Coping with evidence that Christianity morphed

[aoji]

Why would God just speak to a few, including prophets, and then leave them with nothing of substance to pass on. Why would God not communicate to everyone, at once, uncorruptably, in their own language, instead of counting on a few fallible humans.

Because the usual person was too narcissistic, selfish, self-centered, cold hearted, etc. Isaiah 29:12-14 Matthew 15:8 They passed on what is written in the scriptures by witnesses. God tries to communicate to everyone every second of life. Not everyone is sensitive enough to hear Him. Jesus said the "Kingdom of God is within" and few go within. He said "Go into thy closet and pray," (Matt 6:6) and people get hung up on the word "closet" and think it is an actual closet. To me, the closet is the heart, shutting the door means to leave all thoughts outside the mind (not to let mundane thoughts creep into the mind as thoughts, which short circuit the heart of feelings and emotions), what the East calls Meditation. Ezekiel 33:30 Hosea 11:7

 

[sojourner]

Any popular books describing evidence that early Christians had diverse ideas about Christology do not correlate with the reality of early Christianity. The consistent truth becomes very obvious in a serious study of Church history, beginning with its founding by Jesus Christ and continuing through unbroken apostolic succession to the present.

There have always been heretics – a few here and there in early Christianity, and innumerable millions everywhere today, but no teaching has ever changed in the one and only Church that Christ established. The one he called “My Church” when he gave Simon a new name and said thou art Peter (Petros - rock), and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). He sent them to “teach all nations what I have commanded you” and gave them and their successors the ultimate authority and divine assistance to do it. He said “Whoever hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and that the Holy Spirit would always guide them into all truth (John 16:13).

The problem is that the unchanging truth taught by Jesus and his Church for over 2,000 years is not necessarily what has been taught by those who either left the Catholic Church or were never part of it to begin with. Diverse ideas about Christology, morphing understandings, churches that formulate their own theologies, and so-called scholars who don’t know who Jesus is, are all outside of the One True Faith.

I respectfully disagree. I've studied church history on the graduate level, and the fact is that the church was not at all united in doctrine untilafter Constantine. The whole reason for Nicea was to settle doctrinal problems presented by some very powerful groups that were later declared heretical. It was more than simply "a few here and there."

Add to that the fact that the Esatern and Western branches never could agree which was to be primal -- Rome or Constantinople. That back-and-forth continued until the Great Schism of 1054 -- which has NEVER been reconciled. Only one of the doctrinal and theological differences that, seeminly, will never be reconciled is the filioque clause in the Creed. So, the idea that there has been One Teaching in the One Church is a little disingenuous, and represents a biased perspective.

Additionally, the idea that the Apostolic Succession is unbroken from Peter until today is a little misleading. There is no definitive such list of successors that goes all the way back to Peter. We can get close, but there are holes, and there are questionable branches when several popes declared authority at the same time during a few points in history. It's just not as clean or clear-cut as you're making it out to be.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I respectfully disagree. I've studied church history on the graduate level, and the fact is that the church was not at all united in doctrine untilafter Constantine. The whole reason for Nicea was to settle doctrinal problems presented by some very powerful groups that were later declared heretical. It was more than simply "a few here and there."

To say "not at all united" is inaccurate. The First Council of Nicaea was convened to expand on the Apostles' Creed, which became the Nicene Creed. And yes, this was done in response to the growing heresy of Arianism, originated by a priest in Egypt named Arias. His teaching asserted that Jesus had not always existed, but was a created being, and therefore is not divine. Two lesser heresies were emerging at the same time. All of them died out. So these three heresies that came and went hardly define early Christianity as a divided faith.

"Catholicism" includes the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Church. The Schism has not been fully reconciled, but we are still in communion with each other.

Apostolic succession is unbroken because there can be no ordination except by a Catholic bishop through the Sacrament of Holy Orders and by a laying on of hands. A deacon, priest, or bishop can not just appear out of nowhere.

 

[picnic]

"Catholicism" includes the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Church. The Schism has not been fully reconciled, but we are still in communion with each other.

My understanding is that Catholics view Orthodox as in communion, but Orthodox don't view Catholics as in communion. Also, I think the Catholic missals say that Orthodox are welcome to receive communion but they should ask their Orthodox priest first (and of course the Orthodox priest will say no ) It's kind of a shame, but it isn't my problem anymore now that I'm an atheist.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

My understanding is that Catholics view Orthodox as in communion, but Orthodox don't view Catholics as in communion. Also, I think the Catholic missals say that Orthodox are welcome to receive communion but they should ask their Orthodox priest first (and of course the Orthodox priest will say no ) It's kind of a shame, but it isn't my problem anymore now that I'm an atheist.

Yeah, in fact, the Roman Catholic Church says that we are in full communion with the Orthodox Church, but the Orthodox Church does not go that far in its view, at least not yet. We can receive communion in an Orthodox Church, and it is entirely valid and acceptable with the Roman Catholic Church, but again, the Orthodox Church doesn't see us in quite the same way, as you pointed out.

I'm sorry that you have lost your faith. I hope and pray you will come back to it.

 

[psychoslice]

All religons have morphed from somewhere, no matter what that religion is, probably origan from around the fire when asking the question why are we here.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is another thread somewhat similar about the nature of Jesus, but I thought it might be worth asking this question more directly. There are lots of popular books available describing evidence that early Christians had diverse ideas about Christology and other things. In other words, Christianity seems to have evolved in fundamental ways over the first couple of centuries. Scholars aren't certain who Jesus was or what Jesus taught. Was Jesus a revolutionary, a faith healer, a teacher, a doomsday prophet, ...? Similar things can be said about Judaism. Neither religion seems to have appeared abruptly like we should expect from a divine revelation.

On the other side of the scale, many people claim to have personally experienced Jesus or God. Even I can claim some small experiences that seemed to indicate the existence of Jesus and God.

If the historical Jesus and the historical Yahweh were mundane and carnal, then how can a personal experience of Jesus or God make sense?

EDIT: Maybe this is too controversial for DIR? If so, I am fine with a moderator moving it to religious debates or something. (Probably that is where I should have created it if I had been thinking.)

Part of the problem here is that you are asking this from a non-believer, or atheistic/academic or church-academic opinions, . If you want answers to these questions, in that context, then you are sort of already answering your own OP. If you want answers that challenge these opinions, then you pretty much have to take a very skeptical approach to the academic or church academic proposals. *shrugs*

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Because the usual person was too narcissistic, selfish, self-centered, cold hearted, etc. Isaiah 29:12-14 Matthew 15:8 They passed on what is written in the scriptures by witnesses. God tries to communicate to everyone every second of life. Not everyone is sensitive enough to hear Him.

God can't figure a way to get through to certain people, but God thinks his "prophets" might have a better chance by passing on some hearsay that can't be substantiated? Why do religionists insist that the only way to know God is to turn off their God given ability to think? I'll tell you why. Because those religious prophets speak for the God they invented.

 

[wizanda]

Maybe it was something else like God or a collective consciousness...

There is no harm in being skeptical of everything in this world, as everything seems to get corrupted..... Yeshua's followers from the beginning for example....Makes me laugh all these people in this thread talking about things happening since the council of Nicea; which was already to late to be following what he said.

Instead go right back to the Essenes, and then the later Ebionites; the Ebionites (poor ones) take Yeshua's teachings of giving up wealth, and the commandments as steps to heaven...James the Just (his brother) was said to be within them, and against the Pauline Pharisee idea of him coming as a living sacrifice.

So it is understandable for someone to be Irreligious, when Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism is so far removed from God, they can't even see it; where some seem to be attracted to all the false bits, like flies around manure.

Yet stay open minded based on your own experience, there is more to everything than meets the eye, and that the religious are very often misguided, else they'd be free of any labeling, as they'd know the way, without needing some crutch.

 

[sojourner]

To say "not at all united" is inaccurate. The First Council of Nicaea was convened to expand on the Apostles' Creed, which became the Nicene Creed. And yes, this was done in response to the growing heresy of Arianism, originated by a priest in Egypt named Arias. His teaching asserted that Jesus had not always existed, but was a created being, and therefore is not divine. Two lesser heresies were emerging at the same time. All of them died out. So these three heresies that came and went hardly define early Christianity as a divided faith.

"Catholicism" includes the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Church. The Schism has not been fully reconciled, but we are still in communion with each other.

Apostolic succession is unbroken because there can be no ordination except by a Catholic bishop through the Sacrament of Holy Orders and by a laying on of hands. A deacon, priest, or bishop can not just appear out of nowhere.

We're talking 325 years following Christ. The very early church was not united. In fact, even the bible tells of differences of opinion concerning Gentile Christians. The heresies hardly "went." They merely "went underground," because there are plenty of Christians today who are Gnosit, Docetist, Arian, etc.

The West and East may be "in communion," but there's still the elephant in the living room where Christology is concerned, because each branch will not concede the point on the filioque clause. And then there is the Protestant issue, which the RCC refuses to capitulate on, even though several of them are also within the Succession. I don't mean this to sound provocative or disrespectful (and I hope it doesn't -- it's merely an admittedly somewhat biased observation), but it appears to this poster as if the RCC has a problem coming to consensus with its Christian sisters and brothers, refusing to concede theological, doctrinal, and political points in the interest of unity (something that did occur during Nicea).

 

[lovemuffin]

Eastern Orthodox churches use "in communion" (when describing ecclesiastical relations) in a somewhat technical way, but they don't consider themselves to be in communion with the Roman Catholic church, and I don't believe the Roman Catholic church believes itself to be in "full communion" (as they make a distinction of degrees of communion) with the Orthodox either. It's true that each recognizes the validity of the others sacraments, at least in large part, but in its official doctrine the Roman church still insists upon the primacy of the Pope as an ecclesiastical matter, which the Orthodox won't agree to, and the Orthodox won't give the sacrament of communion to Roman Catholics.

It's true that as a general descriptive term most of the non-Protestant churches use the word "catholic" (owing to the creeds) but in general usage it normally refers to the Roman church, and shouldn't be used to imply that the eastern or oriental orthodox churches are united with the Roman catholic church. I would personally fully support more effort on the part of the churches to establish communion but it's not really there yet.

 

[picnic]

What I find even more disappointing is the exclusion of Society of Saint Pious X (SSPX) from Catholicism. The differences there seem even more trivial but they divide.

Is there any example of schisms being mended? It seems that once broken, they stay divided forever.

 

[sojourner]

What I find even more disappointing is the exclusion of Society of Saint Pious X (SSPX) from Catholicism. The differences there seem even more trivial but they divide.

Is there any example of schisms being mended? It seems that once broken, they stay divided forever.

The ECUSA and the ELCA have, in the last few years, reached a stance of "full intercommunion," in which all sacraments are equally valid, clergy may be shared back and forth, and the ELCA now has bishops that are in the Succession.

In the early 1800s, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) ratified a document that, in effect, dissolved them as a separate body, so that they might "sink into union with the Body of Christ" at large, thus giving up distinctions that fostered separation. Other examples are the merger between the Congregationalists and the Evangelical and Reformed Churches, to form the United Church of Christ, and the nearly full cooperation now between the UCC and Disciples.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I don't mean this to sound provocative or disrespectful (and I hope it doesn't -- it's merely an admittedly somewhat biased observation), but it appears to this poster as if the RCC has a problem coming to consensus with its Christian sisters and brothers, refusing to concede theological, doctrinal, and political points in the interest of unity (something that did occur during Nicea).

Christ has never conceded anything for the sake of unity, so how could his Church concede with those who left it?

What was conceded at Nicaea?

 

[sojourner]

Christ has never conceded anything for the sake of unity, so how could his Church concede with those who left it?

What was conceded at Nicaea?

According to Philippians 2, he conceded his Divinity in order to effect reconciliation, when we had left God. Why can the church not do likewise?

Are you not aware that the Creed and the doctrine which forms the basis for it was a process of compromise, collaboration and consensus among all parties involved??

 

[Forever_Catholic]

According to Philippians 2, he conceded his Divinity in order to effect reconciliation, when we had left God. Why can the church not do likewise?

He absolutely did not concede his divinity. At no time did Christ ever stop being God the Son. In Philippians 2, you're probably talking about these verses:

5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient [even] unto death, yea, the death of the cross.

He came to earth both fully human and fully divine. He humbled himself in his human nature and became the sacrificial Lamb of God to atone for the sins of mankind. He did this as it was foretold because mankind could not offer a sacrifice that would be sufficient to restore the union between man and God that was broken by the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Mankind had nothing to give by which to merit the sanctifying grace that had been lost, and so Jesus paid the price on our behalf.

This was not a concession. It was a supreme act of love on his part and obedience to the will of his Father. Conceding is to give in to something for the sake of ending an argument, or to admit to something, or to acknowledge defeat or acknowledge having been wrong, etc. Jesus did none of that.

Are you not aware that the Creed and the doctrine which forms the basis for it was a process of compromise, collaboration and consensus among all parties involved??

You mean compromise, collaboration and consensus among the bishops at the Council of Nicaea, right? It would have been heavy on collaboration and consensus with little or no need for compromise. That's because they were all solid Christians working with articles of faith that were clearly laid out in apostolic teaching. There was no dispute among them, except maybe as to the best way to state what they wanted stated. The Nicene Creed is just an in-depth and expanded version of the Apostles' Creed. (The Apostles' Creed itself is an expanded version of the even more ancient Old Roman Creed, which was based on the Profession of Faith that was recited by those being baptized very early in Christianity.)

In any case, the Nicene Creed was written with the primary objective of eliminating any possible misunderstanding or misinterpretation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was produced in order to more fully and specifically articulate the profession of Christian Faith.

The Catholic Church has nothing to concede on matters of faith and morals because it never departed from apostolic teaching and has never been without the guidance of the Holy Spirit in that regard. This is the infallibility of the Church. Our Protestant brothers and sisters should look into conceding that they have been mistaught, and come home to the fullness of faith where "...there will be one flock and one shepherd." (John 10:16)

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

What was conceded at Nicaea?

That Paul's version of Christianity would become canon, and the other "apocrypha" would be eradicated. Some compromise.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In other words, Christianity seems to have evolved in fundamental ways over the first couple of centuries.

The thing is, the evolution of Christian theology is very obvious to anyone who reads Christian material - from the church fathers to today. These writings for the most part were never lost and have been widely read and available since the invention of the printing press in the 16th century.

For the past 200 years, critical scholarship has known about the development of earliest Christianity and several theories about it have come and gone, but most of these theories dealt with all of the changes in Christian theology.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The thing is, the evolution of Christian theology is very obvious to anyone who reads Christian material - from the church fathers to today. These writings for the most part were never lost and have been widely read and available since the invention of the printing press in the 16th century.

There was very much lost that was attributed to the opposition of the victorious version of Christianity--with their texts being burned and their adherents being killed or driven underground. And they did a pretty good job, until some of that opposition material (apocrypha) such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library along with other Gnostic material (and the Talpiot Tombs) etc., only now being found 2000 years later.

 

[metis]

That Paul's version of Christianity would become canon, and the other "apocrypha" would be eradicated. Some compromise.

But Paul did not write in a vacuum, and we know his letters were widely circulated throughout the church and even used more than the gospels were at first, the latter of which obviously had later writings. Paul was not an outcast with the Jerusalem authority as he met with them at least three times as recorded in Acts, plus he had correspondence with Peter and the others, plus he raised funds for them.