Christianity Subforum Poll

[wil]

I think you'll find that's not the way it pans out, if you study the documents closely.

No-one who was not baptised was called Christian or able to participate in the rites. The Eucharist was the central focus of Christian life from Paul's time. Likewise the Didache (100AD) points to existing institutions and structures.

Unfortuneately I don't have the education or the access to study the documents closely, I can only read what I have access to. And our access to documents of that time are limited by the group that went around eliminating documents they didn't like. Now John was baptizing who? Surely weren't Christians. The thanksgiving of the eucharist is something that every jew did at passover, the drinking of wine and breaking of bread was something every one at that table grew up with, the wine representing spiritual essence and bread material essence was nothing new, yes Jesus added the connection to his body and blood...but every Jewish household and congregation was performing similar rites then and today.

I agree their were existing institutions and structures...but also believe there was quite a divide created early on...Paul and the family and followers of Jesus were on quite the different path. The divergence of denominations and non denominational thought I believe came quite early. We can read about the divisions of thought while he was alive, and the work he had to do to keep the twelve on the same page.

If we were going to draw lines, then perhaps historically there are some obvious delineations:

Traditional Christianity
Discussions in this area would be mainly historical reference.


Post-Modernist Christianity

I'm still wondering why Traditional Christianity wouldn't simply be including loving your lord your G-d with all your thought all your strength and loving your neighbor as yourself. Why traditional Christianity wouldn't consist of forgivng seven times seventy and of flipping over the tables of those that are trying to make an income off of those that wish to come closer to G-d.

It seems to me the scriptures Jesus studied were the Torah, Tanakh and Midrash and his discussions revolved around telling stories, parables which expanded on that thought....about not using the law to condemn, but expanding it 'ye without sin' ... 'take the beam out of my eye'...and raising those up around him with love and respect...I don't see Traditional Christianity has a history discussion but a life to strive for.

Now Post-Modernist Christianity...that starts after Jesus's death and is cemented in place in the 4th century and has had a hold on thought since then....with some diversions...all of which creating their own niche, income stream and corner of their market...

 

[Thomas]

Sorry Wil, I still think you're wrong.

"And our access to documents of that time are limited by the group that went around eliminating documents they didn't like."
If that were entirely true, we wouldn't know about the gnostics. All we do know is from Christian polemical writings — so that is rather an extreme view.

There was a Church structure from the very earliest, we have the election of deacons and presbyters in Acts, even Paul was received and placed under instruction. An organised and institutionalised religion was in place before the close of the first century — by the middle of the seconf over 1,500 people in Rome, widows, orphans, the sick and the dispossessed, were cared for by the institutional church.

"Paul and the family and followers of Jesus were on quite the different path. The divergence of denominations and non denominational thought I believe came quite early. We can read about the divisions of thought while he was alive, and the work he had to do to keep the twelve on the same page."
Precisely my point ... but Paul and the family and followers of Jesus? That's pushing things a bit far. Paul and Peter were reconciled after their meeting in Jerusalem, after all ...

The life of the Christian was too risky to treat so lightly. If you were likely to be tortured or killed for your belief, then you'd want to be bloomin' certain that what you were being burnt for was not mere opinion, or that you'd got it wrong and were chasing a chimera.

The Christians attended synagogue until forbidden and 'excommunicated' around 80AD, but even then they also met the next day to partake of the Eucharist.

If Christianity was anything, it was a Mystery Cult, not something like a Quaker's meeting. There was a definite process, more exacting then than today, there were teachings, rites and initiations ... that's what religion was, that's what people did ... like offering sacrifice at the temple ...

I still think you're reading it with postmodernist eyes, and informed by postrmodern propaganda (in which the 4th century looms like a spectre) ... I don't think people were quite so 'cool' in those days as these ...

I seriously believe most scholars would dispute your view... and only after the Reformation was the Eucharist played down, until the 1500s it was everything... so I honestly think you are informed by Protestant propaganda, rather than refuting it.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Sorry Wil, I still think you're wrong.

"And our access to documents of that time are limited by the group that went around eliminating documents they didn't like."
If that were entirely true, we wouldn't know about the gnostics. All we do know is from Christian polemical writings — so that is rather an extreme view.

There was a Church structure from the very earliest

... so I honestly think you are informed by Protestant propaganda, rather than refuting it.

The fact that we have some old documents and understandings only means they weren't 100% successful...everyone knows they tried. (many folks are not pleased the Qumran, Dead Sea Scrolls, and that darn Gospel of Thomas and Judas showed up)

And yes I agree there was a church structure...I don't agree that there was only one. I think Paul and James were at odds and I think there were many other splits and understandings....but yes the Yankees dominated (american reference, I don't have a good international one)

And yes I am most likely influenced by some Protestant propaganda, would you say your studies have not been informed and influenced by some church as well? Here-in lies the benefit of discussion, we open ourselves to other ideas than those that are santified and purified by those that provide us with our own propaganda...funny how we hardly ever consider the stuff we believe to be propaganda...propaganda is always perpetuated by the group that differs from our truth....

 

[iBrian]

On that discussion - I seem to recall one of the big reasons for the Council of Nicaea was precisely because Constantine sought to unify Christianity as a faith when it was otherwise diverse. The Coptics, the Syrians, the Arians, the Donatists as movements - heck even Saul of Tarsus vs James the Brother of Jesus as arguing over fundamentals before we even get as far as that.

Anyway - as to the Liberal Christianity board - it's going to become merged back into the Christianity board so that we can keep discussions about a single faith on a single faith board. wil is also going to join the site staff, so hopefully the liberals won't feel they will end up as a minority voice without representation.

 

[taijasi]

Hear Hear!

Woohoo wil!

Seems to be the right man for the job ... (though you'll notice I'd only dare say it after you've accepted the nomination, lol)

Did you mean this -

What are you looking for?

Yep - that's the one! Thanks, Snoopy, for the link ... (reading it now)

Peace,

~andrew

 

[Thomas]

On that discussion - I seem to recall one of the big reasons for the Council of Nicaea was precisely because Constantine sought to unify Christianity as a faith when it was otherwise diverse.

Arius was the big issue — that was the only topic under discussion, and it took the better part of that century to sort.

It's interesting to note that the Arian dispute was triggered by the complaint of his parishioners in Alexandria — a rough dockside parish at that — Arius taught 'there was a time when Christ was not' and his parish said no, that's not the Profession of Faith we made at baptism.

Arius was 'fired', but he had friends in high places, and the politicing began...

The big thing about Nicea is that it could never have happened before. Travel for Christians was too dangerous with intermittent persecutions, and the funds weren't there. Constantine financed the council ... so stuff was discussed for the first time in 300 years ... and it was inevitable that discrepancies and divergences had taken place ... the bishops wanted a common ground as much as Constantine did, but for different reasons.

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

Thomas, have you ever come across any kind of record or account of proceedings that actually took place at the Council of Nicaea? I've heard some interesting points raised about the representation and actual goings on, but never really encountered an authoritative and reliable account (I figure Eusebius probably covered it, but have to admit I have difficulty accepting his overall accounts as necessarily reliable).

 

[Dor]

so hopefully the liberals won't feel they will end up as a minority voice without representation.

No we know which group on here is the minority with no voice.

 

[iBrian]

Don't worry, Dor - as the board says Christianity, I would think mainstream Christian views to be the expected norm, not exception.

 

[Snoopy]

"Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress."

- Gandhi.​

 

[seattlegal]

Should we move 'The Oil' thread that was in Liberal Christianity, but is now in Comparative, back to the Christianity board? It's being hijacked...

 

[lunamoth]

Well, the last good thread from the Liberal Christianity board has been hijacked...

Which thread seattlegal?

 

[seattlegal]

Which thread seattlegal?

Nevermind, I tried to delete my post right after I made it, but couldn't. So I edited it instead. {Forgive me, I was a little upset after hearing about Mark/Prober, and rushed to posting.}

 

[Thomas]

Hi Brian,

There's a link here:
The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible
which lists onlines resources to the documents of the Council of Nicea, and also discussions subsequent to it.

It also lists some of the common fallacies — that Constantine composed the Creed, the New Testament, etc., etc.

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

Thanks for that - much appreciated.