Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:58:53 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Read up on early Christians, there were and are many sects of Jews,
just as their are many different sects of Christianity. Early
Christians did not break off from the Jews, they considered
themselves Jews who followed the teaching of Christ.

Thank you Harry - I'm sure you are much more versed in this area than
most.

Ouch, you are now starting to hit below the belt.

My description of what happened is really considered religious history
by most theologians.

Tom,
Here is a more in depth review of early Christian History.

During the first six decades of the first century CE, Judaism was
composed of about two dozen competing factions: Sadducees, Pharisees,
Essenes, Zealots, followers of John the Baptist, followers of Yeshua of
Nazareth (Iesous in Greek, Iesus in Latin, Jesus in English), followers
of other charismatic leaders, etc. All followed common Jewish practices,
such as observing dietary restrictions, worshiping at the Jerusalem
temple, sacrificing animals, observing weekly sabbaths, etc.

Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) conducted a short ministry (one
year, in the Galillee according to the synoptic gospels; perhaps three
years, mainly in Judea according to the Gospel of John). His teachings
closely matched those of Beit Hillel (the House of Hillel). Hillel was a
great Jewish rabbi who lived in the second half of the 1st century BCE
one or two generations before Yeshua's birth.

Yeshua was charged with what would be called "aggravated assault" under
today's law, for his attack on merchants in the Temple. This was
apparently considered treason or insurrection by the occupying Roman
forces. (Crucifixion, when used on a non-slave such as Jesus, was
restricted to these two crimes.) He was executed by a detail of Roman
soldiers, perhaps during the springtime, sometime in the late 20's or
early 30's CE. Most historians date the event in April of either the
year 30 or 33. According to the Gospels, his disciples initially
returned to their homeland of Galilee immediately following their
leader's death.

Four decades later, in 70 CE the Roman Army attacked Jerusalem and
destroyed the central focus of Jewish life: the temple. This was an
absolutely devastating blow at the time; Jewish life was totally
disrupted. Jews were no longer able to worship at the Temple. Out of
this disaster emerged two main movements: rabbinical Judaism centered in
local synagogues, and the Christian movement.

There was great diversity within the Christian movement during the first
few decades after Jesus' execution. Some of Jesus' followers (and those
who never met Jesus but who were inspired by his teachings) settled in
Jerusalem. But others spread across the known world, teaching very
different messages. "Even in the same geographical area and sometimes in
the same cities, different Christian teachers taught quite different
gospels and had quite different views of who Jesus was and what he did."
1

During the latter part of the first century CE, the three largest groups
within the primitive Christian movement:

Jewish Christian movement: Jesus disciples appear to have regrouped
later in Jerusalem under the leadership of James, one of Jesus'
brothers. The group viewed themselves as a reform movement within
Judaism; they viewed Jesus as a prophet and rabbi, but not as a deity.
They organized a synagogue, worshiped and brought animals for ritual
sacrifice at the Jerusalem Temple. They observed the Jewish holy days,
practiced circumcision of their male children, followed Kosher dietary
laws, and practiced the teachings of Jesus as they interpreted them to
be. They are frequently referred to today as the Jewish Christians. 2
(These should not be confused with followers of modern-day Messianic
Judaism who generally follow an Evangelical Christian theology and who
are sometimes also called Jewish Christians.) Many were killed,
enslaved, or scattered during the Roman attack on Jerusalem in 70 CE.
Pauline Christianity: Saul, a Jew from Tarsus, originally prosecuted the
Jewish Christians on behalf of the priests at the Jerusalem Temple . He
experienced a powerful religious conversion, after which, he departed
for places unknown for three years. Later, having changed his name to
Paul, he became the single most active Christian missionary, from about
36 CE until his execution by the Romans in the mid-60's. He created a
new Christian movement, containing elements from many forms of Paganism:
Greek, Roman, Persian, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, etc. He included the
concept of Jesus as "The Word", as a god-man -- the savior of humanity,
the product of a virgin birth who was executed, resurrected and ascended
into heaven. There are dozens of points of similarity between the life
of Jesus and that of Krishna, the god-man and second member of the Hindu
trinity. Many of the events which the Bible describes happened to Jesus
appear to have been copied from the legends of Krishna and of other
god-men from Egypt to India. Paul abandoned most of the Laws of Moses
and rejected many of the Jewish behavioral rules that Jesus and his
disciples had followed during his ministry. Paul taught that God had
unilaterally abrogated his covenants with the Jews and transferred them
to his own Christian groups.

Paul went on a series of missionary journeys around the eastern
Mediterranean and attracted many Gentiles (non-Jews) to his movement. He
was assisted by many co-workers, both male and female. Paul organized
churches in many of the areas' urban centers, in competition with Greek
Paganism, Mithraism, Mystery Religions, Judaism, many competing
Christian movements, and other religions. His Epistles record how he and
his movement were in continual theological conflict with the Jewish
Christian movement centered in Jerusalem, and with Gnostic Christians.
Paul ran afoul of the Roman Empire, was arrested, and was transported to
Rome where he was held under house arrest. He was executed there about
65 CE. Paul's churches survived his death and flourished. Some of his
letters to various of his church groups were later accepted into the
canon of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).

Christian groups typically met in the homes of individual believers,
much like home churches and cell churches do today. Leaders were both
men and women. There was no central authority, no standard style of
organization at the local level, no dedicated church buildings or
cathedrals. The Greek words episkopos (bishop, overseer), presbuteros
(elder, presbyter) and poimen (pastor, shepherd) were originally
synonymous terms which referred to the leader of a group of believers. 3
Gnostic Christianity: Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious
movement with roots in pre-Christian times. Gnostics combined elements
taken from Asian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Syrian pagan
religions, from astrology, and from Judaism and Christianity. "Among
Gnostic Christians there were communities under the name of John and
Thomas and many other lesser and later disciples." 6 They claimed to
have secret knowledge about God, humanity, and the rest of the universe
of which the general population was unaware. They were/are noted for
their: Novel interpretations of the Bible, the world and the rest of
the universe.
Belief that the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament) was a
defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge. He was
viewed as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in compassion and
prone to committing genocide.
Tolerance of different religious beliefs within and outside of
Gnosticism.
Lack of discrimination against women.


Some Gnostics formed separate congregations. Others joined existing
Pauline Christian groups. Still others were solitary practitioners.

In addition to the above three main groups, there were many smaller
religious communities, which have been referred to as Matthean
Christianity, Johannine Christianity, etc. "Among Jews especially in the
East there were Christian communities and literature under the name of
Peter and James that stood in opposition to Paul and John." 6 Together
produced over 80 gospels and hundreds of Epistles (letters). "Many of
these other Gospels outside the New Testament had very different views
of Jesus, produced in communities that held widely different
understandings of Jesus." 7


Second and third centuries CE:
The three groups within the primitive Christian movement survived into
the second century. One died out and the other two expanded:

The Jewish Christian movement: The failure of the Bar Kochba revolt
(132 - 135 CE) was devastating for the Jewish people, including the
Jewish Christians. Any Jews who remained in Palestine in 135 CE were
killed, enslaved or permanently driven from the land. The Jewish
Christian movement had a brief resurgence during the 2nd century CE, and
then disappeared from the pages of history.
Pauline Christianity continued to spread across the known world. It
started to develop a formal theology, a set of doctrines, and an
unofficial canon of writings which were later to become the Christian
Scriptures (New Testament). From the enormous supply of Christian
gospels and epistles (letters) they chose a few that more-or-less
matched the theology of the developing church. Admittance of the Gospel
of John into the official canon had to overcome a great deal of
resistance; many in the church felt that it had too much Gnostic
content. The canon accepted: Four gospels, written by unknown authors,
but attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Acts of the Apostles, apparently written by the same author as who
wrote Luke.
Thirteen Pauline Epistles -- letters which claim that they were
written by Paul. Religious liberals accept that seven were written by
Paul, one may have been written by him, and 5 were by unknown authors --
mostly from the second century many decades after Paul's death.
Eight general Epistles -- James, John, Peter, Hebrews and Jude, -- all
by anonymous authors with the possible exception of Hebrews which may
have written by Priscilla.
Revelation, a book about the end of the world.


Gnostic Christianity consisted of many separate groups with no
appreciable central organization. Each group was under the leadership of
a Gnostic teacher like Marcion, Valentinus, and Carpocrates. These
groups shared some core beliefs, but otherwise differed greatly from
each other. The Gnostic movement initially expanded, and at one point
was the primary form of Christianity in the eastern Mediterranean.
However, due to programs of persecution and extermination by Pauline
Christians, it later went into a steep decline, and ceased being a
significant force by the 6th century.
After the deaths of the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers were looked upon
for guidance. They included a number of teachers and bishops: e.g.
Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen, Polycarp, Tertullian. A
hierarchical organizational structure called the "monarchial episcopate"
then developed in which the individual congregational leaders recognized
the authority of their area bishop in matters of doctrine and faith.
There was no person or group who could speak for the church as a whole.
It was only in 325 CE that bishops from throughout the Christian
movement would be able to meet at the Council of Nicea and attempt to
resolve differences in Christian beliefs.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:40:47 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Tom,
Here is a more in depth review of early Christian History.

Ok Harry - I get the joke.

Reggie won't be pleased though. You know how testy he gets.


Wow...Tom must really be ****ed at me - nothing in usenet is more odious
than being thought of in the same sentence as ReggieCrap.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:40:47 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Tom,
Here is a more in depth review of early Christian History.

Ok Harry - I get the joke.

Reggie won't be pleased though. You know how testy he gets.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:39:28 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:40:47 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Tom,
Here is a more in depth review of early Christian History.

Ok Harry - I get the joke.

Reggie won't be pleased though. You know how testy he gets.

Not cool.
--
John H

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:36�am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:28:57 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Actually Catholics were Jews for about the first 150 yrs after Christ's
death. �They separated from the Jews over details, one being if converts
had to be circumcised. So really the first Christians (or as they
preferred to call themselves "The Way") were Jews.
Um...don't think so.

While they shared some similarties, the differences included the
establishment of a Holy Trinity, baptism, belief in Christ as spirtual
savior and formal establishment of Christ as a diety.

While Christ was looked upon as a Rebbe by followers and outsiders,
there was a distinct break between Jewish tradition and Christian
tradition which came very quickly after Christ's death - like within
months, not years.

The break was fairly clean which allowed for the rapid expansion of
Christianity which didn't suffer an internal schism until the middle
of the 4th century with the rise of Arianism.

You present a very unified portrait of early Christianity, beginning
"months" after the ressurection that may not be as accurate as it
sounds on the surface. James, the brother of Jesus,
was the leader of a very active sect of Jews following Jesus right up
until his own death roughly 30 years after the execution of Jesus.
James was thrown off the wall of the temple by Jewish officials who
thought that Jesus was a heretic and those who promoted or followed
his teachings were heretics as well. (Shortly thereafter, the Jews
revolted against Rome and the temple was destroyed).

If you read the book of Acts or the letters of Paul to the various
gatherings of Christians throughout the Mediterranean basin, there are
constant inferences to ideological and theological disagreements among
the early Christians. Even so, in some of his letters Paul speaks
favorably of James and his followers.

Your remarks appear to imply an orderly transition to the orthodox
church hammered together by compromise at coucils like the one held in
Nicea. Hundreds of years AD Christians were still debating the
Trinity. There are large groups of people to this day who accept Jesus
as savior and follow his teachings but who do not believe in the
traditional concept of Trinity. (Exhibit A: The Unitarian Church)

Many of the earliest Christians were gnostics; believers that the
message of Jesus was that man was/is essentially a spiritual being
with the ability to choose to live in the (spiritual) "Kingdom of
God".
While the Jews were looking for a Messiah to end the oppression by
their enemies, they got a Messiah who taught them how to triumph
spiritually, rather than militarily, and to "love your
enemies" (thereby eliminating one of the fundamental requirements for
somebody to even be an enemy in the first place).

It's regrettable that Christian churches don't teach Kabbalah.
Appreciating the connections between the spiritual tools of Kabbalah
and some of the events recorded in the scriptures allows a dynamic
expansion of the appreciation for the ministry and message of Jesus.

Orthodox Christians then, and to this day, accuse gnostics of
"claiming secret knowledge" instead of following the four canonized
gospels. I'm sure a good many of the gnostics would reply that there
is nothing "secret" about it; the message of Jesus is really only
obscure to some who refuse to consider it outside of the orthodox,
autocratic heirarchy of the organized church. My advice would be:
always be wary of anybody who tells you, "You don't have the authority
or capacity to understand the message, so hire me to understand it and
interpret it for you." Woa, talk about a slippery slope........

Chuck, keep your day job, you have no future as a theologian.

On 25 Feb, 17:02, Chuck Gould wrote:
If you read the book of Acts or the letters of Paul to the various
gatherings of Christians throughout the Mediterranean basin, there are
constant inferences to ideological and theological disagreements among
the early Christians. Even so, in some of his letters Paul speaks
favorably of James and his followers.

Surely. It does need to be said, tho, that there are people today
peddling the idea that "early Christianity was diverse" and meaning by
it apparently that Jesus did not preach anything very specific and
that anyone who called himself a Christian must actually be a follower
of Jesus. This sort of revisionism is not justified from the data,
tho. Just a caveat against a possible misunderstanding here.

Your remarks appear to imply an orderly transition to the orthodox
church hammered together by compromise at coucils like the one
held inNicea. Hundreds of years AD Christians were still debating the
Trinity.

Um, I'm not sure this is right. Even at Nicaea both sides were
Trinitarian. Possibly you have the various 5th century
Christological controversies in mind here?

There are large groups of people to this day who accept Jesus
as savior and follow his teachings but who do not believe in the
traditional concept of Trinity. (Exhibit A: The Unitarian Church)

Are these "large groups"? -- Aren't these are small, modern heresies
which arose from protestantism and decided to reject what everyone had
agreed for centuries?

Many of the earliest Christians were gnostics;

The apostle John did not consider these people Christians; nor did the
Roman authorities; nor did the fathers, tho.

Orthodox Christians then, and to this day, accuse gnostics of
"claiming secret knowledge" instead of following the four canonized
gospels. I'm sure a good many of the gnostics would reply that there
is nothing "secret" about it...

Um, gnosis *is* secret knowledge. The gnostics pretended that their
ever-changing teachings were apostolic. The fathers challenged this
by pointing out that the churches founded by these apostles knew
nothing of them teaching any such thing. The gnostic response was
that these teachings were transmitted privately -- which sort of gives
the game away.

My advice would be: always be wary of anybody who tells you, "You
don't have the authority or capacity to understand the message, so hire
me to understand it and interpret it for you." Woa, talk about a
slippery slope........

Surely. But this is a classic gnostic position.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On Feb 25, 1:05*pm, hkrause wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:40:47 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Tom,
Here is a more in depth review of early Christian History.

Ok Harry - I get the joke.

Reggie won't be pleased though. *You know how testy he gets.

Wow...Tom must really be ****ed at me - nothing in usenet is more odious
than being thought of in the same sentence as ReggieCrap.

Harry, Tom isn't ****ed at you. He's just had enough of your lying and
your childish bull****.

On Feb 27, 7:00�am, "
Your remarks appear to imply an orderly transition to the orthodox
church hammered together by compromise at coucils like the one
held inNicea. Hundreds of years AD Christians were still debating the
Trinity.

Um, I'm not sure this is right. �Even at Nicaea both sides were
Trinitarian. �Possibly you have the �various 5th century
Christological controversies in mind here?

One of the major points of debate and controversy at Nicea was the
"Arian heresy". It would be grossly inaccurate to say that both sides
were trinitarian. The Bishop Arius postulated that if Jesus was the
son of God then Jesus was created by God and could not be equal to God
without creating a second God. Adding the Holy Spirit to the mix
created a third, as far as Arius was concerned.

Arius was banished from the church. One of his prominent supporters,
Eusebius (sp?) backed down from his support of Arius and was allowed
to remain in the church even though he refused to sign what is now
known as the Nicene Creed. The Creed places great emphasis on a triune
diety.

some details:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/g...p/aa082499.htm






Um, gnosis *is* secret knowledge. �The gnostics pretended that their
ever-changing teachings were apostolic. �The fathers challenged this
by pointing out that the churches founded by these apostles knew
nothing of them teaching any such thing. �The gnostic response was
that these teachings were transmitted privately -- which sort of gives
the game away.


There is a difference between surpressed knowledge and secret
knowledge. Many of the texts that freely circulated in the first few
hundred years AD were eventually surpressed by the othodox church. The
Gospel of Thomas is an excellent example of a freely distributed text
that reflected the gnostic, vs. orthodox philosophy. It's available
today in an English translation at Barnes and Noble, how secret can
that be? :-)



My advice would be: always be wary of anybody who tells you, "You
don't have the authority or capacity to understand the message, so hire
me to understand it and interpret it for you." Woa, talk about a
slippery slope........



Surely. �But this is a classic gnostic position.


I would imagine that gnostic Christians were/are not too disturbed to
be called "heretics" by the orthodox church. That was the same charge
that the Sanhedrin brought against Jesus for such offenses as healing
during Sabbat, offering to forgive sins, etc. If the gnostics have a
secret, it may well be that the Kingdom of God is spiritual in
nature-

On 28 Feb, 00:22, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 27, 7:00�am, "

Your remarks appear to imply an orderly transition to the orthodox
church hammered together by compromise at coucils like the one
held inNicea. Hundreds of years AD Christians were still debating the
Trinity.

Um, I'm not sure this is right. Even at Nicaea both sides were
Trinitarian. Possibly you have the various 5th century
Christological controversies in mind here?

One of the major points of debate and controversy at Nicea was the
"Arian heresy".

True.

It would be grossly inaccurate to say that both sides were trinitarian.

Ah, allow me to offer the words of Arius himself.

From "Documents of the Christian Church", second edition, Selected
and
Edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press. pp. 39-401.

The Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, c. 321

"...But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to
teach; that the Son is not unbegottten, nor part of the unbegotten in
anyway, not is he derived from any substance; but that by his own
will
and counsel he existed before times and ages fully God, only-
begotten,
unchangeable. And before he was begotten or created or appointed or
established, he did not exist; for he was not unbegotten. We are
persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning, but God is
without beginning. For that reason we are persecuted, and because we
say that he is from what is not. And this we say because he is
neither
part of God nor derived from any substance. For this we are
persecuted; the rest you know. I trust that you are strong in the
Lord, mindful of our afflictions, a true fellow-disciple of Lucian,
Eusebius."

The Bishop Arius postulated that if Jesus was the
son of God then Jesus was created by God and could not be equal to God
without creating a second God. Adding the Holy Spirit to the mix
created a third, as far as Arius was concerned.

I don't think that this is what Arius was saying, tho (who
incidentally was merely a presbyter). Arguments about the position of
the Holy Spirit have to wait until the pneumatomachian dispute in the
late 4th century.

Arius was banished from the church. One of his prominent supporters,
Eusebius(sp?) backed down from his support of Arius and was allowed
to remain in the church even though he refused to sign what is now
known as the Nicene Creed.

I think that perhaps you are thinking of Eusebius of Nicomedia.
Eusebius was exiled for refusing to sign up to the Nicene. However he
and Arius were later allowed to return.

The Creed places great emphasis on a triune diety.

But the point at issue was the homoousion, not the trinity; was the
Second person of the same substance (homoousios) as the First, or of
like substance?

some details:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/g...p/aa082499.htm

Hmm. The number of 318 fathers is not recorded at the time, but
appears in later writers.

Arius was certainly not a Monarchian, as we have seen.

Constantine was an enthusiastic Christian (denial of this originated
as part of anti-Hapsburg propaganda in the 1850's, curiously enough).

Christianity was legalised by Constantine, not made the state
religion.

So this web page is just a collection of hearsay.

You can access all the ancient primary data about the council from
he

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

Um, gnosis *is* secret knowledge. The gnostics pretended that their
ever-changing teachings were apostolic. The fathers challenged this
by pointing out that the churches founded by these apostles knew
nothing of them teaching any such thing. The gnostic response was
that these teachings were transmitted privately -- which sort of gives
the game away.

There is a difference between surpressed knowledge and secret
knowledge.

Of course; but the question is whether the gnostics were purveying
secret knowledge, surely? They were.

Many of the texts that freely circulated in the first few
hundred years AD were eventually surpressed by the othodox church.

Not sure about 'suppressed'. The church had its own scriptures. Some
of the people wanting to peddle heretical ideas tended to forge
gospels in the names of apostles (a cottage industry that has
continued to our own times). Later novelisations also appeared.

The Gospel of Thomas is an excellent example of a freely distributed text
that reflected the gnostic, vs. orthodox philosophy. It's available
today in an English translation at Barnes and Noble, how secret can
that be? :-)

You refer to the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, I think (there are
others...). It was found in a jar in modern times, I think, at Nag
Hammadi. It's ancient history consists of only a single statement by
Hippolytus, that it was a fake used in Egypt.

My advice would be: always be wary of anybody who tells you, "You
don't have the authority or capacity to understand the message, so hire
me to understand it and interpret it for you." Woa, talk about a
slippery slope........

Surely. But this is a classic gnostic position.

I would imagine that gnostic Christians were/are not too disturbed to
be called "heretics" by the orthodox church.

Of course the term 'haeresis' also applied to a philosophical school.
The Christians saw the gnostics as really just a bunch of pagans who
had borrowed some Christian ideas. Tertullian, in De praescriptione
haereticorum 6, even lists the philosophical schools to which each of
the major gnostics belongs.

That was the same charge that the Sanhedrin brought against Jesus
for such offenses as healing during Sabbat, offering to forgive sins, etc.

Are you sure? Where in the NT is the term used for this?

If the gnostics have a secret, it may well be that the Kingdom of
God is spiritual in nature

No doubt they can offer some hard evidence for this? :-)

We can all make up soapy-sounding phrases. I find that they often
conceal a hard-eyed desire for guns, girls and gold -- the Maharishi
syndrome. Which brings us back to exploitation...

I hope that helps!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:44:23 -0800 (PST),
" wrote:

We can all make up soapy-sounding phrases. I find that they often
conceal a hard-eyed desire for guns, girls and gold -- the Maharishi
syndrome. Which brings us back to exploitation...

I hope that helps!

Who would have guessed that we had so many students of religious
history in the group? When I was sail boat racing I used to tell
people that I worshipped at the church of the fast boat.