Quote:
Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback
Yupp...your aganda, it screams out loud, which is fine, so long as the context is understood
The history I am reviewing is based on neither an agena or revision, but on historical fact, and all your pro theology spin doesnt change that
What you are missing over and over (either by choice of by lack of knowledge) is that there was no early christian "church", nor anything that reembled one
There were Gnostics, Neo Pagan hybrids, and scattered groups of localized Hebrew converts who were all too happy to embrace a faith that lacked the traditional stringent dogma.
There was no "virgin birth" theory, no "son of god" concept, and for the most part, no "reserection". These all came into play in a sort of fantasy "snowball effect" in which one concept was required to justify the previous entry (IE, the "son of god" concived through human procreation ? UNTHINKABLE !)
Finally, your statement that early christians were Christians were "very well organized" is non secular fantasy, and frankly, not even viable in terms of geography, demographics and proximity.
No offense, but yours is a view that wants desperatly to cling to a romantisized vrew of Paul's spreading of the gospal, and Peter and james stand alone spirit. Inspiring yes, but sadly, historicly flawed
|
God you are an idiot. I have already said that Christianity was not a "popular movement", but because you can't argue any of my points, you have to ignore what I say and continue to argue what you wished I would say. That generally is a good sign that you have NO understanding of the issues and are merely parroting what you have read elsewhere (my guess is from fiction, or if you have a tad of intelligence, Elaine Pagels).
Nicene was not a revolution in Christian thought, it was the confirmation of a process that had begun over 200 years earlier. Nothing it confirmed in 320 was new, everything it confirmed had been a major if not dominate part of Christianity from the beginning. We know this because we have plenty of pre-Nicene texts that show this. The other sects, Montanism, Ebionism, and Gnosticism were not major movements, they were small movements confined to a writing elite. The only serious challenger to Orthodoxy were the Arians, and even this wasn't much of a challenge in that Arians were primarily based on the fringes of the empire, where as Orthodoxy was strongest in the core urban centers.
I am not arguing that Constantine's conversion wasn't important, it was, but at the same time to say that if he hadn't converted Christianity would have died out is just plain wrong. All major changes are evolutionary in process, and Constantine's conversion was just another step along this evolution (which continued for another 500 years, and indeed is still occurring). If you cared to study this period, you would discover why Christianity won, and what it says about humanity. But you don't care to know, you rather have your simplistic good guys and bad guys, because, it seems, that is all you can handle.