Kindest Regards, lunamoth!
What an excellent question!
lunamoth said:
Here is a question for anyone following this thread. If you had been present in those formative years of Christianity, witnessing what Abogado describes as the proto-orthodox period, what do you think you would have done. Suppose you were in a community where previously all Christians worshiped together, including those with Gnostic ideologies, those from Jewish background, those from Gentile, and suddenly many of the things you believe are being labeled heresy and someone is claiming infallible authority and saying "it must be this way or you are not really a Christian." What would you do? I'm not asking if you lean toward alternative or orthodox Christianity as it is defined today. I'm asking what you would do about (how would you protest against) the persecutions that were starting to take place. Would it shake your faith?
What a time to not have my history notes handy...so I'm gonna play this by ear. I'll probably hit a few sour notes, so please correct me where I am mistaken.
I want to say first, that this is the first I have heard of Acts being a later addition. I have heard of other additions and insertions, but not a whole book. I haven't had time to look into it yet, so for now I will take Abogado at his word (he hasn't let me down yet). Now, I am not very familiar with the language yet, but I understood Acts was written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke. Something to do with frequent use of medical terminology, as Luke is presumed to be a doctor. So, I am not sure how Acts could be a later addition if the writing style of the author matches that of Luke...
To luna's question: being a Christian early on, say around the end of the second century but before Christianity was made the official state religion of Rome, would be a hazardous undertaking. While there were times of relative tolerance, Christians were often hunted down like common criminals. There were at least 3 or 4 times as I recall, when one could be legally thrown to the lions or used as game in bloodsport. At least once, Christians were placed in vats and set alight (while alive!) as torches for one of the Ceasar's parties. Being a Christian was a huge social step backward, at least in the major cities.
So it has always amazed me, the resolve the early church fathers must have had in order to maintain a congregation under such circumstances. If I remember correctly, Emperor Constantine came into power in 312 AD, and the council of Nicea(?) took place in 325 AD, when Christianity consolidated under Constantine. Any time prior to this, Christians were subject to persecution. The reasons are many and would take too long, my point is that it was WAY difficult to even be a Christian prior to this point in time.
I am thinking that a lot of the different interpretations, or schools of thought, in Christianity developed from the different applications. As the Word spread to those accustomed to a particular way of thinking and dealing with things, such as mystics for example, then those people would bring mystical interpretation to the Word. Once you get 4 or 5 competing schools of thought, the whole thing gets a little fuzzy and hard to see. I think Constantine saw something like this, so when he made Christianity legal, he also made it a point to agree what that Christianity should look like. Some schools of thought were ignored or dismissed, others had to merge into a unified whole. And the Catholic Church was born...
As for prior to that time, if one were brave enough to even be considered a Christian, one would of necessity have to be very discrete. Likely, meetings were secretive and held in private. There would have to be an air of trust between members of the group. Newcomers would be suspect at first. So I am thinking Christianity was a counter-culture reaction as much as anything. A typical Christian probably went through a regular day trying to look and act in a manner so that "he" fit in without drawing suspicion. The deeper discussions concerning what would become dogma and doctrine probably took place among the more learned people who led these groups, and probably stemmed from questions arising from practical application. As for how news would be received about one group being favored over another, it would not matter at the local level. A particular group would continue doing its own thing, because all are still illegal at this point. No one group prior to Constantine held sway over the others. They were still jockeying for their precarious political positions. So from a layman's perspective of this period of time, it seems kinda like a "he said, she said" argument. If my group agrees, I'll agree. If not, I don't. So for a Greek group it probably didn't make a lot of difference how an Egyptian group interpreted the Word, and the Egyptians didn't care about the Greeks. At least until Constantine.
My two cents. Or maybe four tonight...
