Meowgi -- interesting stuff. actually, as i understand it, there are very few who believe that it was written by the Thomas who was made a saint by the Catholic church..the doubter who fell to his knees and declared Christ his Lord...who, church history tells us, went to India to spread the Gospel and ultimately died there. My understanding is it's not that guy. i know many make a huge deal out of this gospel. i've read it many times. i don't get the picture of this free-spirited, un-dogmatic (is that a word?) Jesus as is often said. in fact, the end of the Gospel of Thomas essentially says that women are incapable of finding the Kingdom of Heaven...that they have to become men to get there. many of the canonized stories are repeated (the "render to Caesar what is Caesar" story comes to mind). but if you read matthew, mark, luke and john, you find a collection of stories that are repeated....i think that's why they're canonized, frankly...because the council likely saw that corroboration as more reliable. that's just my best guess, though. i certainly wasn't there.
Thanks, I probably said it wrong. Each region held their own set of books as canon before Nicea. The 27 were acknowledged by the council however there have been much debate over the years. The scrutiny has been intense by both skeptic and believer. I don't know alot about many of the books that aren't included in the bible, but I'm confident those 27 New Testament books have had a great amount of examination over the years.
318? I can't get in a room with 5 people to agree on ANYTHING unanimously. If the Counsel of Nicea included 318 people, it is entirely conceivable that there were political or personal motivations behind many of the bishops. Given that politics and religion were inseperable, I think we can safely make such an assumption. On the other side of the fence, Da Vinci Code outlines an all powerful church and unilaterally decided to hide certain texts that were "damaging" to the church. If the 318 bishops came from many backgrounds, it is highly doubtful that such a conspirocy could be pulled off...because of political and personal motivations. But what we know is very few people could read or had any formal education. So the bishops likely all came from the same mold. Therefore, it seems plausible that many could be convinced to uphold a "greater good" for Christianity which some may consider a cover-up. For example, many whites in America were convinced slavery was okay in part because whites came from a similar background. So it does seem plausible that these 318 bishops had some common ground to communicate some common messages (aka...hide undesirable messages).
I WOULD like to know more. The older I get the more and more interested I get in history. I like to know how the world I live in came to be. Despite that I am not christian, the religion obviously had a tremendous influence on our world. Nicea for Dummies would be perfect. I don't want a sermon designed to convert me but rather an easy to read factual/historical guide. Do you know of such a thing off hand? Virtually everthing I see is written purely from a religious perspective with an agenda. I'd rather come to my own conclusions.
hmmm...virtually everyone has a bias. so that would be pretty difficult. the best you could do, in my opinion, is C.S. Lewis', "Mere Christianity." At the very least, you'll understand the theology better. But make no mistake...Lewis was a Christian. He was a brilliant mind who wrote very eloquently. within the bible...read the Gospel of Luke. he acknowledges he didn't experience the events he writes about first-hand. he claims to have researched the events and tries to sum them together in a historical fashion. keep in mind that the gospels purport to be nothing more than accounts of what Jesus did/said. it's the letters that follow and the writings of church leaders for centuries that create "theology."
Yes, this is true. There were literally too many to count (and records were pretty bad back then). Paul even mentions in his letters that he follows the "true" Christ, as he wanted to separate his savior from the others. Also, the Eucharist and messiahs performing miracles goes back to the Egyptians. As to Christ-son of God debates, everything I have read suggests that all felt he was the son of God, but the early "church" thinkers were split about whether he truly existed on Earth (the literal interpretation) or whether he was always only mystical (the symbolic interpretation). He was always the son of God, though.
when you say early church thinkers...what do you mean? i read the Gospel of Thomas...the chief of all gnostic gospels. it never implies that Christ wasn't physically here. in fact, it gives stories and accounts of his childhood which don't appear anywhere else. it's broken up into "sayings." words spoken by Christ. i think gnosticism is given far more weight as a "christian" idea than it was actually given in the first century...just years removed from those who literally walked with a man who physically hung on a cross. like Peter, for example, whose letters populate the New Testament. i think gnosticism means something different today than what the Christian gnostics of the early church implied. EDIT: sorry..late edition, but my mind works slow. you also have to keep in mind that Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. it uses Jewish concepts of God to understand who Jesus was. Jesus himself was a Jew. gnostic concepts are very Greek...there can be no doubt that there was a Hellenization of Christanity, ultimately. but not at its roots. not from the disciples who became the church leaders. those guys were either liars...and none of it happened..and it's all just a lie....or they weren't.
Max, if you want to know about the Council of Nicea, the first thing you should read about is Arianism. (Not to be confused with Nazi Ayranism). The Council of Nicea was a direct response to Airan. Apparently his schismatic philosophy was taught to a whole bunch of the Germanic tribes and so developed a following. The Council of Nicea was "the Church adresses Airanism". Regarding "still missing" texts: Of course there are but we may never find them. I heard it well postulated that many of these priests were ordered to destroy schismatic texts, but they were so fond of it that they couldn't do it and took them out to a cave an burried them in jars. The fact that any of them still exist is a combination of pure luck and the dry desert envionments of many of these places. History is replete with lost texts that will never be found The Library at Alexandria contained any number of texts that existed nowhere else. Nothing remains of anything ever written by Socrates. (All info is secondhand from Plato and Xenophon.) When Richard Francis Burton died, his wife burned everything that remained unfinshed and all of his diaries. Anybody remember the recent row about John Paul II's diaries not being burned as per his wishes?
I didn't know that name or term, but I knew those concepts were debated. There was also question as to whether or not the Holy Spirit was eternal...or if there was a time he was not around...or whether or not the Trinity was an eternal thing. and on and on.... honestly...i'm very interested in theology. it's hugely interesting to me. but theology isn't the substance of my faith. it's not the reason for my faith. tha'ts experential.
I understand the early debate to be about whether he was a "spiritual being" like an angel or a purely human creature.
I wasn't talking about the Gospel of Thomas, so not sure why you included it. Also, perhaps I was misleading when I said "split" - I odn't mean 50/50...I just know that there were two sides who wrote bad things about each other starting around the 3rd century. As for examples, here is one big one (excerpted - also, the best readings obviously come from books but this was after a quick search and is not great):
Intrestingly, I could never accept Christianity when it was only experiential, but the intelectual aspects defined and formalized it for me in a way that made it real for me. Experiential faith is powerful, but I was always able to convince myself that it was pareidolia like all of the people who see the image of Jesus in a piece of toast or in the cracks in a wall.
i hear ya. everyone has different ways of understanding things. particularly God. i've just seen the evidence of God in my own life and in others...and that's what moves me. there's a "just talking about it" quality to theology that fuels an apathy to get out there and actually serve. to actually seek to become like Christ. am i making sense?
i don't get it. i don't see how that supports or even reflects the idea that Jesus was merely a mystical symbol and not here in the flesh. he seems to be talking about literalists who would impose Jewish law on top of Christianity...and I would have problems with that, too...but I'm not sure I'd call myself a gnostic. neither would Paul, who said we are freed from the Law. i only mentioned the Gospel of Thomas because it is heralded as the chief of those ancient texts which supports gnosticism. which i find funny, because most i know who lean towards gnosticism reference, at least from time to time, the notion of understanding the female as well as the male sides of themself, spiritually. and Jesus, in the gospel of thomas, says that in order for a female to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, she has to become male. nevetheless... i think we used different terms to define things...when i say "early church" i'm not meaning 3rd century. i'm meaning 1st century, generally. that first generation of believers who claim to have witnessed an event that changed them. that may be why we're having a bit of disconnect on this.
Ugh. I told you it wasn't a good source. Trust me, he was one of the "Christ didn't really live on Earth" guys. Well, there are no records of much of anything from the first century. The 3rd is when we first start getting signs of organization, whether through writing such as Origen or through archaeological remains (the earliest from around 250). Even the gospels are towards the latter end of the first. And, of course, "witness" has been a heated word. Many have claimed (going back to Origin's time) that Paul's witnessing (and those he wrote about) was not literal but spiritual. So, yeah, when I talk about early church, I am talking about when people started organizing the practices of Christianity started to become standardized but before the 4th century when the Christian church really emerges.
Here, Max, found something a little more clear: His own words: So, basically, Christ could take any form based upon the spiritual eye of the viewer. He did also say that Christ could take physical, touchable form, but not as literal as a real man walking around all of the time. Thus literal interpretation = bad for Origen. His philosphy, by the way, was echoed in the art of the 3rd-5th centuries. Christ takes on many appearances and types - even female. Arians loved Christ as an androgyne.
true, as I remember from bible school (these are the things you forget) the arian issue was the big driver, and I think some of the leaders were banned or kicked out over it. Anyway I don't get to google much at home and I don't even know if I have my textbooks. But there was a lot of heresy and controversy at the time of that council.
That is why the Nicene creed is second only to the bible as the primary text of every form of christianity today. The text of it reflects very well all of the elements that were disputed at the time. It might help people understand some of the schisms in early Christianity by looking at the various forms of Folk Catholicism that exist around the world today, most specifically in places introduced to Catholicism at a later date. Santeria is the most extreme example, but the continuance of Halloween as All Saints Eve and El Día de los Muertos in Mexico are examples of people incorporating practices and beliefs from previous religions, and reframing them in Christian terms. Most of the schismatic strains of Christianity can be to Roman Paganism, Zoroastrianism, or a whole host of other belief systems whose names I’d have to look up. Paul of Tarsus, for instance, whose letters make up a great deal of the New Testament, had a background that was very much not like that of the other disciples; he was a well educated strict Jew before converting, and I think his writings retain a hint of Jewish Legalism, whereas Acts and specifically John have a much more mystical feel, and John clearly blames the Jews for the death of Jesus, as opposed to Pontius Pilate in the other books. From wikipedia: BTW, speaking of lost documents Anyway, the point is that everybody has always viewed things from their own perspective. Until the accepted texts became well enough established it seems only natural that deviant forms like those that stem from "mystery religions" would form, and their many variations would stem from the many different existing religions in places where Christianity first grew. I personally find this to be reason enough to dismiss the "literal interpretationists" who try and determine the age of the planet by counting back from Genisis or the Millerites who decided the world was going to end on a specific date in 1844, and were disapointed when the hill they'd gathered upon to await the end was still there in the morning. In my personal view, the Bible is like the North Star - brilliant in the night sky and always showing the way, but you can never exactly pin down the details through the shimmering, and you can travel all your life and never get there. Nevertheless, it is still the most important thing for navigation in the night sky. Things like Davinci Code secret societies or hidden truths don't matter. The general shape of the thing is right there for you to see in plain sight, and any secrets about it's nature are irrelevant and unimportant. The remaining fragments of the Gnostc The Gospel According to Mary Magdeline, BTW, has a whole lot in common with the Davinci Code themes. Regarding Origen I will admit to being previously unfamiliar with him but a quick study shows that he seems to be from what I call the John Lennon school of Gnosticism (IE Strawberry Fields Forever - "Nothing is real and nothing to get hung up about"). There was a whole early school of christianity which had elements not unlike Buddahism which believed the world wasn't real and achevement of the proper spiritual state required absolute disengagement from the world. There were supposedly individuals who did things that would make the most austere mendicant monk seem like a hedonist. An example would be St. Simeon Stylites the Elder who started a trend of "pillar-hermits" Origen's thought should probably be put in the context of the John Lennon School of Christianity.
