missblue

Hi there. I'm new here. It seems like most of the conversations here go over my head at the moment, but I'd like to contribute nonetheless.

I'm highly interested in early Christian history, specifically the first few centuries before the counsel of Nicaea and the canonization of the Bible.

According to my knowledge, during this time there were multiple different Gospels and scriptures floating around, usually spoken orally, that at times competing against each other. So we had this mess of different beliefs regarding Jesus, divinity, God, and all that stuff, until Constantine came along and finally called a counsel to decide once and for all what was 'divine' and what was 'heretical' by inviting a bunch of people to... vote of all things.

I'm not sure if that's how it happened, but I'm extremely skeptical of sources or people that tell me anything regarding the history of very early Christianity, because I always feel that there is a bias behind the arguments or the words... so I've left the subject behind for a while.

What I have never gotten a decent answer for, is *how* the counsel decided what was "divine" and what was "heretical". This seems to be a big absurdity in my mind, becuase if the Bible is supposedly inspired by God, we have *men* that are making the final decisions on just what those inspirations were and were not.

Sure, some people say the men were inspired... but that's just hogwash in my book. Men are men. They make errors and they have political agendas.

And there's the problem that the current version we have are only copies of copies of copies of copies of... well you get the picture. And everyone knows when stuff is copied by hand... multiple times over a very long time frame. Crap gets added in or taken out, or mis-transcribed or mis- anything... personal interpretations and opinions may be added in.

So, I guess I'd like some suggestions of unbiased (in your opinion) books or articles on the very early history of the Church. I don't trust most apologist sites.. because the very idea of the Bible being corrupted will automatically slant their arguments or versions of how history turned out.

I'm honestly not sure anyone knows the truth. We probably never will know.. becuase it happened over 2,000 years ago. But... I would think that skeptics would at least have a more critical take on the entire early history thing than apologists.

I'm particularly interested in Gnostic writings... I'm currently visiting earlychristianwritings to find whatever I can on the subjects, and I think I'm going to purchase the The Nag Hammadi Library. I also think "Misquoting Jesus" looks interesting. Does anyone have any other books they'd like to suggest? I found a few links for early history on infidels that I'm going to read... which I believe is a good start.

But, again, I like to read as many view points as I can.

I'm glad I found this site. You all seem very critical and logical about religion in general, which I miss from a lot of general theist sites.

And sorry for the long rambling post. If anything doesn't make sense, it's because I'm kinda sleepy right now.

steve_bnk

As I understand it it was mostly policical about as to who would be at the top of what was becomming a state sanctioned religion.

spamandham

No-one really knows anything about this. It's all just speculation.

missblue

Yeah.. that's what I was afraid of.

But then it gets me wondering why you have people that write entire drawn out books claiming they know the "true (TM)" history of Jesus, or how the scriptures came to be.

Basically it seems like we have a bunch of Biblical scholars, many of which have credible backgrounds, all proposing conflicting opinions on what the early church and early Christianity was really like.

for example, we have:
Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, by Craig Evans
and...
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart Ehrman

..two books by two people that I believe are highly respected in their fields, which also have totally different views on early christianity and Jesus. (I believe... haven't read either book yet.)

braces_for_impact

Layman here also with similar interests. I'll be watching this thread. I lurk here a lot, and by doing so I've learned a fair share. Nice to meet yas missblue.

missblue

Nice to meet you too. Some of the posts here are intimidating because of the extensive knowledge shown... but they sure are fun to read through.

steve_bnk

I forget the name, a prominent Christian some yeaas back thought he'd go back to the orginal sources and bring all debate conculsively to an end. He learned Greek and Hebrew. In the end he concluded there were no absolute orignal sources.

The early Christians appear to have been largely Jewish and had loose communities that gatherd to sing, read the scriptures, provide mutual support, and have their religious experiences like speaking in tongues and prophesy.

As time passed the Romans considered them Jewish heretics until they started to become 'Christians' as a separate identity. If an historical Chrtis did exist, he apears to have been a Jewish rabai preaching to Jews, not gentiles.

It was Paul who largely created the basis for modern Christianity. He sold it to the urban gentiles and eliminated the Jewish requirements.

Again, trying to read into what we have as the NT, conflcits and divergence began right off the bat, Peter and Paul were at odds and there is a reference that would say there were people preseneting themselves as purveyors of the faith but were not true to the teachings, whatever they may have been.

The problem as I see it is JC left no dissertation as did Buddha and Mohammed. IMO, he did not have to, as a Jewish rabai he was a Jew steeped in Jewish teachings and tradition. He was a Jew not a 'Christian'. If you puruse the Old Testament, the sentiments he expreseed really were not new in Jewish traditions.

For modern examples you only have to look at how Mormonism and Scientology began, leading up to today with sincere believers.

For a picture of the time of JC, take at look at the region today and juxtapose the players. Intense religious/ethnic unrest, religious nationalism/extremism, poverty, religious violence. Many sects.

mountainman

TWISTED HISTORY - The Gnostics authored a Graeco-Roman literary resistance against Constantine's Canonical Codex. When? Before or after Nicaea?

steve_bnk

Most of us here are not experts, we contribute with ideas, opinons, and sources when we can, and over time absorb what others put forth.

Even some of us who do not believe can differ sharply on ideas with each other.

I believe there was likley an historical person on which the stories are based, others will shout me down as being insane for saying so.

Don't hesitate to ask anything, question what is said, or say what you feel about any of this.

johno

Even a superficial acquaintance with theological disputes leads one to the conclusion that they are settled in one way, and indeed can be settled in only one way, by force. This is rationalised by believers subscribing to the explanation that god chose the orthodox to win.