underneath it all that has been buried, and somehow it is now our job to try to dig it out and uncover it again. That’s a fool’s errand, and you can waste many lifetimes and centuries chasing that rainbow. You still won’t have anything to show for it, I promise.

We may be better off leaving aside such Sisyphean and futile pursuits behind (it at least leave it to just the historians), and start thinking and talking instead about what kind of world we want to leave behind for our children and grandchildren.

”The trail of the human serpent is over everything”.
-William James

 

[Daisy]

I would assume its both. Constantine wanted a uniform set of doctrine for Christianity because it was divided from the very beginning. Once that had been done, he then used the power of the Roman Empire to enforce it, but it didnt completely come together because his own son was an Arianist, who nearly undid everything after his death- it took several more councils over the centuries to get rid of all the other alternative theories.


I will just address this point, since the rest of your argument centers on it.

The point I was making is that Old Christianity held a whole bunch of beliefs as to whether Jesus was divine or not (amongst other things), but that Nicea pretty much put these matters at an end, for at least that time. The religion then became an intolerant one of following only one type of creed, even though it is not how it began.

Prior to Nicea there was no standard- it was in this council that created that standard, and it was done by vote- thereby making it all political, it had nothing to do with divine inspiration or whatever. Orthodox Christianity became a religion created by committee.

True, but they did have a standard that Jesus and the apostles set for them...the Old Christianity, which existed while the apostles were still alive, was just getting started, but yet very united and organized, thanks to the ones who knew Jesus directly and was directed by God's holy spirit on how to unite the congregations...

Early in his ministry, Jesus had warned his followers...

“Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7:15...

Years later, the apostle Paul was inspired to issue a similar warning...

“I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.”​ Acts 20:29, 30

And it happened, just as they said it would, shortly after, in the 3rd century...

 

[Mr Person]

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.

And even then, it was simply political from Constantine's point of view. He saw the need to settle the various sectarian disputes before they potentially ripped the empire apart. He just wanted it settled one way or the other, for good. Sorry Arias...

(See generally Gibbon's Decline and Fall).

 

[Daisy]

And even then, it was simply political from Constantine's point of view. He saw the need to settle the various sectarian disputes before they potentially ripped the empire apart. He just wanted it settled one way or the other, for good. Sorry Arias...

(See generally Gibbon's Decline and Fall).

Exactly, it had nothing to do with truth and everything to do with uniting his empire...

 

[jmotivator]

I will just address this point, since the rest of your argument centers on it.

The point I was making is that Old Christianity held a whole bunch of beliefs as to whether Jesus was divine or not (amongst other things), but that Nicea pretty much put these matters at an end, for at least that time. The religion then became an intolerant one of following only one type of creed, even though it is not how it began.

Prior to Nicea there was no standard- it was in this council that created that standard, and it was done by vote- thereby making it all political, it had nothing to do with divine inspiration or whatever. Orthodox Christianity became a religion created by committee.

No, they didn't. All the the Nicean Council did was codify the prevailing belief of the time. Sure, like all historical documents, you can argue that the effort of definitive historical declaration has a way of squelching dissent, but the Arianism theology wasn't ended, has never ended, and still goes on today and it could be arguing that the belief is growing. In fact, classic atheism and deism share a common heritage in Arianism. Tell me the difference between the the theological assertions of Arianism and, say, the Jefferson Bible?

The Nicean Council put the most commonly held beliefs of the Christian faith into words, and that is all. Your assertion that the act was a divergence from ancient Christianity is ahistorical nonsense.

 

[PoS]

No, they didn't. All the the Nicean Council did was codify the prevailing belief of the time. Sure, like all historical documents, you can argue that the effort of definitive historical declaration has a way of squelching dissent, but the Arianism theology wasn't ended, has never ended, and still goes on today and it could be arguing that the belief is growing. In fact, classic atheism and deism share a common heritage in Arianism. Tell me the difference between the the theological assertions of Arianism and, say, the Jefferson Bible?

The Nicean Council put the most commonly held beliefs of the Christian faith into words, and that is all. Your assertion that the act was a divergence from ancient Christianity is ahistorical nonsense.

Not at all, if those were the most common beliefs they wouldnt have waited until the 4th Century to codify them. The issue of Jesus's divinity was still in flux at that time.

 

[jmotivator]

Not at all, if those were the most common beliefs they wouldnt have waited until the 4th Century to codify them. The issue of Jesus's divinity was still in flux at that time.

Again, PoS, you are ignoring the history. The chief issue at hand for the Nicean Council was the diverging sect of Arianism within the Church. Arianism had been brewing for about 45 years before the church chose to address it. Your assertion that Arianism was the norm within the faith rather than the exception is something that is not supported historically, logically or chronologically. The reason that the Nicean Council was called was because over the previous 45 years Arianism had grown within the church which undermines your claims of it's prominence in the primitive Church... I mean, if it was so prominent in the primitive church then why do we attribute it to a man who was a contemporary to the Nicean Council?

We can trace the belief in the divinity of Jesus to first century texts... we attribute the sect of Christianity that believed in the non-divinity of Jesus to a man born in the 3rd Century.... but you assert that Arianism was first? What is your evidence?

 

[PoS]

Again, PoS, you are ignoring the history. The chief issue at hand for the Nicean Council was the diverging sect of Arianism within the Church. Arianism had been brewing for about 45 years before the church chose to address it. Your assertion that Arianism was the norm within the faith rather than the exception is something that is not supported historically, logically or chronologically. The reason that the Nicean Council was called was because over the previous 45 years Arianism had grown within the church which undermines your claims of it's prominence in the primitive Church... I mean, if it was so prominent in the primitive church then why do we attribute it to a man who was a contemporary to the Nicean Council?

We can trace the belief in the divinity of Jesus to first century texts... we attribute the sect of Christianity that believed in the non-divinity of Jesus to a man born in the 3rd Century.... but you assert that Arianism was first? What is your evidence?

Now youre putting words in my mouth. I never said Arianism was the norm, I said that Old Christianity had multiple interpretations of Jesus and his teachings.

Jesus's divinity was questioned many times by the early church fathers, and Arianism was merely the latest offshoot at that time when the first council of Nicea was started (the concept of Adoptionism is present even in the canonical NT to this day). The trinity was not wholly accepted nor was Jesus's divinity at that time (or the virgin birth either). It took the power of the emperor and the full might of the empire to force a single doctrine down everyone's throats.

 

[Omega Man]

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



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

Except that there never existed IRL a "prophet Daniel" (which is why the Book of Daniel is not included in the Prophets section of the Hebrew Bible). The literary character however is based upon Danel, a legendary Ugaritic hero of antiquity.


OM

 

[Omega Man]

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.

Probably why he included the "as late as" caveat to his timeline. He didn't claim it was written in the 2nd century AD, he merely pointed out that it could have been as late as then.


OM

 

[RAMOSS]

Probably why he included the "as late as" caveat to his timeline. He didn't claim it was written in the 2nd century AD, he merely pointed out that it could have been as late as then.


OM

It's amazing what a few words can mean to a sentence.