When did early Christianity become corrupt if it ever did?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IgnatianPhilo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You make an assumption that Christianity was a unified whole in those first centuries. Yes, one fairly large group formed fairly early on as they put "proto-catholic-orthodox in key positions throughout the empire. As this group gained popularity and finally the emperor became friendly with Christians. There still was conflict t with two faction claiming authenticity …/Arians and by now Catholic. Wasn’t. Nicea called to decide the “correct” understanding Christa nature…

The catholics wrote profusely against the other sects sometimes with shocking language

You make assumptions that can’t hold up. There was no monolithic Christian until after 70CE Christianity existed within the synagogue as an alternate view of what being a Jew entails, this was a distinctly Jewish movement Formosa of the first century.
I have made no assumptions. I have simply asked those who say Christianity was corrupted to tell us when this corruption began to take place and when it can be said to be fully formed.

But I do dissagree with you concerning the unity of the church. Unity before the destruction of the temple seems to be found within the confines of the apostolic churches, that is those in communion primarily with the 12 and Paul. Now we know there were elements already trying to divide the church even at that time, we see that in Corinth most of all. Those elements I believe to be the proto gnostics, those who denied resurrection primarily and the judaisers who seemed to be advocating a return to law. The early judaisers would be later found in the groups of the Nazerenes and the Ebionites. Then there are what you might call the Orthodox party, those like Ignatius, Clement, the author of the Didache and etc.

Depending on your position, we only have a few choices from what we know. Either Christianity as a whole has been corrupt right from the start and we can’t possibly choose any one group. Or there has been a central stream which has maintained and flourished to this day. I personally believe that to be the Orthodox church.
 
The author of Acts quotes Deuteronomy 18:18 and says that this is referring to Jesus, but I disagree–
Interestingly it wasn’t just the author simply quoting a passage but rather Luke recording Peter quoting such a passage. I’m not sure if you know that, but I thought I would clarify just in case.

Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.

22 Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you.

23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people. ’

24 And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.

25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed. ’

26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness. "

What is the earliest Islamic source you have closest to the time of Muhammad that quotes Deut 18:18 and applies it to Muhammad? Thank you.
The episode of Paul’s conversion experience on the Damascus road is narrated in vivid detail in Acts, but Paul never mentioned it in any of his letters. He says that he saw Jesus Christ and that he had a revelation, but that could mean anything. If Paul’s conversion was as elaborate as Acts describes, surely, Paul would’ve appealed to it to prove his calling.
As you say, he did make mention of it; but his works would prove his testimony. In one of the passages where he mentions his revelation he immediately explains his old life as proof of his revelation:

Galatians 1:12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.

14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.

15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, { Greek b set me apart from my mother’s womb b } and who called me by his grace

16 was pleased to reveal his Son to { Greek b in b } me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles
Not only that, but the author of Acts also contradicts Paul. Paul, in the book of Galatians, says that after his conversion he went straight to Arabia, while in Acts, it says that Paul went straight to Jerusalem.

I’m writing based on my memory. I can give you the references if you want (I’ve got several Bibles in my room).
"I did not immediately consult with anyone; { Greek b with flesh and blood b }

17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days."

Obviously Paul wasn’t making up that he stayed in Arabia for three years; I’m not sure what he would profit from a lie like that. And the Acts makes no mention of his journey, but that does not mean that he wasn’t there.

And yes, I would love the “straight to Jersualem” passage.

Look at these two parallels of Paul being lowered by a basket in Damascas:

Acts 9:23 When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him,

24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him,

25 but his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.

1 Corin 11:32 At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me,

33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.

Surely you believe this story then?
 
I have heard the claim from Muslims, Mormons, JW, Messianics and more recently on these forums the bahai, that the true and pure faith that Jesus had given the world was distorted as the teachings of men were more prominent in the Christian community.

I want to ask those bahai or if there are any Muslims or anyone else for that matter if they can present a substantial argument for the corruption of the Christian faith that modern day Christians of the five main traditions, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Oriental and Syriac Christianities, do not reflect the main faith which the apostles of Jesus held that they received by Jesus Christ.

Also if anyone has heard a credible argument, that they might reproduce that argument.
Here is one late LDS scholar’s view of what happened anciently:
publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1088&index=2

It’s titled “The Passing of the Primitive Church:Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme” I hope this helps.
 
Christianity became corrupt when the psychic Christians started persecuting the pneumatic Gnostics and destroyed the secret hidden teachings of Jesus Christ.
 
Christianity became corrupt when the psychic Christians started persecuting the pneumatic Gnostics and destroyed the secret hidden teachings of Jesus Christ.
And when did they start doing that?
 
Here is one late LDS scholar’s view of what happened anciently:
publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1088&index=2

It’s titled “The Passing of the Primitive Church:Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme” I hope this helps.
Ok I tried to cipher through this. Problem is as usual with LDS it is re-interpreted
Scripture designed to match the author’s premise therefore it
is resulting in a chaotic representation.
Not helpful.
 
And when did they start doing that?
This would be 2 AD and it’s about as helpful as the link
posted from LDS cause it loses credibility with
the phrase "secret teachings of “Christ”.
Christ made it clear He had no secrets and believed
secrets were oppositional to the Spirit.
 
The primary corruption that I would offer up is the division into several, then dozens, now thousands of competing sects who have at time treated one another as anathema and even (God forbid!) at times waged war and killed one another in the name of Christ.

I would also suggest that the ill treatment of Muslims, Jews and others by various Christians (individually and at times collectively and organizationally) also falls under this category of “corruption”.

I do not see debates such as the primacy of Rome, Filoque, Sole Scriptura, the Real Presence etc. as nearly as important as the first two.
Wouldn’t the devil work on dividing God’s true church I don’t see division as a clear argument or the fallen nature of individual Christians. What I would look at is consistent teaching that is unchanged from the beginning which only the Roman Catholic Church can show
 
This would be 2 AD
Not just the second century. From the second century up to the present time.
and it’s about as helpful as the link
posted from LDS cause it loses credibility with
the phrase "secret teachings of “Christ”.
Christ made it clear He had no secrets and believed
secrets were oppositional to the Spirit.
Oh really?

Matthew 13:11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.”

Luke 8:10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’

Mark 4:11 "He replied, “You are permitted to understand the secret of the Kingdom of God. But I use parables for everything I say to outsiders,”
 
Not just the second century. From the second century up to the present time.

Oh really?

Matthew 13:11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.”

Luke 8:10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’

Mark 4:11 "He replied, “You are permitted to understand the secret of the Kingdom of God. But I use parables for everything I say to outsiders,”
Keyword- outsiders.
Christ had no secrets from His disciples.
Therefore the idea that a tiny sect of valentinian Gnostics
would have the “secret teachings of Jesus Christ” and
Christ left Peter, John, Matthew Mark etc out of the loop
is simply not sensible or realistic.

Any more than LDS link claiming Christ knew His
Church would fail in 1 AD.
 
Not just the second century. From the second century up to the present time.

Oh really?

Matthew 13:11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.”

Luke 8:10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’

Mark 4:11 "He replied, “You are permitted to understand the secret of the Kingdom of God. But I use parables for everything I say to outsiders,”
How did a persecuted church have the time or resources to persecute the Gnostic in an extensive manner to the point in which they obliterated their opponents? Gnostic ideas fit quite well into what was philosophically orthodox (denial of resurrection, the importance of the spiritual world over the material world and etc), so it seems the Gnostic had much more going for them than those redneck buffoons who made fools of themselves proclaiming a Jew as risen from the dead and who was God over the entire universe.

That being said, in regards to secrets. Jesus only seemed to keep the meanings (for some of his teachings) to his apostles which we see explained in the gospels. And do we suppose those teachings of second century gnostics clearly influenced by platonism and other Greek ideas as representing the Jesus of history whom was Jewish?
 
How did a persecuted church have the time or resources to persecute the Gnostic in an extensive manner to the point in which they obliterated their opponents? Gnostic ideas fit quite well into what was philosophically orthodox (denial of resurrection, the importance of the spiritual world over the material world and etc), so it seems the Gnostic had much more going for them than those redneck buffoons who made fools of themselves proclaiming a Jew as risen from the dead and who was God over the entire universe.

That being said, in regards to secrets. Jesus only seemed to keep the meanings (for some of his teachings) to his apostles which we see explained in the gospels. And do we suppose those teachings of second century gnostics clearly influenced by platonism and other Greek ideas as representing the Jesus of history whom was Jewish?
These are good points. However since we know Gnosticism
was unsuccessful in its attempts to pervert Christianity and
similarly Gnosticism is NOT a “Christian” religion either as it existed
several centuries before Christ in Asia, Syria etc. it really
has no part to play in this thread I can see.
 
IgnatianPhilo,

I don’t have anything to say about the main question of this thread, as I do not believe that Christianity became or is corrupted, but I am wondering why you separated out the Syriac Orthodox Church from the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Church in the OP, as though they are a different thing and not a part of the Oriental Orthodox communion? That may be confusing to the non-Christians and even some Christians who post in this thread.
 
IgnatianPhilo,

I don’t have anything to say about the main question of this thread, as I do not believe that Christianity became or is corrupted, but I am wondering why you separated out the Syriac Orthodox Church from the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Church in the OP, as though they are a different thing and not a part of the Oriental Orthodox communion? That may be confusing to the non-Christians and even some Christians who post in this thread.
As I understand it, are they not different communions? I understand the oriental churches accept the council of Ephesus but the Syriac churches reject it and do not call Mary the Theotokos. Maybe I have the communions wrongly named, if so I would appreciate correction. What are the communions of the Oriental church? I understand there is the Coptic and the Ethiopian but is there a Syrian communion as well? It would not surprise me but when I spoke of the Syriac orthodox I spoke of those whom reject Ephesus and revere Nestorius.

But having just looked up it, I see their official name is the Assyrian church of the east. I will try to list it correctly in the future.
 
Surely that you disagree with whom Deuteronomy is referring to is not cause to deny the historicity of the events in question. Also as to Paul’s silence concerning his vision of Jesus on Damascus, why does silence automatically mean that it did not happen? Paul could have referenced alot of things about the life of Jesus which we almost certainly was aware of, being in close communion with the apostles. Paul we need not doubt had a thought stream and belief system which could not possibly be recorded in all the epistles of his which survive.
This wasn’t just any event, though, it was the event that turned his life around. It was a life changing experience and Paul came out of it convinced that God’s love and grace had changed him (so he goes on and on about how nothing can seperate him from the love of God). I stand by what I said; if this conversion happened as Acts says, that he heard a voice from Jesus and hence, was specifically chosen by Jesus to preach, it makes no sense why Paul would be silent about it.

It would be the clearest piece of evidence for his listeners, but since Paul never mentioned it. I’m inclined to think that the reason Paul didn’t mention it is because the account on the Damascus road was a later concoction (written by someone who didn’t even know Paul).
I might note however what acts says and does not say when we compare it to galatians.

Acts 9: 23 After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him, 24 but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. 25 But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.

Now if we read the text as if this is happening the very next day this might be the case that Luke is contradicting what Paul says in Galatians. But the Epistles takes place over many years and I think a quick reading of it could give the false impression alot of these events are taking place soon after the other. This is within a span of what, thirty years? Between the start of Paul’s ministry and his imprisonment before his execution in Rome? I do not think Luke forces us to read the event in this way and Paul’s statement that he went straight to Arabia fits in quite nicely, but was an omition by Luke. Either because he did not know or he chose not to add it. Omition however is not exclusion. .
Ok, I have since read acts chapter nine and have realized that my assertion of Paul having gone “straight to Jerusalem” was wrong. I’m sorry for that.

There are a few verses that are relevant that are mentioned prior to Acts 9:23-25, and that is verses 19-22, which are mentioned right after Paul regained his sight after the epsiode on the Damascus road: “For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus. And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, ‘He is the Son of God.’ And all who heard him were amazed and said, ‘Is this not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called upon this name? And has he not come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests?’ 'But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ

…and then you have Paul saying, in Galatians 1, “But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” Paul tells a different story, in other words. Is it possible the author of Acts knew about Paul having gone to Arabia and chose to not mention it? Sure, I guess, but if we use that kind of argumentation, anything at all can fit. We could just as easily say that the author of Acts believed Paul to have gone to India, but chose to not mention it.

You can’t make a solid argument based on what the author might have known.
 
How did a persecuted church have the time or resources to persecute the Gnostic in an extensive manner to the point in which they obliterated their opponents? Gnostic ideas fit quite well into what was philosophically orthodox (denial of resurrection, the importance of the spiritual world over the material world and etc), so it seems the Gnostic had much more going for them than those redneck buffoons who made fools of themselves proclaiming a Jew as risen from the dead and who was God over the entire universe.

That being said, in regards to secrets. Jesus only seemed to keep the meanings (for some of his teachings) to his apostles which we see explained in the gospels. And do we suppose those teachings of second century gnostics clearly influenced by platonism and other Greek ideas as representing the Jesus of history whom was Jewish?
The truth is that Christ was sent not by the maker of this world but by Abraxas, the supreme Aeon, the historical Jewish Jesus which you are speaking of is the psychic son of the demiurge. The pneumatic Christ descended upon Jesus at the time of his baptism and flew out of his body just before he was crucified because resurrection has not been promised to bodies.

Yes, Valentinianism (at least) is very close to orthodox biblical canon, in fact many Valentinians worshipped along side orthodoxy and were active in all religious matters of the orthodoxy without even being recognized as heretics. The difference is only in the grace and gifts that each one has received from our Holy Father, Jesus Christ.
 
These are good points. However since we know Gnosticism
was unsuccessful in its attempts to pervert Christianity and
similarly Gnosticism is NOT a “Christian” religion either as it existed
several centuries before Christ in Asia, Syria etc. it really
has no part to play in this thread I can see.
Gnosticism predates Christianity, yes, but that doesn’t mean its not Christian, when I study the gnostic exegesis all I see is the Christology of Jesus Christ, the very nature of Christ. They are Christians.

Also I am not speaking of gnosticism in this thread, I am explaining how the orthodox Church became corrupt when they suppressed the secret Pauline mystery tradition of the Valentinians.
 
Interestingly it wasn’t just the author simply quoting a passage but rather Luke recording Peter quoting such a passage. I’m not sure if you know that, but I thought I would clarify just in case.

Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.

22 Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you.

23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people. ’

24 And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.

25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed. ’

26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness. "?
Yeah, I knew that. I personally don’t think Peter ever said that, though.
What is the earliest Islamic source you have closest to the time of Muhammad that quotes Deut 18:18 and applies it to Muhammad? Thank you."
As far as I know, the Bible had not yet been translated into arabic in the 7th century, so it would’ve been impossible to have quoted Deuteronomy 18:18 specifically. I don’t know who the first person was, of Muhammad’s era or the generations thereafter, who knew the content of Deuteronomy and interpreted verse 18 to be speaking of Muhammad [peace be upon him]. We do believe that he was foretold, though, so the early muslims did believe that, they just didn’t have access to an arabic translation of the Bible (and most of them were illiterate anyhow).
Obviously Paul wasn’t making up that he stayed in Arabia for three years; I’m not sure what he would profit from a lie like that. And the Acts makes no mention of his journey, but that does not mean that he wasn’t there.?
I find it unlikely that the two accounts are compatible. In acts 9:20 you have Paul immediately preaching in synagogues in Damascus, while in Galatians 1:16-18, Pauls says that he didn’t consult with anyone, but went to Arabia.
And yes, I would love the “straight to Jersualem” passage…?
See my response to Ignatian. I made a mistake. I apologize.
Look at these two parallels of Paul being lowered by a basket in Damascas:

Acts 9:23 When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him,

24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him,

25 but his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.

1 Corin 11:32 At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me,

33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.

Surely you believe this story then?
That’s actually in 2 Corinthians 11, but anyhow, yes, there is a parallel there. I don’t doubt that Paul was persecuted. The author of acts and Paul himself both agree that he was in Damascus as some point, they just disagree on the events [or lack thereof] leading up to his stay in Damascus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top