A New Look at First Century Christianity

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Recently, I came across information concerning first century Christianity and the historical perspective that this has on the pervasive discussions regarding whether or not Mormonism is truly a restored gospel of First Century Christianity.

In my current study and research, I have found support for the Latter-day Saint proposition that there was a "falling away" from the original teachings and foundations of First Century Christianity as understood by the intimiate disciples of Jesus Christ.

This premise and support is found when comparing two movements that came about at the close of the First Century.

To begin with, our understanding is that Peter, James and John were the three most prominent and closest individuals and disciples of Jesus Christ. These three individuals were not only called to be disciples but to be special witnesses of Jesus Christ, his mission, teachings, death, burial and resurrection. They were charged with teaching, baptism, healing, having the authority to do such under the commission of Jesus Christ himself.

These three men were Jews who became followers of Jesus Christ. They were the progniters of the Jewish-Christian church in Jerusalem, a movement heavily persecuted by both Jewish leaders and Roman Citizens and governing officials.

The other individaul is Saul of Tarsus, or better known as the Apostle Paul.

It is my attempt to hopefully show that the original first century christian church, teachings and doctrines were that of Gnostic Christianity. It is this Gnostic Christianity that was "falling away" due to the rise and popularity of Paul's teachings, discourses and missionary efforts. It is evident that modern protestant and evanglical christians are based on a variety of interpretations of what is referred to as Pauline Christianity. Accordingly, it is the rise in Pauline Christianity that suppressed and led to the eventual apostasy of Gnostic Christianity. A Christianity that was based on Judiac tradition and teachings of Jesus Christ.

If anyone has information on this, I would greatly appreciate it for I am going to be studying out this as best as possible and if what I find to be true, then I have some serious repenting to do and have the long awaited information needed to come to my bishop and say "I have fallen into apostasy and have spent several years attacking and declaring the LDS Church heretical and false".

Again, any and all information would greatly be appreciated.

[the_jason]

What is your purpose here? Are you trying to convince people that the Church is false? Are you trying to impress us with your much research and knowledge on theology? If either is true, count myself uninterested. I don't care how much studying you've done. All the research in the world can't compare to a comfirmation of the Holy Ghost that I've had. The Church is true, the doctrine is true, the priesthood authority is true. Nothing can convince me otherwise.

[NeuroTypical]

In my current study and research, I have found support for the Latter-day Saint proposition that there was a "falling away" from the original teachings and foundations of First Century Christianity as understood by the intimiate disciples of Jesus Christ.

Again, any and all information would greatly be appreciated.

Here's a post from a guy named LeSellers over on the MADB board - maybe it will help. It's a little bit later than your Paul vs. Peter, James, and John notion, but it certainly documents a falling away.

Constantine called the 325 ad council at Nicaea (now in Turkey) when the Arians (now considered heretics, then, just another denomination of Christianity) and the Nicenes (who eventually won the war-cum-debate, now counted as orthodox – "history is written by the winners") appealed to the emperor for a final determination as to which would be the "acceptable" version of what had already become the apostate Church of Jesus Christ. No one denies, at least not I, that all the participants were sincere in their beliefs, and that each side was genuinely concerned for the other's welfare. (This concern had already resulted in horrific atrocities on both sides: the burning of buildings, resort to arms, massacres of women and children. Each felt so strongly that his interpretation of the scriptures — not the Bible as we know it, since it had not yet been compiled — was correct, that killing dissenters was preferable to letting the "false doctrines" they espoused promulgate.)

In his well researched and heavily footnoted book, Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance, H.A. Drake (Professor of History, University of California, Santa Barbara), Chapter Seven, "Consensus Politics" (p. 256~7), tells us:

From the letter [Constantine] wrote to the principals [the bishops he convoked to the council under the implied, and eventually realized, threat of imperial power] only months earlier, it is safe to say that the theological implications, one way or the other, would not have bothered him. But the whole purpose of the council, to his mind, was unity, and homoousios was chosen specifically to drive a wedge into the assembly.

Two considerations bring the dynamics of the debate into focus. First, it is necessary to discard the assumption of a clear divide between orthodox and Arian position, such as came to be perceived in retrospect, when positions had hardened and a more sophisticated theological vocabulary developed. At the time, not only were there compelling arguments on both sides, but also the technical language did not exist to bring into sharp relief the cause of the division. Both sides, for instance, were accused of "Judaizing"—in fourth-century Christian vocabulary the equivalent of of seeking regnum in the Roman republic or being a Communist or Fascist in twentieth-century American politics. The Arians were like the Jews because they minimized the divinity of Christ, the Nicenes because they emphasized the Oneness of the Divine Being. The reaction of any Jewish listeners can only be imagined, but a century later, Christians looking back on the charges and countercharges leveled during this likened the two sides to armies groping their way in the dark, neither side exactly clear what it was fighting about.[1] The majority of bishops at the council, it is generally conceded, were as confused by the theological intricacies of the question as a modern layperson is likely to be, and they were ready to support anything that was not patently heretical. Eusebius ... described the reaction of the bishops to the emperor's summons: "As soon then as the imperial injunction was generally made known, all with the utmost willingness hastened thither, as though they would outstrip one another in a race; for they were impelled by the anticipation of a happy result to the conference, by the hope of enjoying present peace, and the desire of beholding something new and strange in the person of so admirable an emperor."

Note [1] Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.23

... Constantine's motive is a bit harder to tease forth, only because it must be deduced from the scanty evidence that survives. His preparations for the council, and the outcome he desired, involved concessions to both sides. The outline of of his concessions to "the party of Eusebius" is fairly clear: he gave them the choice of venue and undertook to restrain the more virulent voices of the opposition. What had he given to bring the "the party of Alexander" to the table? Only one conclusion accords with the outcome. At the end of the day, they would have a creed that clearly branded Arius a heretic. Like all catchwords, homoousios was defensible only in the entire context of debate and study that led to its choice. But it had the one advantage of being a word that exposed and isolated Arius. When all the arguing and cajoling was [sic] done, only two bishops, both of them among Arius's original supporters, refused to sign. By imperial decree, they were sent into exile, along with Arius (who, as a presbyter, did not participate in his own condemnation) and a miscellaneous group of priests and students loyal to his cause.

Notice the recurring theme of imperial coercion, of a predetermined, political outcome. Notice, too, how, by their notorious absence, inspiration and divine guidance are screaming for our attention because the participants in 325 paid them no heed whatsoever. In all Eusebius's account (nor any other, for that matter) there is no mention of such guidance, and none at all that gives any indication that the council had any Celestial authority to dictate a creed, none to consign Arius to exile, none to define God. Yet all creedal Christianity (from the eastern, Coptic, English, and Roman catholics to the Holy Assembly of the Sacred Name and other Pentecostals, including all, or nearly so, protestant sects) accepts this travesty of a council as binding as to the nature of God, the relationship between the Father and the Son, and theirs with the Holy Ghost.

Finally, notice that "Christian theology" was non-existent in the IV, and that, even at that late date, the Gospel of Jesus Christ (however much altered by the traditions and philosophy of the Greek intellectual world it inhabited*) had not needed scholars and a "technical vocabulary" to interpret or understand it. This confusion and complexity came later as men added to, modified, and deleted the simple, plain words of scripture and denied contemporary revelation.

* See also Augustine of Hippo, A Biography by Peter Brown, Rollins Professor of History at Princeton University, for supporting data.

The Council of Nicaea (and all of the others before and since) is simply antithetical to the plain and biblical method God had used for 4,000 years when He had something to tell His children, or when they had strayed and needed setting right: In every case prior to this, He had called a prophet, sometimes more than one. There was never a case of a "council" of this sort, called by the political ruler to regulate (not "correct", just "normalize") His kingdom.

Let's recall that, in the ancient world, all political power and all ecclesiastical power were combined in one person: the god-king. To a certain extent, we have the same structure today: our Head is Christ Whom we recognize as "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" on the one hand, and as "Savior", "High Priest", and "God" on the other. Indeed, we frequently say, "O, Lord, my God" referring to Him. The tradition goes back at least as far as Shem/Melchizedek in the Salem of Abraham's day: he was the "Prince of Peace" and the "King of Righteousness", as well as the High Priest to whom Abraham paid his tithes. It goes back further in recorded time, too, since Pharaoh was a god, and so were most other kings. But I use Shem/Melchizedek to make the point that its origin is divine, however distorted it became over time.

Constantine saw himself as a sort of re-incarnation of Christ. Drake plucks this string on his harp in dozens of places. Eusebius, while never actually saying so, paints the emperor as both a regal and a celestial personage. Paintings and mosaics from the period show him with halo-like radiances emanating from his head. Constantine's world was one where political power was almost always cloaked in religious garb, and he used this tradition to its fullest extent to cement his own secular hold on the fracturing empire of decadent Rome.

People who claim the Bible is their only source of theology sadly neglect the fact that no scripture really says what it says: all scripture must be interpreted to have any meaning at all. And the filter or bias through which creedal Christianity reads scripture is that of Constantine's coerced council 1682 years ago.

[Guest Malcolm]

I applaud your diligent study of the sources and the foundation documents of the faith. It is no doubt a worthwhile endevour. However, you run the risk of falling away again, finding yourself unsatisfied with the "evidence" and continuing the never-ending search for a truth that will consume you with its elusiveness.

The NT is not designed to be the complete Gospel. We have the synoptic accounts, a history of the Apostles and some letters. The later were the equivalent of a general conference talk. They address a specific issue to an also specified group/congregation of the saints. Paul or John wrote to address an issue and referenced the doctrine but it was not design to the the WHOLE doctrine.

Extant documents may shed some light into the context and flavor of the times in the first century but it will not be the ultimate proof or authority that you seek. There are countless others that discount and deny the validity of the SAME sources you may be inclined to believe. So, where does that leave you my brother?

Truth is God's domain. If you still retain that awareness and basic knowledge of Him then seek repentance NOW and plead for a portion of his spirit that you may be able to receive also a portion of the truth that is in the scriptures. If you desire to receive a witness of the truth of the Restoration you MUST go to the source that declares so. Open the Book of Mormon and read. Read and pray and you will know with absolute certainty that it is of God.

There are references to Christ in the OT. But they are veiled and sufficiently obscure as to cast doubt in the minds of some of whom the writer speaks. You must also KNOW about Christ and thus take that knowledge back to the OT in order to "see" the references. The NT is, of course, much more explicit. But there are still many that deny the divinity and Sonship of Christ as the Only Begotten of the Father.

But the BoM, my friend, brings clarity and precision impossible to deny or misconstrue

when it comes to who the Savior was. Mosiah 3 and 2 Ne:25/16,19-20,23-29. There is no greater witness to the existence, labor and mission of Christ that the one offered by the writers of the Book of Mormon. Thus, when you receive a witness of the message, the unavoidable conclusion is that the messenger was in did set upon the earth to reveal such in these the latter days.

I exhort you from the bottom of my heart not to delay your repentance until you attempt a futile intellectual exercise and to start seeking the truth this very night.

My very best.

[crytsprospect]

whoa hold you horses we all come to beliving in one way or andther some ask more questions than others. In the end yes finding the truth in answers givin through scripture reading and prayer is the way to go but I truley belive our SeattleTruthSeeker will get there. He chose with us to come here I know he will find his way back .

[Moksha]

It is my attempt to hopefully show that the original first century Christian church, teachings and doctrines were that of Gnostic Christianity. It is this Gnostic Christianity that was "falling away" due to the rise and popularity of Paul's teachings, discourses and missionary efforts. It is evident that modern protestant and Evangelical Christians are based on a variety of interpretations of what is referred to as Pauline Christianity. Accordingly, it is the rise in Pauline Christianity that suppressed and led to the eventual apostasy of Gnostic Christianity. A Christianity that was based on Judaic tradition and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Seattle, I think your premise that Pauline Christianity eventually supplanted Gnostic Christianity is correct. However, I think you are trying to tie Gnostic Christianity too closely to Judaism. There was wide variation among the Gnostics and Judaism ultimately disavowed this Gnostic Christianity.

[Traveler]

Seattle, I think your premise that Pauline Christianity eventually supplanted Gnostic Christianity is correct. However, I think you are trying to tie Gnostic Christianity too closely to Judaism. There was wide variation among the Gnostics and Judaism ultimately disavowed this Gnostic Christianity.

I think you have some good points. It appears to me that there are not enough buckets defining Christianity during the 1st Century. Gnostic Christianity is not necessarily Jewish although documents among the Dead Sea Scrolls (that are labeled Essen) greatly resemble documents of early Christianity that have been labeled Gnostic.

It is my belief that precious and sacred documents that have been discovered are labeled Essen and Gnostic in order that the obvious shift in scripture use, doctrine and other things relating to the evolving church moving toward apostasy can be covered up.

Even less publicized is that fact that the settlement by the Dead Sea we call Qumran today is not the ancient name. Qumran is Arabic. The ancient name of the settlement was Damascus. What is interesting to me is the cycle this thread is moving in. Paul was converted on his way to Damascus. A close look into the Biblical accounts gives strong support that Paul was converted on his way to the Dead Sea settlement and then studied the scriptures there – which by the way have strong relationship to documents labeled Gnostic. It was not Paul that differed from Peter, James and John as much as it is the interpretations that follow. Because Paul has a more gentle view of gospel principles his attempts to explain the teaching of Christ in an non-Jewish setting are often interpreted with too much liberty – especially in view of the Hellenistic influences of the time that were opposed by Paul as well as Peter, James and John.

It is the Hellenistic influences (such as a need for a cannon and defining G-d in non-Biblical terms like Trinity) that took hold of Christianity and marched off in a different direction.

The Traveler

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

What is your purpose here? Are you trying to convince people that the Church is false? Are you trying to impress us with your much research and knowledge on theology? If either is true, count myself uninterested. I don't care how much studying you've done. All the research in the world can't compare to a comfirmation of the Holy Ghost that I've had. The Church is true, the doctrine is true, the priesthood authority is true. Nothing can convince me otherwise.

Actually, my purpose here is to engage in discussion of various thoughts on Religion and Religious philosophy. Both inside and outside the LDS Faith.

I find the topic of religion a very intriguing and pervasive thought. I am neither here to defend my position, nor pit one doctrine over another.

The presumption is on your part for quickly presuming any alternate motive here. Such a quick judgment is very disinteresting and I personally will not tolerate it. If you do not want to engage in discussion, then the choice is for you to not reply to posts such as this.

Again, if you have something worthwhile to contribute to any discussions presented, please do so, if you would rather attack an individual then please keep such tactics to yourself and don't belabor any conspiritorial theories of any alternate purposes.

Thank you.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Seattle, I think your premise that Pauline Christianity eventually supplanted Gnostic Christianity is correct. However, I think you are trying to tie Gnostic Christianity too closely to Judaism. There was wide variation among the Gnostics and Judaism ultimately disavowed this Gnostic Christianity.

Thank you... my attempt is not to try and say that gnostic christianity stemmed from Judaism of the first century, but to compare the difference between Pauline Christianity to Gnostic Christianity at the time of the First Century.

I find it rather interesting that the most intimate individuals close to Jesus Christ are nothing more than a passing voice in the New Testament when the majority of the New Testament are the epistles of Paul.

Please don't get me wrong, I have a great appreciation for the things Paul Taught, however, if we come to an understanding of the context of how Paul understood the first century, we come to understand how it is merely his preconcieved interpretations of the Old Testament and teachings of Christ.

What baffles me (and is probably an unanswerable question) is that Paul never was "officially" called to be an apostle, he took that authority upon himself, nor is there any substantial evidence to him actually being baptized.

All this sheds new light on what is and is not historical Christianity.

Timothy

[NeuroTypical]

What baffles me (and is probably an unanswerable question) is that Paul never was "officially" called to be an apostle, he took that authority upon himself, nor is there any substantial evidence to him actually being baptized.

Really?

This conversation is mostly above my head - I don't really have anything to contribute, but I think there's lots here for me to learn.

Does the Bible not record Paul becoming an apostle?

LM

[utcowboy]

In Acts chapter 9 vs. 18

And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

This is outta the KJV. Hope it helps

[Guest Malcolm]

Seattle:

The road here is well traveled and there is tons of research on the subject. I tend to limit my reading on the subject since there is a whole host of revisionists at present attempting to print/sale books on novel text criticism techniques and interpretations. It all sounds like voodoo archeology to me and a novel angle on how to secure future grants for "vaca-excavations" trips

Most of the Apostles traveled away from the confines of the Roman empire where communications and roads were not frequent, secure or customary. Very little is known with any degree of certainty from extant sources about them except Peter, John and James the Lord's brother. There are several traditions about them but nothing by the way of verifiable sources.

Because Peter, John and Paul worked for so many years in the branches of the Church in Asia Minor and at Rome they were well known leaders of the church in the first century.They taught and ordained several of the first bishops of the church. John personally taught and ordained several bishops that were all previously his disciples. Many of them wrote extensively about their time with him, his teachings and commented on his Gospel.

James, the brother of the Lord was the first bishop of Jerusalem. We have no other text other than his epistle and Josephus that records the account of his death at the hands of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem.

So. It is really hard to separate fact from fiction as far as sources in the late portion of the first century. Botched as the council of Nicea was we had no other reliable texts with solid internal evidence and extant corroborative strength until the Restoration.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

I will come back to this discussion more fully tomorrow... I ended up working my regular swing shift last night and then had to work today and just got home from work. Valentines day is busy day here lol...... but thank you all for the contributions to this particular discussion. It poses a very interesting and hopefully new perspective on the difference between Historic Christianity and the comparative study of Pauline Christianity and Gnostic Christianity.

Personally, I believe the doctrines and teachings of Mormonism are a more refined evolved and defined gnostic Christian gospel. That is just my personal observation over the years.

And, honestly, I don't think that the apostles meant to have their teachings written down for a later generation because their teachings (including Paul's) were for their specific time and issue and are not meant to be the end all be all of God's teaching.

It is the one question that is starting to turn my heart and soul back to re-examining the LDS Claims once again.

What is hard is to overcome the few years spent studying and defending the Calvinistic faith.

[Guest Malcolm]

I know. Men seldom ask for directions...thus they get ulcers and spend hugely unnecessarily amount of time at doctors trying to alleviate their frustration....oh but they will never admit to being lost!!!

Come back soon.

[Moksha]

Another interesting character in the mix is Marcion who, it seems to me, stood somewhat between Pauline Christianity and the Gnostics.

[S2LR]

I will come back to this discussion more fully tomorrow... I ended up working my regular swing shift last night and then had to work today and just got home from work. Valentines day is busy day here lol...... but thank you all for the contributions to this particular discussion. It poses a very interesting and hopefully new perspective on the difference between Historic Christianity and the comparative study of Pauline Christianity and Gnostic Christianity.

Personally, I believe the doctrines and teachings of Mormonism are a more refined evolved and defined gnostic Christian gospel. That is just my personal observation over the years.

And, honestly, I don't think that the apostles meant to have their teachings written down for a later generation because their teachings (including Paul's) were for their specific time and issue and are not meant to be the end all be all of God's teaching.

It is the one question that is starting to turn my heart and soul back to re-examining the LDS Claims once again.

What is hard is to overcome the few years spent studying and defending the Calvinistic faith.

Seattle,

While I don't really have anything meaningful to add to the discussion at hand, please give serious consideration to a prayerful and honest study of the Book of Mormon along with your other studies. It is the keystone of our religion for a reason. It is my personal belief that it will give you an answer to the truth that you seek. If the Book of Mormon is true, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the Kingdom of God upon the earth. The truth of this religion rests on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

Good luck in your quest and happy Valentine's day...:)

[Guest Malcolm]

Seattle tends to use the term "Gnostic" quite loosely, especially when he states his belief that "LDS are more refined Gnostics." I think he needs to check his definitions. Among these groups some were "Christian" but others definitively not. Even the ones that adhere to some rudimentary form of Christian belief denied the divinity and humanity of Christ, His role in the Atonement and the faith as the means to come to the knowledge of God.

They more resemble today's "New Age" groups than a non-denominational Christian congregation.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Actually, I am referring to Gnosticism as the mysticism of Christianity. In this sense, Mormonism (in my opinion) is gnostic because it requires mortal man to rise above his nature, not being dependent upon God, but co-dependent in overcoming the sin nature by his own divine will and to eventually become a God.

[Guest Malcolm]

I think you have read too much Gnostic literature.

We are commanded to be perfect although the Lord knows it is impossible. Thus the Atonement of Jesus Christ. And there is no salvation except thru His name. And we are fallen because our nature but thru faith in His name, obedience to His commandments and the covenants of the Priesthood we are lifted up and leave behind the carnal nature (tendency to do evil) and after repentance we are save by grace after all that we can do.

But there is no self-exaltation or divine nature. Man is evil by nature and an enemy to God. It is the spirit of God (or our wiliness to follow and obey said spirit) that changes that nature not oneself. Read Mosiah and you will see how beautifully he states those principles.

[WANDERER]

I think it's an interesting question, considering the number of books written by Paul in the New Testament. The apostle who hadn't lived and worked with Jesus in his ministry...not technically one of the twelve. It might have been a very different world without the work of Paul.

I kind of define gnostic as a new agey type thing too. A kind of Luke Skywalker, may the force be with you type belief factor.

All things work together for good (quantifying clause: for them that love God).

[Moksha]

II kind of define gnostic as a new agey type thing too. A kind of Luke Skywalker, may the force be with you type belief factor.

Sort of an ancient new age type of thing, eh? Talk about pyramid power!