Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 05-16-2007, 08:50 PM

1 Corinthians 1:11-13 say "For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-19-2003-45623.asp

Bart Ehrman

Quote:

The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were
365.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created by a subordinate, ignorant divinity. (Why else would the world be filled with such misery and hardship?) Yet other Christians thought it was worse than that, that this world was a cosmic mistake created by a malevolent divinity as a place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that the Jewish Scripture (the Christian "Old Testament") was inspired by the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews, who was not the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed it was not inspired.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (For them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but not himself divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath.

....

<snipped for copyright - consult link above >

Johnny: In my opinion, the best conclusion is that early Christians were a much more diverse, and confused group than fundamentalist Christians would have us believe. I assume that Elaine Pagels would agree.

Without the unifying influence of Constantine and Eusebius, who knows how much more embarrassing Christian history would be than it already is?

Joan of Bark · 05-17-2007, 06:04 AM

Elaine Pagels also argues (I believe it was in Adam, Eve and the Serpent) that today's Christianity is actually more unified today than it was in the pre-Constantine era.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-17-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Elaine Pagels also argues (I believe it was in Adam, Eve and the Serpent) that today's Christianity is actually more unified today than it was in the pre-Constantine era.

Which invites the reply that early Christians were probably not a unified group because fraudulent teachings produce disunity.

Clouseau · 05-17-2007, 06:18 PM

No cults of particular apostles survived in Corinth or anywhere else, so Paul's letter presumably had the desired effect. There are no grounds for supposing that this signified a schism, anyway, as the recipients were united enough to read it together. However, in the crucial post-apostolic period, from which not a single document survives, it is very likely that there were divisions, though not among Christians as such.

'I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.' Acts 20:29-30 NIV

However, continuous illegality and sporadic persecution of Christianity probably indicates that the true church survived external and internal pressure for an extended period, at least until Constantine, and perhaps until Theodosius, who evidently felt confidence in his own version of the church (and the concomitant decline of the real one) enough to finally outlaw paganism.

gurugeorge · 05-18-2007, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Which invites the reply that early Christians were probably not a unified group because fraudulent teachings produce disunity.

Or you could look at it the other way round as Doherty and other MJ-ers put it: the diversity is just what you'd expect of something that wasn't started by a historical founder and then split up, but on the contrary gradually coalesced from various ideas that were "in the air" at the time (e.g. Platonism, mysticism, Graeco-Roman-Egyptian magic, various kinds of Judaism, the Mysteries, etc.). The basic "hook" being a sort of Jewish version of the god-man of the Mysteries, made public, exotericised. (Judaism being a kind of "cool" and exotic religion in those days, with a hint of "anti-establishment" flavour about it - a bit like, say, Zen was in the 60s, or Tibetan Buddhism was in the 90s.)

IOW the idea is that the initial diversity is a diversity of interpretation of a set of loosely tied together principles based around the idea of a Jewish-themed divine intermediary figure, not a diversity arising from dispute over the teachings of an original founder. The rise of Roman Catholic orthodoxy then looks like the tightining up of this diversity into a more focussed picture over time. (Mainly through concretizing and historicizing the central archetype, and the creation of a priesthood through the concept of the Apostolic Succession with a supposed connection to this historical founder.)

In this view, the initial diversity wasn't necessarily fraudulent or the result of fraudulence, it's the subsequent unification that's fraudulent.

Clouseau · 05-18-2007, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Or you could look at it the other way round as Doherty and other MJ-ers put it: the diversity is just what you'd expect of something that wasn't started by a historical founder and then split up, but on the contrary gradually coalesced from various ideas that were "in the air" at the time (e.g. Platonism, mysticism, Graeco-Roman-Egyptian magic, various kinds of Judaism, the Mysteries, etc.).

Which of these influences were represented by Paul, Apollos, Peter and Christ?

Johnny Skeptic · 05-18-2007, 05:08 AM

There would not have been as much disunity if the New Testament had been written better. Christians blame humans. Skeptics blame the writers. To a great extent, the New Testament is about who is to blame for doing bad things, and how people can escape the consequences of doing bad things. The foundation of the entire Bible is dependent upon God being perfect, and not to blame for anything. Unfortunately for Christians, there is no way that anyone can reasonably prove that. Copies of ancient texts do not even come close to addressing the most important aspects of the validity of Christianity.

Clouseau · 05-18-2007, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The foundation of the entire Bible is dependent upon God being perfect, and not to blame for anything. Unfortunately for Christians, there is no way that anyone can reasonably prove that.

Christians don't care about that. It's the proof of the pudding that counts with them.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-17-2007, 06:04 AM	#2
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Elaine Pagels also argues (I believe it was in Adam, Eve and the Serpent) that today's Christianity is actually more unified today than it was in the pre-Constantine era.

05-17-2007, 06:18 PM	#4
Clouseau Banned Join Date: May 2007 Location: UK Posts: 1,918	No cults of particular apostles survived in Corinth or anywhere else, so Paul's letter presumably had the desired effect. There are no grounds for supposing that this signified a schism, anyway, as the recipients were united enough to read it together. However, in the crucial post-apostolic period, from which not a single document survives, it is very likely that there were divisions, though not among Christians as such. 'I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.' Acts 20:29-30 NIV However, continuous illegality and sporadic persecution of Christianity probably indicates that the true church survived external and internal pressure for an extended period, at least until Constantine, and perhaps until Theodosius, who evidently felt confidence in his own version of the church (and the concomitant decline of the real one) enough to finally outlaw paganism.

05-18-2007, 05:08 AM	#7
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	There would not have been as much disunity if the New Testament had been written better. Christians blame humans. Skeptics blame the writers. To a great extent, the New Testament is about who is to blame for doing bad things, and how people can escape the consequences of doing bad things. The foundation of the entire Bible is dependent upon God being perfect, and not to blame for anything. Unfortunately for Christians, there is no way that anyone can reasonably prove that. Copies of ancient texts do not even come close to addressing the most important aspects of the validity of Christianity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.