aa5874

Justin Martyr's writings does not confirm that his beliefs were orthodox at all.

Justin wrote that almost all Samaritans and other nations considered Simon Magus a God, he never wrote there was any nation where almost all the people were Jesus believers.

Justin wrote that many people believed in Marcion's Jesus and ridiculed his beliefs about Jesus, there is no information in Justin to show that Justin's belief about Jesus was more popular or common than Marcion's.


This can hardly be true.

You yourself have claimed that much information as found in the NT is a product of "church crap". Christians today believe the "church crap", it therefore cannot be that mainstream Christians believe essentially the same as the orthodox when orthodoxy before the 4th century is ambiguous.

The supposed early controversy over circumcision is a product of "church crap". You yourself have claimed the writings of the writer Paul were manipulated. It should be obvious to you that it is imperative that you also consider that the supposed early controversy as found in the letters of the writer Paul was also fabricated.

Even internally, the author of Acts does not ever write that Peter was propagating salvation without circumcision.

The writer Paul claimed Peter was commissioned to preach the "gospel of circumcision", this appears to be "church crap".

Ac 15:7 -
But, you must admit that there are no numbers given by the church writers of those who followed Simon Magus, Menander, Marcion, Valentinius, Cerinthus, Carpocrates, Ebionites, or any other sect. It is therefore virtually impossible to make claims about orthodox beliefs unless you believe the "church crap".

Sheshbazzar

Yup. the othodox DO claim to believe in their orthodox church crap.

I, don't claim any belief in either the -orthodox- OR the -unorthodox- church crap.

THEY, the -orthodox-, however, do recognise such distinctions amongst themselves, else there would not be any writings such as
The "Dialogue with Trypho" Chapter 80
or "Adversus Haereses" which preserve the evidences of both what was and is esteemed to be the orthodox opinion or deemed as unorthodox by the participants themselves.

For any idea, teaching, doctrine, or practice, to be "orthodox", does not require it to be the right or correct interpretation or understanding of Scripture, in any purely analytical sense, only that it is the understanding and interpretation that was accepted by tradition and majority of the "common-opinion" of the church's authorities.

You have pointed out certain beliefs, teachings, doctrines, (and although you didn't mention it, also -practices), were different among most of the Samaritans, or the Marcionites, or large segments of other nations.
This was an internal battle within the early Christian church, and that which is what is called Orthodoxy prevailed.
The Orthodox opinion of The Orthodox Church's authorities is what defines what is accepted as being the "orthodox" belief and practice.
The Roman Catholic Church, and The Greek Orthodox Church had already staked out their territory, well in advance of Constantine.
The "common opinions" (orthodoxy) of the early Roman and Greek, "catholic" Church believers and writers set the standards as to what was to be accepted as Orthodox Christian belief, doctrine, and practice.
But it was never only a matter of sheer numbers, as though it were simple democratic decision, Tradition and accepted Official Authority could and can, over-ride any and all popular opinion.
This is why to this day, the Pope and Holy Roman Church can maintain its teachings, that a worldly majority among Catholics could otherwise overthrow.
In the early Church, the teachings of "Paul" became Authoritative, and Traditional, and supplanted all other "unorthodox" teachings by "others".
Peter is in the beginning of Acts, presented as the foremost Apostle, and undisputed leader of the Faith, but Church authority and leadership was quickly transferred to a "catholic" obedience to the teachings of "Paul", which resonated with the opinions of most of the leaders, elders and presbyters within The Church's.
Peter, and his faction (the "circumcision") were subdued, and were reduced to "going along" with the conclusions and the teachings of the orthodox.
That The Church never officially branded them as being "heretics" evidences that they bowed to The Orthodox Opinion and Authority. In this case, by desisting from teaching that circumcision, and keeping The Law, was any longer incumbent upon believers.

gurugeorge

Yes but this doesn't yet amount to "mainstream". It makes more sense to view the beginnings as fairly diverse, with orthodoxy as, at first, a relatively small stream of opinion, a mere variant invited by the logic of the redemptive "story".

i.e. once you put the Messiah in the past (which is I think the "big idea" of the original variant Messianists-cum-proto-gnostics, the Jerusalem crowd), it invites speculation about the details of what he did, and those will flower - also, naturally, some people will prefer to emphasise the spiritual aspect of the Redeemer, others will be more interested in this business of, "But what did Jesus do daddy?".

So: orthodoxy is initially a mere variant - probably the settled opinion amongst Stoic-influenced Roman Christians, but not necessarily shared in the Syrian churches (still proto-gnostic), Alexandrinian Christians (already starting to become more eclectic and develop into full-glown Gnosticism). (Of course I'm just hand-waving here, but you get the idea - something of that order.)

Basically, I think you are right that the proto-Gnostic teachings of "Paul" seem to be used by this orthodoxy to try and impose its "political" will on the rest of Christian culture. Partly out of sincere wish to do good and unify a disparate movement, partly out of the machiavellian will of (in a trope) fat bishops greedy for sinecures, it looks like Paul's writings are used to forge (in both senses of the word) a strong lineage link to a cult deity whom the Roman Christians believed their Jerusalem forebears had known personally - and they jolly well did their best to convince everyone else of it.

But this actually speaks to the genuineness of the "Paul" writings.

However, if they are genuine, then it's pretty clear that Christianity was originally some kind of proto-Gnostic teaching utilising a transmogrified (value-revalued) concept of the (erstwhile traditional) Messiah as a Gnostic/Platonic Redeemer. For there is little trace of the orthodox Jesus in Paul - the (later-attested) orthodox Jesus is a Stoic-influenced exemplary biography, Paul's (earlier-attested) Jesus is a mystical, Gnostic Redeemer/Soter.

If I may wax lyrical, one of the most beautiful passages in all of Paul is the bit from Galatians, which I like in the "Marcion" version:-

As a man I say,
when we were barely-born,
we were enslaved
under the elements of the cosmos.
But when the fulness of the time came,
God sent forth his Son,
That he might purchase those under law,
and that we may receive adoption.
God sent forth the Spirit of his Son
into your hearts, crying,
"Abba, Father".

Compare and contrast The Gospel of Truth:-

The gospel of truth is joy to those who have received from the Father of truth the gift of knowing him by the power of the Logos, who has come from the Pleroma and who is in the thought and the mind of the Father; he it is who is called "the Savior," since that is the name of the work which he must do for the redemption of those who have not known the Father. For the name of the gospel is the manifestation of hope, since that is the discovery of those who seek him, because the All sought him from whom it had come forth. You see, the All had been inside of him, that illimitable, inconceivable one, who is better than every thought.

This ignorance of the Father brought about terror and fear. And terror became dense like a fog, that no one was able to see. Because of this, error became strong. But it worked on its hylic substance vainly, because it did not know the truth. It was in a fashioned form while it was preparing, in power and in beauty, the equivalent of truth. This then, was not a humiliation for him, that illimitable, inconceivable one. For they were as nothing, this terror and this forgetfulness and this figure of falsehood, whereas this established truth is unchanging, unperturbed and completely beautiful.

It should be pretty clear that Valentinus (for it seems to be he) is saying in a more detailed, and by Valentinus' time more fleshed-out way, what Paul said in a simple way that really gets you.

This juxtaposition I think encapsulates the evolution of the real mainstream of Christianity (for the bulk of Christians, in terms of numbers, in the earliest days, were evidently not orthodox, since you can see - according to Bauer - that the orthodox everywhere complain of encountering already-established heresies).

At first a rugged, charismatic, direct sort of message - later a more flowery version of the same thing: the essential point being in both cases that this spark of the Divine in oneself is what calls out to the greater Divine that permeates the Universe and realises its kinship with it.

In this context, the Jesus story is just a McGuffin to get people into the thing. A neat story to attract peoples' interest and get their emotional juices flowing (it is, after all, a damn good story).

aa5874

Your view on what belief was "orthodox" is flawed.

You cannot just look at a text about christian beliefs and then claim it was orthodox or unorthodox when the veracity of the text itself is unknown and not even corroborated by any external source.


But, again you cannot determine who had the majority, and if we take the writings of Irenaeus in Against Heresies, it may well be that Ireneus beliefs about Jesus were in the minority just purely based on the multiplicity of doctrines or beliefs about Jesus.


You are confusing yourself.

If Peter was first orthodox, then Paul, if he came to the scene later was non-orthodox and so would be the church.,

Sheshbazzar

Ho hum, and on and on.
The term and title "Orthodox" is not up for grabs for every schism and sect that came down the pike, and hasn't been for near two thousand years.

The Orthodox Church's authorities embraced these writings as being the productions of, and the evidences for their own faith.
Your requirements of "veracity of the text, and of external corroboration" was and is irrelevant to The Church, as these documents satisfied, -and were accepted by-
the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Roman and Greek Church's, and were thereafter employed to decide matters of authority, of doctrine, and of practice.

Did some dissent from The Orthodox Church's opinions?
Of course some disagreed and went their own way, Not the least of which was Marcion himself, whom, when the disagreement between him and the other leaders disturbed the Church, by mutual consent departed, the fortune he had donated was returned to him, and he was sent upon his way.

Again, it does -not matter- even if Irenaeus' beliefs were in the minority position when he wrote. That the Orthodox Church authorities -accepted- and -embraced- his writings as being representative of the Orthodox position, would have made them Orthodox.
It wouldn't matter to the leaders of The "catholic" and Orthodox Church, if Irenaeus's opponents had outnumbered him by ten thousand to one.
His writings are the -ones- The Church selected, accepted, and preserved as being Orthodox and authoritative, over and above any and all opposing views and documents. (which they passed over, and rejected)


True, Peter's initial position was the then prevailing orthodox position, -until- the collective leadership and authorities of The Church became convinced that it was time for a change, a new view, and a "New" Testament that was better, "and was based upon better Promises."
The Church leaders choose according to conscience, what manner of doctrine they will follow, and will teach.
Paul's doctrine found the greater favor among the early Church's foremost leaders and teachers, than Peter's now perceived to be outdated and "Jewish" "Old Testament" legalism.
Peter saw the writing on the wall and stepped aside, as is evident in Church teachings, retained honor, submitted himself to the Church's New Testement teachings.
Those that wished to continue in following Jewish legalisms, either voluntarily left, or were now taught against as being subverters of the faith.
In latter times, such would be required to "repent and recant" or be excommunicated as being "false teachers" and "heretics".

Even today, the leaders within The Church (within The Holy Roman Catholic Church, The Pontiff and The Cardinals) may come together and vote upon matters of Church policy, and according to their own particular rules, decide to uphold and continue, or to renounce and discontinue any particular Church teaching or practice.
But it is a limited Church "democracy", as the collective vote of these few authorities can over-rule the will and wishes of millions of Church members.

Sheshbazzar

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution gurugeorge.

aa5874

All you are doing is just to contradict yourself.

You are claiming certain beliefs were orthodox before the Orthodox Church took over with their Church crap, but you cannot say what was actually orthodox.

Was it Peter, Paul, Marcion, Valentinius, the Gnostics, who were the orthodox before the Orthodox church came with their crap?


The internal written records available does not corroborate what you have written about Peter.

Peter, in Acts of the Apostles, preached no such thing as Jewish legalism or that salvation is only through circumcision.

This is what Peter preached according to Acts of the Apostles.

Acts 2:21 - And, did you not say earlier that the Church re-worked the letters of Paul and put "crap" instead? So, it cannot be that the Church accepted Paul's doctrine.

You are all over the place.

Sheshbazzar

As it is evident that whatsoever that I might write, will only elicit endless counter-arguments from you, I am leaving the floor to you.
Have it your way, have it -all- your way.

fatpie42

And their beginnings were when? Fourth century?

What is understood by "son of God" by early Christians is questionable. The gospels never explicitly claim Jesus to be God incarnate. Of course, this is often used in favour of a historical Jesus since a 'God incarnate' figure is arguably somewhat more mythological than a 'divine man' figure.

Early Christians would not have immediately felt the need to distinguish themselves from other Jews. They would have continued to celebrate Shabbat with other Jews (not to mention observing all the other Jewish traditions). That Christian texts will often assert that their identity has been unified and static is another way in which those texts are unreliable. Looking at the various accounts as time progresses makes it clear that Christian identity was nowhere near as static as they wanted to claim.

I would agree with you about the second coming idea. It certainly seems likely that they were expecting a major apocalyptic event from an early stage and this was certainly expected to involve Jesus' arrival. Of course, this hardly points to historicity, does it?

fatpie42

So the orthodox beliefs have not changed.

So the orthodox beliefs have changed.

Make up your mind!