Which introduces a paradox when we bear in mind the Isaac story mentioned in the original post.
Or prophecy ...
Even if it is described as a synthesis of two different traditions (Greek and Jewish) Christianity was still a radical form of spiritual communism of its time.
My cource director referred to it as "The Mystery of Christ is revealed in a reflection on the Salvation History of Israel in the light of the Greek philosophical tradition."
But Christianity cannot be explained simply as a synthesis of Hebrew and Hellenic thought. And not have caught on so quickly as it did, at a grass-roots level.
Theologians (East more than West) grapple with the issue of whether theology is 'Christianity Hellemized', or 'Philosophy baptised'. As one notable theologian said: "When the Fathers think, they Platonise."
It is possible however to see the distinction between 'pure' Platonism and Christian Platonism, and Maximus the Confessor 'corrected' Platonism (and Origen) in light of the data of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The first catechism (after the Didache) was written by Irenaeus, who was a scriptural exegete and not a classically-trained philosopher (although he expressed a debt to Justin, who was). His 'recapitulation theory' of salvation is founded entirely on St Paul, with no recourse to philosophical argument, and it's still regarded as the 'umbrella' under which the various theories of salvation are gathered ...
And again, Christian writers introduced the term 'agape' into philosophical discourse, and this and other indicators show how, in some of its aspects, a profane philosophy was not enough by itself ...
In my own opinion, the influence of Aristotelianism after the first millenium has done us more harm than good. We're still hampered with an Aristotelian/Newtonian world view, where a Platonic one would be a lot more fluid (and has supporters among the Quantum brigade ...)
If anything, the West is too focussed on litigious and forensic detail, too focussed on making definitive statements, the East too prone to wander off into abstractions. Ideally we should be working together (I think we are at almost every level but the street!), each then chacks and balances the other.
To myself, one of the most outstanding features of it in context was the idea of inclusivity. Social status was extrapolated from everyday society into the idea of the afterlife - even if argued to be using pagan themes, I can't see any similar idea of equality in the ancient world, certainly around the Mediterranean cultures.
As it's you I'll bare my soul a little ... one of my biggest beefs with the institutional church is that this aspect, which to me is fundamental, is too often and too easily overlooked. We're too hierarchical, and there's a huge effort spent on 'the new evangelisation' which is all about securing the next generation of Christians. We should be the champion of the poor, and the poor should see us as such, as being 'on their side' and 'fighting their corner' even if they do not profess Christianity.
As for different rules - well, to an outsider like myself, I see a splinter group within Judaism under James, which is then hijacked by Paul into some strange Greek hybrid.
Problem is, Christianity could never have survived under James, not as a splinter group, or, as some say, an esoteric stream within exoteric Judaism — the message was just too big — James prayed (they say he had knees like a donkey for the hours he spent in the temple) ... but what was his theology?
Someone had to carry the message to the world, and not just the Jewish world, and watered-down Judaism wouldn't cut it ... what other option was there?
That's why the original Gospel of Mark finished at the crucifixion, with no resurrection ...
If there was no resurrection, there would have been no Gospel of Mark. Remember Paul was preaching resurrection before Mark wrote his gospel. Also that the 'mysteries of faith' were 'secret', but we know from the likes of Pliny (c110) that there was a Liturgical feast in celebration of 'Christ as to a god' and these rites were 'depraved, excessive superstition'.
It should also be noted that Christianity was by this time widespread: "For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded." In short, Christianity flourished, the local religions declined, and pogroms were instituted to assert the old order.
There will of course be divergence — the religion was spreading faster than the institution could keep up with, and this was increasingly difficult until Constantine's recision in the 4th century — but we can safely assume there was a constant message and there were the basic rites of Baptism and the Eucharist, the latter of which speaks of the Resurrected Christ.
There's no mention of the cultic rites of Christianity in any gospel, but Christianity was a Liturgical Cult before it was a Scriptural one.
It's easy to forget that we have standardisation in terms of Christian theology and texts now - but definitely did not within the first four centuries.
I think we did more than you allow. The standard tenets of Christianity were preached from the very beginning.
God bless,
Thomas
