Historical and Religious Views of the Roots of Christianity

[Kinslaughterer]

For those interested in learning about the events in and around the Council of Nicea and how they determined which books to chose, the trinity, and other vital issues of Christianity I'll provide a short bibliography....

When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstein (Professor of Public Affairs and Religion at George Mason University. He is also a Harvard grad and a Rhodes Scholar, FWIW)

The Confessions of St. Augustine by Augustine of Hippo
Constantine and Eusebius by Timothy Barnes
Documents of the Christian Church edited by Henry Bettenson
Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire by Peter Brown
A Concise History of the Early Church by Norbert Brox
Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times by Michael Grant
A History of Christianity by Paul Johnson
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers edited by Schaff and Wace
Documents in Early Christian Thought edited by Wiles and Santer
Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflict by Daniel Williams

These just scratch the surface. Collectively these and many others show the events that shaped Christianity from Constantine's direct hand to the multiple logic problems with the trinity, the alterations of the Synoptics and the eliminations of the Gnostics to create a divine Jesus nearly 300 years after his death.

[Fist and Faith]

Rus has a point there. If I understand correctly, he is stating that you cant knock the orthodox Church for beliefs or tennants that dont have a basis in orthodoxy or that arent orthodox.

I'll knock it on that basis. Insofar as it is part of everything I'll knock until I'm given reason to believe the universe needed a cause. Hehe.

Its more of defining part of the debate. "Hey dont knock the Covenant books by telling me what you dont like about Erikson."

Hey!! Don't start knocking Erikson!!! Now things are gonna get nasty!!!

[rusmeister]

For those interested in learning about the events in and around the Council of Nicea and how they determined which books to chose, the trinity, and other vital issues of Christianity I'll provide a short bibliography....

When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstein (Professor of Public Affairs and Religion at George Mason University. He is also a Harvard grad and a Rhodes Scholar, FWIW)

The Confessions of St. Augustine by Augustine of Hippo
Constantine and Eusebius by Timothy Barnes
Documents of the Christian Church edited by Henry Bettenson
Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire by Peter Brown
A Concise History of the Early Church by Norbert Brox
Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times by Michael Grant
A History of Christianity by Paul Johnson
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers edited by Schaff and Wace
Documents in Early Christian Thought edited by Wiles and Santer
Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflict by Daniel Williams

These just scratch the surface. Collectively these and many others show the events that shaped Christianity from Constantine's direct hand to the multiple logic problems with the trinity, the alterations of the Synoptics and the eliminations of the Gnostics to create a divine Jesus nearly 300 years after his death.

Except for Augustine, those all look like, uh, modern writers.
Yes, there is a sea of writers who begin from a world view that denies faith and begins examining facts in that light.

The trouble with citing facts (noting SW's post as well) is that historians generally include the facts that support their position and exclude (via ignorance or more directly through denial of the fact as fact) those that do not. Plus, historians work under the crippling disadvantage of being removed from the cultures they study (in most cases) by space, time, language and culture. In this respect, for all that any report may be biased, unreasonably or not, primary sources are far superior to what modern historians, who BEGIN with a world view, usually inculcated in school more than in church, usually public and secular, before they ever begin to analyze history.

That's why I said to read the ECFs. They are primary sources. Yes, Augustine counts here. The others do not. Granted that you can produce a list of hundreds of books written by people who support your position. Trouble is, they were nearly all born less than 100 years ago. Thus, I am highly skeptical of their works. Where are the primary sources???

When you're really familiar with what John Chrysostom or Gregory of Nyssa said, I'll be more impressed. You won't learn what Christianity is by studying people with a strong bias against it.

[Fist and Faith]

John Chrysostom

Ah, Rachmaninoff!

[Kinslaughterer]

I don't think I have the time or the energy to even begin to explain how scholars work and how they cite primary and secondary sources....There work isn't based on their own opinion but in every book I mention massive research in primary sources. The bibliographies of these books and others are filled with them.

You seem to see a world divided by either Christians and every one biased against Christianity. I don't really know what to tell you but but that's not how it works. What it really comes down to is you are so emotional attached that no matter what evidence is presented (regardless of whether I've met any burden of proof) it won't convince you because you are deathly afraid of the consequences judging by your earlier posts. Emotion doesn't make anything right.

My previous post was for others interested in this thread as you haven't read such material and clearly won't read such material. It's fruitless in having this debate when only one party is makes the effort to read what the other one presents.

[aliantha]

The trouble with citing facts (noting SW's post as well) is that historians generally include the facts that support their position and exclude (via ignorance or more directly through denial of the fact as fact) those that do not.

I don't suppose there's any chance that the original sources you're speaking of -- that is, Church sources -- included only the facts that supported their position and excluded those that didn't. Or that they would have had any possible motivation for doing so. Like, possibly, shaping Jesus' message to suit their vision of what the Church should be. Hm?

[Kinslaughterer]

rus,
I think you greatly underestimate the integrity of most historians. If one person doesn't give all the facts then there will be five others that gladly will. Also, contrary to your belief, they aren't just a bunch of Jesus/Christian haters. I'm sure at least a few of them are Christians but they support the idea rather than the literal.

[Cybrweez]

My previous post was for others interested in this thread as you haven't read such material and clearly won't read such material. It's fruitless in having this debate when only one party is makes the effort to read what the other one presents.

kins, did you read the links from rus about the early church fathers? Have you read the writings of those early church fathers? Especially any writings before Constantine. Maybe you're waiting for rus' summary? But then I'm sure he's just biased anyway.

And I have to question the idea of objectivity. I'm of the opinion it rarely exists. For instance, one believes there is no God, and then attempts to study how the church came to be. They may aim to give it a fair shake, but the starting premise, there is no God, colors everything they read, and every conclusion they come to.

[Kinslaughterer]

My previous post was for others interested in this thread as you haven't read such material and clearly won't read such material. It's fruitless in having this debate when only one party is makes the effort to read what the other one presents.

kins, did you read the links from rus about the early church fathers? Have you read the writings of those early church fathers? Especially any writings before Constantine. Maybe you're waiting for rus' summary? But then I'm sure he's just biased anyway.

And I have to question the idea of objectivity. I'm of the opinion it rarely exists. For instance, one believes there is no God, and then attempts to study how the church came to be. They may aim to give it a fair shake, but the starting premise, there is no God, colors everything they read, and every conclusion they come to.

Yes, I've read every quote, link, and passage that I have available. That's what I do. I don't argue for the sake of it. Luckily for me I can be convinced of something through effort, logical debate, and objective facts.

Objectivity doesn't serve your purposes. So let me summarizes the debate here....

Objectivity doesn't exist, all historians are likely anti-christian and very much biased going so far as to dismiss something that doesn't prove their point, I as well as "Science" (that atheist Monolith) aren't objective. Truth overides fact. The context of pre-Christian Near East is irrelevant. The moral center of Christianity is more important than the thousands of other cultures around the world. We will take the mistranslations that support us but not the ones that don't. You can't question Orthodoxy.

I'm not even going to go on here...needless to say you've shown that your side of the argument can't begin to be objective whether is against my information or the others here. Get back to me when there are some rational, reasonable things to debate.

[Cybrweez]

See kins? You didn't even answer my question. I asked, have you read rus' links, and the early church fathers mentioned in them? You say, yes, I've read all my links. What do the writings of people before the time of Constantine say? Because there was a church before him.

And then in another thread, you admit you have bias. But not bias when interpreting facts?

I'll wait for your teaching on rational, reasonable things to debate. You know, a few people here have objections to rus posting similar sounding things.

[Orlion]

And then in another thread, you admit you have bias. But not bias when interpreting facts?

The existence of a bias of interpretation of facts is not at issue here. We're all intelligent enough here to understand that our viewpoint of the world is colored by different varibles and biases. The point is the presentation of facts (premises) that would lead to an interpretation (conclusion) that follows, or at least would reasonably seem to follow the facts (or be corralated with).

Examples: I may say that I believe in God because I don't understand how the universe would work without one. Someone would then inquire if I would therefore not believe in God if I understood the mechanisms of the universe (physics). If I reply that I would still believe in God, then my previous argument was kinda a waste of breath since the conclusion (belief in God) was shown to not follow the premises (lack of understanding the mechanisms of the universe). It's this sort of argument that is considered irrational.

[Orlion]

An excellent source that we put a good deal of stock in:
www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/englis ... ware_1.htm (Lest it be said that I offer no references - it's either that or be accused of not telling the history of the Church from A to Z in my own words. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.)

It's a good summary of the history of the Orthodox Church. If you want to knock us, you'll have to do it from the bases we do stand on, not from the ones we don't stand on.

I didn't have time to read anything beyond the beginning, but it is interesting. Would the term "orthodox church" then be used in the same manner that pre-nicene writers used "catholic church"? (Clarification on what I'm asking: Catholic means universal and was applied to mean all the existing christian churches as opposed to just the church in Antioch or the church in Jerusalem)

[rusmeister]

An excellent source that we put a good deal of stock in:
www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/englis ... ware_1.htm (Lest it be said that I offer no references - it's either that or be accused of not telling the history of the Church from A to Z in my own words. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.)

It's a good summary of the history of the Orthodox Church. If you want to knock us, you'll have to do it from the bases we do stand on, not from the ones we don't stand on.

I didn't have time to read anything beyond the beginning, but it is interesting. Would the term "orthodox church" then be used in the same manner that pre-nicene writers used "catholic church"? (Clarification on what I'm asking: Catholic means universal and was applied to mean all the existing christian churches as opposed to just the church in Antioch or the church in Jerusalem)

Hi, Orlion. The short answer is 'yes', for the simple reason that for the first thousand years, it was one Church, up to the Great Schism. The split was a long time in developing, but for a millenium, terms like "Christian" and "Church" basically meant only one thing (again, I said, "short answer").

[rusmeister]

I don't think I have the time or the energy to even begin to explain how scholars work and how they cite primary and secondary sources....There work isn't based on their own opinion but in every book I mention massive research in primary sources. The bibliographies of these books and others are filled with them.

You seem to see a world divided by either Christians and every one biased against Christianity. I don't really know what to tell you but but that's not how it works. What it really comes down to is you are so emotional attached that no matter what evidence is presented (regardless of whether I've met any burden of proof) it won't convince you because you are deathly afraid of the consequences judging by your earlier posts. Emotion doesn't make anything right.

My previous post was for others interested in this thread as you haven't read such material and clearly won't read such material. It's fruitless in having this debate when only one party is makes the effort to read what the other one presents.

I think you greatly underestimate the integrity of most historians.

Objectivity doesn't exist, all historians are likely anti-christian and very much biased going so far as to dismiss something that doesn't prove their point, I as well as "Science" (that atheist Monolith) aren't objective. Truth overides fact. The context of pre-Christian Near East is irrelevant. The moral center of Christianity is more important than the thousands of other cultures around the world. We will take the mistranslations that support us but not the ones that don't. You can't question Orthodoxy.

Hi, Kins -

First of all, I do value historical scholarship and do not need it explained to me. I could also produce a list of names of historians who deny the conclusions of yours. I see that to be useless - it is like engaging in Scripture wars with a fundamentalist Christian. Unless you establish a common basis of authority by which you can determine one side to be correct and the other to be in error, you will get nowhere.

I do not question the integrity of your historians. I do question their objectivity. These are two different things.

My peculiar background as a teacher has taught me things that could someday be discussed on different threads - I'll just jump to the conclusions and say that the vast majority of modern people have their thinking formed via public education and mass media. Public education (my special field) has been primary, although not exclusive, and it was formed over a century (esp 1830-1930) by people themselves formed by fashionable thought of the so-called "Enlightenment" who began with anti-Christian biases. Thus, what people think today about history (ideas such as that women were always an oppressed underclass until Emmeline Pankhurst came to wake them up (which makes women throughout the ages to be pretty stupid)) is formed first in schools, then those people grow up and express those ideas in the media, thus creating a vicious circle, where everyone thinks that they are free and critical thinkers and no one is aware that they have been indoctrinated, for the simple reason that they accept the indoctrination as truth.

I have a number of public-school approved textbooks on history accumulated over the years, and their treatment of Christianity, which will be familiar to you because most people do think these kinds of things when they think of Christianity at all, runs as follows (again in short, leaving details out):

• Christianity started as a religion of the poor and oppressed, because it promised them a better life.
  
  The Christian Church was responsible for holy wars, countless people killed in the name of religion.
  
  The Christian Church (remaining undefined) became awfully corrupt in the Middle Ages.
  
  The Reformation led to free thinking, as people began reading the Bible for themselves.
  
  Now there are thousands of denominations, and it is all very confusing (but nice, because people can believe what they want - and now nobody dies for faith, because it is not worth dying for.)

That about sums up what the average person learns about Christianity. A mixture of falsehood, fact, and omission of fact. And this is where, dollars to doughnuts, most of your historians are coming from. It's not their integrity - it's a worldview that is drilled into them, first in school, then by the media. It forms their scholastic approach from the get-go. Worldview, in general, tends to trump facts, for everyone. (You and I are no exception.) We are not only rational beings, we are also human beings. If a person denies the possibility of miracles (special intervention from outside of the universe by the Creator that breaks or suspends natural law) - if that is a first principle of their worldview - that there can be no such thing - they would not believe in one, even as proven fact, even if happened right in front of them.

I do agree that debate is difficult. But the trouble is that we question each other's first operating principles. (For example, you assume that historians can be completely impartial and objective, and approach their subject in a vacuum. I deny that. And so on...) Thus, we'd have to establish what we do agree on, what we do not propose to debate.

I'm still waiting for the answer to my question on the meaning of the word 'brother'...

And I have to question the idea of objectivity. I'm of the opinion it rarely exists. For instance, one believes there is no God, and then attempts to study how the church came to be. They may aim to give it a fair shake, but the starting premise, there is no God, colors everything they read, and every conclusion they come to.

QFT

[rusmeister]

The trouble with citing facts (noting SW's post as well) is that historians generally include the facts that support their position and exclude (via ignorance or more directly through denial of the fact as fact) those that do not.

I don't suppose there's any chance that the original sources you're speaking of -- that is, Church sources -- included only the facts that supported their position and excluded those that didn't. Or that they would have had any possible motivation for doing so. Like, possibly, shaping Jesus' message to suit their vision of what the Church should be. Hm?

You can argue that anything's possible. I can apply similar arguments to your views on recent pagan histories. However, the fact of the Christian martyrs, again, denies that. And there were martyrs after the Edict of Milan, make no mistake. Maximus the Confessor, for example. People in power, for whom torture and death were preferable to denying the truth.

The whole concept that this life, with all of its riches, pleasures, power, etc is temporary, and while important, is not the most important thing, and the people who accept that, reveals the falsehood of your idea, which is predicated on valuing power, wealth and pleasure in this world.

[rdhopeca]

The trouble with citing facts (noting SW's post as well) is that historians generally include the facts that support their position and exclude (via ignorance or more directly through denial of the fact as fact) those that do not.

I don't suppose there's any chance that the original sources you're speaking of -- that is, Church sources -- included only the facts that supported their position and excluded those that didn't. Or that they would have had any possible motivation for doing so. Like, possibly, shaping Jesus' message to suit their vision of what the Church should be. Hm?

You can argue that anything's possible. I can apply similar arguments to your views on recent pagan histories. However, the fact of the Christian martyrs, again, denies that. And there were martyrs after the Edict of Milan, make no mistake. Maximus the Confessor, for example. People in power, for whom torture and death were preferable to denying the truth.

The whole concept that this life, with all of its riches, pleasures, power, etc is temporary, and while important, is not the most important thing, and the people who accept that, reveals the falsehood of your idea, which is predicated on valuing power, wealth and pleasure in this world.

So, if enough of the non-believers die for their non-belief, eventually that will be the One Truth as well? There are plenty of martyrs in other belief systems as well. It just means someone had a strong belief and was willing to die, not that their beliefs were the universal truth.

[danlo]

hear, hear!

[Dromond]

I don't suppose there's any chance that the original sources you're speaking of -- that is, Church sources -- included only the facts that supported their position and excluded those that didn't. Or that they would have had any possible motivation for doing so. Like, possibly, shaping Jesus' message to suit their vision of what the Church should be. Hm?

You can argue that anything's possible. I can apply similar arguments to your views on recent pagan histories. However, the fact of the Christian martyrs, again, denies that. And there were martyrs after the Edict of Milan, make no mistake. Maximus the Confessor, for example. People in power, for whom torture and death were preferable to denying the truth.

The whole concept that this life, with all of its riches, pleasures, power, etc is temporary, and while important, is not the most important thing, and the people who accept that, reveals the falsehood of your idea, which is predicated on valuing power, wealth and pleasure in this world.

So, if enough of the non-believers die for their non-belief, eventually that will be the One Truth as well? There are plenty of martyrs in other belief systems as well. It just means someone had a strong belief and was willing to die, not that their beliefs were the universal truth.

QFT

[rusmeister]

I don't suppose there's any chance that the original sources you're speaking of -- that is, Church sources -- included only the facts that supported their position and excluded those that didn't. Or that they would have had any possible motivation for doing so. Like, possibly, shaping Jesus' message to suit their vision of what the Church should be. Hm?

You can argue that anything's possible. I can apply similar arguments to your views on recent pagan histories. However, the fact of the Christian martyrs, again, denies that. And there were martyrs after the Edict of Milan, make no mistake. Maximus the Confessor, for example. People in power, for whom torture and death were preferable to denying the truth.

The whole concept that this life, with all of its riches, pleasures, power, etc is temporary, and while important, is not the most important thing, and the people who accept that, reveals the falsehood of your idea, which is predicated on valuing power, wealth and pleasure in this world.

So, if enough of the non-believers die for their non-belief, eventually that will be the One Truth as well? There are plenty of martyrs in other belief systems as well. It just means someone had a strong belief and was willing to die, not that their beliefs were the universal truth.

You're taking something that I am saying in regards to one argument (the idea that the Church was formed by secular power-grubbers) and turning it to a different argument - whether Christianity is superior to other faiths that also have martyrs. That argument has different refutations.

[Orlion]

So as a clarification: The example of martyrs was not (necesarily) meant to be applied to the question of the vericity of Christianity, rather to argue that Christianity was not established as a means to obtain and maintain political control?