Apostle Peter's Bones Publicly Displayed (gnostic, beliefs, scripture, Christ)

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by Julian658

Paul was influential because he was vastly more educated than the fishermen that followed Jesus. Because of his education he obviously had much more to say than the other disciples (who were not formally educated). It is no accident that he wrote most of the NT. However, Paul was not one of the 12 and Paul was not hand picked by Jesus.

Lastly the Gospels and Peter were likely written by unknown authors that attributed their writings to known figures to make them more valid.

But, regardless of authorship Matthew 16: 18-19 is a very powerful statement and the CC founders seized the moment. IMO, the whereabouts of Peter are moot. Jesus did not specify that Peter needed to go to Rome. We will never know where Peter traveled. Just because Paul ignored Peter does not give you the authority to read the mind of Paul regarding things Paul did not write.

You guys are trying to change history, but that is a difficult task 2000 years later. The early Christians believed that Peter was the first leader and that is the way it goes. There was no conspiracy back them.

RESPONSE:

Nope. Peter may have been the leader of the Apostles but James the Just was the leader of the original Christian community. Read Acts of the Apostles, Eusebius, and more importantly Josephus' History of the Jewish People regarding Jesus and James.

Perhaps you should research the facts and dispense with the yarns.

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

RESPONSE:

Nope. Peter may have been the leader of the Apostles but James the Just was the leader of the original Christian community. Read Acts of the Apostles, Eusebius, and more importantly Josephus' History of the Jewish People regarding Jesus and James.

Perhaps you should research the facts and dispense with the yarns.

It does not matter if James gained astronomical prominence. History did not favor James because of Matthew 16: 18-19. It is what it is. I am not making the rules.

BTW, the catholic Encyclopedia states that the so-called visits of Peter to Rome are not detailed in history. However, it is known that Peter died in Rome. However, Peter walked on water and resurrected dead people. Furthermore, when Peter spoke at the Jerusalem Council which was the turf of James, everybody stopped and listened.

Acts 15:7-10

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that [a]in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

THE PRE-EMINENCE OF ST. PETER 50 New Testament Proofs
By Dave Armstrong
The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrine, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it has not departed from the essential components which already existed in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries and accepted by the early Church.
The biblical Petrine data is quite strong, and is inescapably compelling. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture follows.
1. Matthew 16:18: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
The "rock" (Greek, "petra") referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors— living men (see, for example, 1 Pt 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God—that is, the seed of the doctrine of the papacy. Moreover, "Rock" embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (see 1 Pt 2:4-8; Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church; administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).
2. Matthew 16:19: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
The "power" of the keys has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (see Is 9:6; Jb 12:14; Rv 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances and legislative powers. In the Old Testament, a steward, or prime minister, is a man who is "over a: house" (Gn 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Kgs 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kgs 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15, 20-21).
3. Matthew 16:19: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
"Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and 'permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law and, secondarily, to "condemn," "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (see Jn 16:13), as well as to demand obedience from the Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him pre-eminent.
4. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him "the first" (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)
5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly pre-eminent in the entire context (see, for example, 1:18-19; 2:7-8).
6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, "Rock," solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).
7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).
8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith fail not" (Lk 22:32).
9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).
10. Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).
11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
12. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
13. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).
14. Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money (Mt 17:24-27).
15. Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (Mt 4:19).
16. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).
17. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
18. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
19. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).
20. Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
21. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
22. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the Gospel" in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
23. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
24. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11).
25. Peter's shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
27. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
28. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison—Acts 12:1-17).
31. The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter "without ceasing" when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).
32. Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
33. Paul distinguishes the Lord's postresurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-5).
34. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28, 32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).
35. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67).
36. Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples (Peter, James and John—Mt 17:1; 26:37, 40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).
37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24).
38. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
39. Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.
40. Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel"—an example of "binding and loosing."
41. Peter was the first "charismatic," having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).
42. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
43. Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).
44. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
45. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38, 43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but had not traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.
46. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.
47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pt 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders."
48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pt 1:16-21).
49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Pt 3:15-16).
50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (pope) of the early Church. "Babylon" (1 Pt 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.
In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present Peter with such prominence in the Bible without some meaning and import for later Christian history—in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this.












Library : The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs - Catholic Culture

[ancient warrior]

[quote=Julian658;32455243]It does not matter if James gained astronomical prominence. History did not favor James because of Matthew 16: 18-19. It is what it is. I am not making the rules.

RESPONSE:

No it isn't what it is any more. There have been additions and deletions to the Bible. Remember the story of the woman taken in adultery (periscope adulterae) which was added to John 7-8 in the 4th century.

"The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, " (Wikipedia)

Or the The Comma Johanneum (a short clause) in (1 John 5:7–8)

Either the Authorized King James Version

7. For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.

Or New American Standard:

7. For there are three that testify:
8. the Spirit and the water and the blood;
and the three are in agreement.

(No Father, Word, or Holy Spirit). It's been dropped from most Bibles today.

Also see the 2nd century longer ending of Mark's gospel now in common usage.The shorter ending ends at verse 9. And there was even a third ending, the Freer ending, that was added in the 4th century but since dropped.

It ISN'T always what it is. Some things have been added to scripture over time. However, biblical fundamentalist are stuck with such errors in spite of the obvious facts. Even the contradictory ending in Matthew 16.

[Julian658]

[quote=ancient warrior;32456226]

Originally Posted by Julian658

It does not matter if James gained astronomical prominence. History did not favor James because of Matthew 16: 18-19. It is what it is. I am not making the rules.

RESPONSE:

No it isn't what it is any more. There have been additions and deletions to the Bible. Remember the story of the woman taken in adultery (periscope adulterae) which was added to John 7-8 in the 4th century.

"The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, " (Wikipedia)

Or the The Comma Johanneum (a short clause) in (1 John 5:7–8)

Either the Authorized King James Version

7. For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.

Or New American Standard:

7. For there are three that testify:
8. the Spirit and the water and the blood;
and the three are in agreement.

(No Father, Word, or Holy Spirit). It's been dropped from most Bibles today.

Also see the 2nd century longer ending of Mark's gospel now in common usage.The shorter ending ends at verse 9. And there was even a third ending, the Freer ending, that was added in the 4th century but since dropped.

It ISN'T always what it is. Some things have been added to scripture over time. However, biblical fundamentalist are stuck with such errors in spite of the obvious facts. Even the contradictory ending in Matthew 16.

I would not be surprised if the CC did some editing of the NT to enhance the image of Peter. This brings a new issue which is a NO NO for bible literalists that believe the Bible is the word of God. They have to accept Matthew 16:18-19; they have no choice. They also have to accept the primacy of Peter based on the NT because for them the NT is the word of God. However, some find creative ways to deny Peter.

In any event I agree with you. The Bible is the most heavily edited book in history.

[Wardendresden]

As much as I have "spiritual" disagreement with Ancient Warrior, his assessment of scriptural additions (and in some cases deletions) is dead on.

James WAS the de facto leader of early Christians. Peter backed off of some of his practices with Gentiles when James' followers came to Antioch. He obviously recognized the power and importance of James among the other apostles and the mother mission of Christians in Jerusalem. Paul, too, when called before the apostles to answer for some of his teachings apparently did not protest when James ordered him to undergo a Nazarene vow with four other men---and PAY the cost for those men as well.

If the Christians in Jerusalem had survived the Roman purge of 70 A.D., I think Christianity might have a decidedly more "Jewish" form. Instead the gentile Christians began a blame game of pointing to Jews as being responsible for Jesus' death rather than the order by Pilate who had crucified so many "rebels" he actually probably took little notice of Jesus. Instead we have an apologetic written decades later by Christians who needed to "make peace" with Roman authorities and start pointing their attention at some other group. Pilate was exonerated for His execution order and the Jews became the ones who planned and plotted His death.

Within a few decades, Jews became the most persecuted people on the planet--thanks mainly to those early Christians who chose to save their own skins by sacrificing those of the Jews from whom they came. Starting in the middle of the second century Christian authors such as Justin Martyr and Tertullian wrote treatsies directly meant to oppose the Jews and their religion. By the time Constantine converted to Christianity, Christians outnumbered Jews and were about 10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire.

The irony of the Christian tradition is that the profoundly Jewish religion of Jesus and his followers became the viciously anti-Jewish religion of later times, leading to the horrific persecutions of the Middle Ages. Anti-Semitism as it has come down to us today is the history of specifically Christian reactions to non-Christian Jews.

I wonder what it would have been like if James and the Christian community in Jerusalem had survived.

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

As much as I have "spiritual" disagreement with Ancient Warrior, his assessment of scriptural additions (and in some cases deletions) is dead on.

James WAS the de facto leader of early Christians. Peter backed off of some of his practices with Gentiles when James' followers came to Antioch. He obviously recognized the power and importance of James among the other apostles and the mother mission of Christians in Jerusalem. Paul, too, when called before the apostles to answer for some of his teachings apparently did not protest when James ordered him to undergo a Nazarene vow with four other men---and PAY the cost for those men as well.

If the Christians in Jerusalem had survived the Roman purge of 70 A.D., I think Christianity might have a decidedly more "Jewish" form. Instead the gentile Christians began a blame game of pointing to Jews as being responsible for Jesus' death rather than the order by Pilate who had crucified so many "rebels" he actually probably took little notice of Jesus. Instead we have an apologetic written decades later by Christians who needed to "make peace" with Roman authorities and start pointing their attention at some other group. Pilate was exonerated for His execution order and the Jews became the ones who planned and plotted His death.

Within a few decades, Jews became the most persecuted people on the planet--thanks mainly to those early Christians who chose to save their own skins by sacrificing those of the Jews from whom they came. Starting in the middle of the second century Christian authors such as Justin Martyr and Tertullian wrote treatsies directly meant to oppose the Jews and their religion. By the time Constantine converted to Christianity, Christians outnumbered Jews and were about 10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire.

The irony of the Christian tradition is that the profoundly Jewish religion of Jesus and his followers became the viciously anti-Jewish religion of later times, leading to the horrific persecutions of the Middle Ages. Anti-Semitism as it has come down to us today is the history of specifically Christian reactions to non-Christian Jews.

I wonder what it would have been like if James and the Christian community in Jerusalem had survived.

As usual you make good points, but I must add something else. James prominence came after the departure of Jesus. So James prominence is moot. Paul's prominence is also moot by obvious reasons, he never knew Jesus.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Julian658

As usual you make good points, but I must add something else. James prominence came after the departure of Jesus. So James prominence is moot. Paul's prominence is also moot by obvious reasons, he never knew Jesus.

Yes, you are correct about WHEN James came to prominence, but NONE of the Christians understood Jesus significance until after the resurrection--not even Peter who denied Him to save His own skin. He didn't change until AFTER the resurrection. And James came around at the same time.

Peter was influenced by Paul's partial success to convert Peter to the "newish" gospel that he, Paul, was preaching. But both of them knew James was the real power in the seat of Jerusalem. It frustrated Paul to no end that several of the churches he had "converted" to Christianity were being influenced by people James sent around to those churches--Paul claimed they were soon reverting to their old ways, because James was still very much a follower of Jewish law, just like his brother, Jesus.

The real power of the "Catholic" church came upon establishment of formal Christianity by Constantine. He gave the church "political" clout as well as religious respectability. So it was after the Nicene Council that the Church became the Church we all now recognize as the largest denomination in the world.

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

Yes, you are correct about WHEN James came to prominence, but NONE of the Christians understood Jesus significance until after the resurrection--not even Peter who denied Him to save His own skin. He didn't change until AFTER the resurrection. And James came around at the same time.

Peter was influenced by Paul's partial success to convert Peter to the "newish" gospel that he, Paul, was preaching. But both of them knew James was the real power in the seat of Jerusalem. It frustrated Paul to no end that several of the churches he had "converted" to Christianity were being influenced by people James sent around to those churches--Paul claimed they were soon reverting to their old ways, because James was still very much a follower of Jewish law, just like his brother, Jesus.

The real power of the "Catholic" church came upon establishment of formal Christianity by Constantine. He gave the church "political" clout as well as religious respectability. So it was after the Nicene Council that the Church became the Church we all now recognize as the largest denomination in the world.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the evidence for Peter spending a lot of time in Rome is subtle. They put emphasis on the importance of Peter as the leader before the departure of Jesus and the fact that he was martyred in Rome. But, ultimately it comes down to Matthew 16:18-19.

Yes, the RCC became an Empire in itself after being adopted by the Romans. However, up to that point Christianity was highly successful because the message of Jesus was SO DIFFERENT when compared to the other competing religions. Early Christian leaders looked forward to be martyred. This is very evident in one of the letters of Ignatius.

And once Constantine converted he immediately provided funds for the construction of Saint Peters over the tomb of Peter. Obviously this concept was alive and well. The rest of the Roman Empire quickly converted to Christianity and as we all know the Catholic Bishops eventually gained enormous power.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Julian658

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the evidence for Peter spending a lot of time in Rome is subtle. They put emphasis on the importance of Peter as the leader before the departure of Jesus and the fact that he was martyred in Rome. But, ultimately it comes down to Matthew 16:18-19.

Yes, the RCC became an Empire in itself after being adopted by the Romans. However, up to that point Christianity was highly successful because the message of Jesus was SO DIFFERENT when compared to the other competing religions. Early Christian leaders looked forward to be martyred. This is very evident in one of the letters of Ignatius.

And once Constantine converted he immediately provided funds for the construction of Saint Peters over the tomb of Peter. Obviously this concept was alive and well. The rest of the Roman Empire quickly converted to Christianity and as we all know the Catholic Bishops eventually gained enormous power.

The importance of very early Christianity was its extreme DIVERSITY of beliefs. Not until the Nicene Council was there a true orthodoxy. The Ebionites were Christians who believed in one God, and that Jesus was not God, but rather a Messiah as Jews saw a Messiah (which was not as God).

The Marcionites took the opposite view that Jesus was not human at all, precisely because he was God. God cannot be a human any more than a human can be a rock. Divinity and humanity are two different things not to be confused. There were TWO Gods, the Jewish God of the Old Testament (a lesser, wrathful god), and the God of Jesus, the God of love and mercy, is the God of the New Testament [Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman].

Various Gnostic groups had no difficulty in declaring that Christ was a divine being because they believed in lots of divine beings and Jesus was simply one more.

There were early Christians that saw God and Jesus in terms of "modalism"--one God who has different modes of existence. I am (or was) a son to my father, a father to my son, a husband to my wife, but I am not three people, but one person. This is NOT the view that came to be orthodoxy.

It was Tertullian (160 C.E. to 220 C.E.), a LAWYER no less, that first proposed the idea that the three persons of the godhead are distinct, but they are not different in substance. All are God. They differ purely on the ground of personality. That was the beginning of the trinity. But even Tertullian believed that the Father is greater than the son, even though they are of the same substance. Otherwise He wouldn't be the Father [Jesus, Interrupted, Bart Ehrman].

For a century after Tertullian Christians were still debating this question of the relationship of the Father to the Son. Arius, a famous Christian teacher in Alexandria, Egypt which was a leading center of theological reflection (go figure??!!!) brought another view of Jesus to Christians---Christ was a divine being, but He was subordinate in power and essence to God the Father. Sometime in the past God begat a second divine being, His Son, Christ, who was made with a "similar" substance to God the Father. And Christ was the one through whom God created the universe. It was Christ who became human at the incarnation. In this view, there was a time when Christ did not exist. He came into being before everything else, but after God.

Arius' views were extremely popular in its day, but a number of theologians took exception to it. The foremost was a young deacon in the church of Alexandria, one Athanasius, who argued that Christ was the very same substance as God the Father, but that they were complete equals, and that there never was a time when Christ did not exist. All of this thinking arose at the end of the third century. It was a huge dispute between the Arians and those who were opposed to them. Was the Greek term homoousias (same substance) applied to both Jesus and God, or was Jesus only of similar substance, homoiousias?
As later historians pointed out, the argument was over the letter i, but that letter was significant. The church was split over it--it was not yet a homogeneous body.

For Constantine it was a political issue. He was already a Christian but he wanted to use this new religion to help unify his fractured empire. A split religion could not bring unity. The religion had to be united first---therefore the Council of Nicene.

And it wasn't even a close vote--Athanasius' position won hands down. But debates continued for decades after. There was STILL no unified church. It was a remarkable struggle and win for the doctrine of the Trinity when there was nothing in the New Testament to explicitly support the view (I John 5:7-8 was another of those "later" additions to Scripture). It was a Christian invention based on the arguments of Athanasius and others on allusions in certain passages of scripture.

It was only the political machinations of Constantine that gave the RCC its legitimacy. Until then, it was just another splinter group with its own unique perspectives. Constantine personally didn't care which way the bishops decided to vote on the Trinity or anything else. He had an empire to run and needed a stable religion to help him do it.

The establishment of the RCC is far less glorious spiritually speaking. The wonder of it was that an Emperor would be swayed to claim as orthodox religion whatever the bishops determined after their month long meeting (and there would be follow up meetings to make decisions about other "heresies" challenging the young orthodox church).

I've borrowed freely from Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted and highly recommend it as a fine read of the historical contrasts and contradictions that appeared among the earliest Christians.

[bartstarr1960]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

There were TWO Gods, the Jewish God of the Old Testament (a lesser, wrathful god), and the God of Jesus, the God of love and mercy, is the God of the New Testament [Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman].

I watched the History Channels new Bible Secrets Revealed series part 1. Ehrman, Moss, Goodacre and Aslan were the main scholars I recall. I got a laugh seeing Candida Moss, Notre Dame, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, again. She'd been on The O'Reilly Factor and told Bill, after his book Killing Jesus hit #1, the Rich Fool parable and that in order to go to heaven you must give up your possessions. I actually found it on youtube.


Bill O'Reilly Confronts Professor Candida Moss Who Criticized Him Over Killing Jesus Book - YouTube