I *do* find it intriguing that a person executed with the grudging blessing of Roman authority later becomes a religious icon for the benefit of same Roman authority.
Oh, I think history is full of such examples.
But the point was that Christianity, particularly at the beginning, was not as well received as you were attempting to make it sound.
I'm not saying it was ... I am saying, that according to the generally accepted view of history, its spread was epidemic.
Any external non-Church validation?
No, why would there be?
I can assure Gibbons says no such thing, neither to Peter nor Paul. Gibbons *does* say that Rome assumed pre-eminence by virtue of numbers and money; in short, politics.
And I suggest a look around current scholarship on the web will show it's unwise to invest too much in Gibbons, as a 'Roman idealist'. It's evident from Acts that the parent church was Jerusalem, and Paul collected monies from the other Churches to be taken there, in accordance with custom.
When Jerusalem fell, Rome was the next obvious 'centre' from which the message could be disseminated to the ends of the earth. The Church believed Peter and Paul had died there, that was enough for them. Remember Paul wasn't intending to stay in Rome, but go on to Spain.
Again, although Rome was regarded by Christians as the centre, it was because of Peter and Paul, not because of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were the theological centres — that's where the doctrines were formulated, so that in theological studies one can determine an Alexandrian and an Antiochene school, not a Roman one.
Polycarp (a disciple of John) also kept the Jewish sabbath and the Jewish Passover.
In reference to Christianity, which celebrated its own sabbath — the Eucharistic liturgy – on its own day, over and above the Jewish sabbath (again evident in Acts). Likewsie the Passover, which was seen as prefiguring the Passover of Christ. Thus the Christian Passion superceded the Jewish Pasch.
Christianity was proscribed by the Jews around 90AD, so it was rather a case of the Jews broke with the Christians. The focus of Christianity was on the 'new covenant' in Christ, again evident in Hebrews. As the gap between Jews and an increasingly Gentile Church widened, it was inevitable that adherence to Jewish customs were not seen as principle nor necessary – remember that the Jews caused a riot when Paul took non-Jewish converts into the Temple in Jerusalem.
In Matthew and Paul (and Scripture generally) the line is that Christ came to the Jews, and was rejected by them, and that He saw His message take root amongst the Gentiles as an approaching sign of the accomplishment of His ministry. This rejected of Christ culminated in the ejection of the Christians from the Jewish community.
So Christians rejected the Jews and there is plenty of evidence of anti-semitism, but they didn't reject the Old Testament.
I'm sorry, but short of the resurrection I just don't see it, and not for lack of trying. These things were indeed extent within the Pagan community, but to place these things on first century Christianity is a stretch.
Not at all, in fact quite the opposite. Try Ignatius of Antioch or Clement of Rome. Try "
The Early Christian Fathers" (Ed. Bettenson) or "
Early Christian Doctrines" J.N.D. Kelly. You'll find the Virgin Birth, Incarnation, Trinity, Salvation, Church, man's origins, man's fall, man's redemption and man's eschatology.
Furthermore you'll find the Christian understanding of the Baptism and the Eucharist as radically different from contemporary pagan ideas.
The Christian theologians didn't divide the world into Christianity-true and everything else-false. Rather they saw 'everything else' as possessing a partial insight into certain truths, but that everything else was the process of human reason, whereas Christianity was direct divine revelation. So I'm saying that it's not enough to look at what Christianity shares in common with contemporary ideas, but one must also look at how it differs, and
all that focusses on the Christian idea of Incarnation and Trinity which are new and unique.
In an attempt to soften my tone from my original answer, allow me to ask this: I am expecting an honest answer: Do you sincerely believe Nicaea consolidated what Paul preached?
The Creed of Nicea established the fundamental tenets of Christianity according to Apostolic Tradition, not just Paul. Paul himself defends his gospel as no different from the tradition as it existed in his own day. Everything else is administrative detail.
One of a number of disparate groups who sought to Judaize Christianity, thus refuting the New Testament Scriptures, seeing Jesus as purely human, not divine, the natural child of Joseph and Mary. He was the pre-destined Messiah, and would return in time. The Nazoreans saw Jesus as Divine, accepted the Virgin Birth, but like the Ebionites demanded strict observance of the Jewish Law.
You can see their genesis in Acts, when Paul disputed with Peter in Antioch when Peter chose to eat apart from the Gentile converts. Both Peter and Paul had to argue for the inclusion of Gentiles into the faith, and Paul that they did not need to observe Jewish practice. It was James who affirmed this (Acts 15).
You grab onto Polycarp (a disciple of John), yet casually dismiss the disciples of James the Just, and likely disciples of Peter and disciples of still other Apostles that walked with Jesus. Why?
But I don't. I just lay greater emphasis on material evidence. If you can tell me who these disciples were, then I am happy to discuss them. But to assume that the Ebionites or the Nazoreans followed James, is, I would suggest, an error.
Who was the author of the Letter to the Hebrews? I don't know, nor from whom he received the faith. Who compiled the document we now hold as the Gospel of Matthew? I don't know, nor from whom he received the faith, although I might argue he combined the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (a logia or sayings document) with Mark's chronology. Who wrote Mark? The consensus is he was a convert and disciple of Peter whilst Peter was held in Rome before his execution. Only John stands, according to the weight of internal and external evidence, as an eye witness account.
I would also argue that James appears, according to the very little evidence we have, to be something of an ascetic and a monk, whose knees 'were hardened like camel's hoofs' by constant prayer, a style which you suggest is the product of later mythologising.
By contrast, you seem to suggest that there is no way in Hades there could be British Christians in Constantine's army...
I rather think not, indeed, I thought I was arguing that Christianity had permeated the empire to a greater degree, and were thus more powerful, than you allow.
I do however give what I feel is appropriate credit where credit is due. Constantine deserves *a share of* culpability, but that culpability spreads across many persons. Constantine was the benefactor that instigated the process.
Here we go again ... culpability for what? My point is the Church was an institution long before Constantine. He deserves no credit at all, except for seeing the writing on the wall.
Simplistic, but OK...if that's as close as you're willing to go I'll deal with it.
It's not simplistic at all ... it's what is ... I'm applying Occam's Razor ... you're trying to overcomplicate the issue by suggesting things which have little or no evidence to support it, and part of that thesis requires you to ignore the fact that the Church, its institutions and its doctrines were in place by around 100AD.
It's taken me what?, about a year or so to get this much out of you. Now if I can only get you to see the implications...then and now.
That's my point. As far as I see it, you've got nothing more than you started with, and you've made none of your arguments stick, and you've shown a distinct inclination to ignore the material evidence where it stands against you.
Thomas
