The Early "Church"

[Minimalist]

Where did it come from?

By the time Eusebius became bishop of Caesarea around 315, a new vision of the church began to develop. The fantasy of a well-ordered, centralized, and monolithic church had always been around, but Eusebius wanted to make it a reality. In periods of peace, Christians were able to imagine themselves as a church of the present. It was no longer necessary to look to the future for redemption and vindication; they could create the Kingdom of God in the here and now. This possibility and the exciting vision for the church required a new version of the church’s history. Eusebius provided it. Drawing upon the work of Irenaeus and other early church writers, Eusebius set about telling the history of the “apostles” from the time of Christ to his own day.

Candida Moss  The Myth of Persecution  Page 190.

Translation:  Eusebius concocted the "history" of the church!

[Abaddon_ire]

Where did it come from?

By the time Eusebius became bishop of Caesarea around 315, a new vision of the church began to develop. The fantasy of a well-ordered, centralized, and monolithic church had always been around, but Eusebius wanted to make it a reality. In periods of peace, Christians were able to imagine themselves as a church of the present. It was no longer necessary to look to the future for redemption and vindication; they could create the Kingdom of God in the here and now. This possibility and the exciting vision for the church required a new version of the church’s history. Eusebius provided it. Drawing upon the work of Irenaeus and other early church writers, Eusebius set about telling the history of the “apostles” from the time of Christ to his own day.

Candida Moss  The Myth of Persecution  Page 190.

Translation:  Eusebius concocted the "history" of the church!

Sure, but the fragmentary nature of the early church is kind of interesting. There were all manner of wild versions about. The varieties we have today are nothing compared to what happened early on.

For example, Docetism, which held that jesus was never corporeal but was wholly a spirit which merely gave the appearance of physical incarnation. The resurrection was simply jesus acting as though it was real. For our benefit of course, but he didn't really suffer at all and couldn't die anyway. The original performance art. That one was surprisingly long lived. The Cathars adopted it right up to when they were wiped out in the 1200s by Rome.

[vorlon13]

The early church was a cluster of tiny heresy factories, Eusebius centralized all those separate mills into a sprawling edifice of lies.

[Chad32]

Where did it come from?



Translation:  Eusebius concocted the "history" of the church!

Sure, but the fragmentary nature of the early church is kind of interesting. There were all manner of wild versions about. The varieties we have today are nothing compared to what happened early on.

For example, Docetism, which held that jesus was never corporeal but was wholly a spirit which merely gave the appearance of physical incarnation. The resurrection was simply jesus acting as though it was real. For our benefit of course, but he didn't really suffer at all and couldn't die anyway. The original performance art. That one was surprisingly long lived. The Cathars adopted it right up to when they were wiped out in the 1200s by Rome.

I don't know what sounds worse. The idea of an innocent person being brutally murdered, and acting like that's supposed to absolve people of their sins? Or the idea that it was all an act, and he didn't suffer, but we're still supposed to consider the event something worth worshiping him over.

[Fireball]

Sure, but the fragmentary nature of the early church is kind of interesting. There were all manner of wild versions about. The varieties we have today are nothing compared to what happened early on.

For example, Docetism, which held that jesus was never corporeal but was wholly a spirit which merely gave the appearance of physical incarnation. The resurrection was simply jesus acting as though it was real. For our benefit of course, but he didn't really suffer at all and couldn't die anyway. The original performance art. That one was surprisingly long lived. The Cathars adopted it right up to when they were wiped out in the 1200s by Rome.

I don't know what sounds worse. The idea of an innocent person being brutally murdered, and acting like that's supposed to absolve people of their sins? Or the idea that it was all an act, and he didn't suffer, but we're still supposed to consider the event something worth worshiping him over.

IK,R? Sick, either way.

[Abaddon_ire]

Sure, but the fragmentary nature of the early church is kind of interesting. There were all manner of wild versions about. The varieties we have today are nothing compared to what happened early on.

For example, Docetism, which held that jesus was never corporeal but was wholly a spirit which merely gave the appearance of physical incarnation. The resurrection was simply jesus acting as though it was real. For our benefit of course, but he didn't really suffer at all and couldn't die anyway. The original performance art. That one was surprisingly long lived. The Cathars adopted it right up to when they were wiped out in the 1200s by Rome.

I don't know what sounds worse. The idea of an innocent person being brutally murdered, and acting like that's supposed to absolve people of their sins? Or the idea that it was all an act, and he didn't suffer, but we're still supposed to consider the event something worth worshiping him over.

Exactly my point. The early church was as mad as a box of frogs. Not just one box of frogs but many boxes of different frogs. Eusebionazi was simply the most ruthless box of frogs and we all are still paying for it.

Christians will often claim that there must be divine motivation behind all that. No. Eusebionazi simply smashed all the other boxes of frogs. With extreme prejudice.

OF course, it all flew apart again a thousand years later, but the differences between the thousands of modern day denominations are nothing compared to how amusingly wild it was 2000 years ago. Then again, look at the Westboro baptist arsehats. David Koresh. Jim Jones. That nutty tradition lives on in a much reduced form. But even those wingnuts had their own internal schisms. There is even a scientology schism, I shit you not.

IF there were some deity (nope) he/she/it/housecat is spectacularly crap at communication.

[Minimalist]

From Bart Ehrman's The Lost Christianities:

The Varieties of Ancient Christianity

The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created by a subordinate, ignorant divinity. (Why else would the world be filled with such misery and hardship?) Yet other Christians thought it was worse than that, that this world was a cosmic mistake created by a malevolent divinity as a place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that the Jewish Scripture (the Christian “Old Testament”) was inspired by the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews, who was not the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed it was not inspired.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (For them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but not himself divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus’ death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians who thought that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with the salvation of the world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died. How could some of these views even be considered Christian? Or to put the question differently, how could people who considered themselves Christian hold such views? Why did they not consult their Scriptures to see that there were not 365 gods, or that the true God had created the world, or that Jesus had died? Why didn’t they just read the New Testament? It is because there was no New Testament. To be sure, the books that were eventually collected into the New Testament had been written by the second century. But they had not yet been gathered into a widely recognized and authoritative canon of Scripture.1 And there were other books written as well, with equally impressive pedigrees—other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses claiming to be written by the earthly apostles of Jesus.

Note that at no point does Ehrman indicate that there was any form of jesusism in the first century.... or the first century BCE.  But we know of these variants of jesusism because proto-orthodox writers told us about them while supposedly denouncing them.  We have precious little in the way of writings of these other groups and until the Nag Hamadi find was made we had none. 

The proto-orthodox position is that after the godboy was nailed up all of these various heresies developed.  To be sure, some did.  But many reflect, as Ehrman shows above, a strangely diverse concept of xtianity which did not even exist as a concept as Vorlon noted with his "tiny heresy factories" comment.  Recall that Pliny the Younger ran into a supposed group of christians ( or chrestians ) in Asia Minor before 112 CE (he died in 112) and wrote that they told him:

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I always particularly loved the "as to a god" ( quasi deo ) line.  Makes Christ out as something less than a god!

Anyway, there is nothing in there which relates at all to the later xtian horseshit story which the proto-orthodox were later to develop.  Instead, they seem much like all the other Mystery Cults which also had some sort of sacred meal as one of their prime tenets.

We do not know if these other groups bothered to write anything down.  The whole point of Mystery Cults was that the information was passed on from Master to Initiate orally.  The proto-orthodox were particularly upset with Marcion who did concoct of canon of 11 items, "the gospel of the lord" which turns out to be "Luke" and someone added a couple of chapters on at the beginning, and ten so-called epistles of this paul fucker.  That did not stop the proto-orthodox from recognizing a useful idea though so Marcion's canon was re-written to conform to their particular bullshit story and then they claimed that Marcion had truncated their earlier documents..... documents of which we have no the slightest record.

The Church History is an elaborate fiction and catholicks, eastern orthodox and most protestants have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

[Chad32]

I don't know what sounds worse. The idea of an innocent person being brutally murdered, and acting like that's supposed to absolve people of their sins? Or the idea that it was all an act, and he didn't suffer, but we're still supposed to consider the event something worth worshiping him over.

Exactly my point. The early church was as mad as a box of frogs. Not just one box of frogs but many boxes of different frogs. Eusebionazi was simply the most ruthless box of frogs and we all are still paying for it.

Christians will often claim that there must be divine motivation behind all that. No. Eusebionazi simply smashed all the other boxes of frogs. With extreme prejudice.

OF course, it all flew apart again a thousand years later, but the differences between the thousands of modern day denominations are nothing compared to how amusingly wild it was 2000 years ago. Then again, look at the Westboro baptist arsehats. David Koresh. Jim Jones. That nutty tradition lives on in a much reduced form. But even those wingnuts had their own internal schisms. There is even a scientology schism, I shit you not.

IF there were some deity (nope) he/she/it/housecat is spectacularly crap at communication.

Yeah, there are still people today that think all homosexuals should be rounded up and executed. Because everyone loves a good old fashioned ethnic cleansing.

Sometimes I think most followers of Jesus must not have expected him to die. What else would explain the loathing of Judas and the jews? Why be angry at people who facilitated something that was supposed to be a good thing? We're supposed to be happy Jesus died for our sins, but we're supposed to hate the ones who got him killed?

[Abaddon_ire]

Exactly my point. The early church was as mad as a box of frogs. Not just one box of frogs but many boxes of different frogs. Eusebionazi was simply the most ruthless box of frogs and we all are still paying for it.

Christians will often claim that there must be divine motivation behind all that. No. Eusebionazi simply smashed all the other boxes of frogs. With extreme prejudice.

OF course, it all flew apart again a thousand years later, but the differences between the thousands of modern day denominations are nothing compared to how amusingly wild it was 2000 years ago. Then again, look at the Westboro baptist arsehats. David Koresh. Jim Jones. That nutty tradition lives on in a much reduced form. But even those wingnuts had their own internal schisms. There is even a scientology schism, I shit you not.

IF there were some deity (nope) he/she/it/housecat is spectacularly crap at communication.

Yeah, there are still people today that think all homosexuals should be rounded up and executed. Because everyone loves a good old fashioned ethnic cleansing.

Sometimes I think most followers of Jesus must not have expected him to die. What else would explain the loathing of Judas and the jews? Why be angry at people who facilitated something that was supposed to be a good thing? We're supposed to be happy Jesus died for our sins, but we're supposed to hate the ones who got him killed?

Interesting, is it not?

Judas is cast as a traitor, yet without Judas, jesus has nothing.

I get this with my eldest, who happens to be trans. Christians will ask me about the grieving for my former daughter. Even while he is standing right there. It's bizarre.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Chad
That was an effect of romanization. The romans weren't exactly pleased with the jews, the christians needed the romans to be pleased with them. Problem, meet solution.