An interesting thing about what we have now in Christianity though is that it basically spawned as-is in the first century
The article says:
Little is fully known of Christianity in its first 150 years; sources are few.
So you’re making a huge, sweeping statement that Christianity as we know it today is based on something…we don’t know much about? There are 6 major Christian denominations, not to mention hundreds of smaller ones. Which one is the “as-is” one? The one that is exactly “as-is” from CE 100?
You’re forgetting that denominations aren’t actually that different. They all ascribe to the fundamental beliefs in the death and resurrection of Jesus. We do have the Acts of The Apostles as well which documents the early church. The New Testament was written within 100 years of Jesus and all Christians still follow it
But things like church structure, importance of tradition and beauty, exact liturgy formats aren’t fundamental to the faith. The fundamentals stayed the same. The only real evolution was Roman Catholicism which adopted additional dogmas over time, but that’s it really.
See, now you’re moving the goalposts. You made a sweeping statement that Christianity is as-is compared to the first century CE. Yet here you are breaking it down and excluding things.
Let’s just face it, you don’t mean Christianity as a whole is same as 2kyr ago. It isn’t. They held on to some facets of it, got rid of others, but kept the main themes like resurrection and the like. Heck, there are even some that suggest the resurrection story was added centuries later.
I said it was as-is in the context of your statement. Your claim was that the figure of Jesus had evolved over hundreds of years like King Arthur. I said that no, the doctrine surrounding Jesus was basically as-is. Now you’re being pedantic about it. The fact is, 99% of the things believed about Jesus nowadays was believed by first century Christians. We can use the New Testament as a source for that, as they are what our beliefs are based on. There are no early records about a Jesus existing that show him not being a divine miracle worker who rose from the dead. Unlike figures - even Christian figures such as St Patrick who had later attributions of legend like leading snakes out of Ireland, or even the Virgin Mary in the Assumption of Mary, Conceived without sin, perpetual virginity, etc. All of which are found centuries later than the original documents actually surrounding Mary, some of which could have even been written in her lifetime.
What exactly changed, then?
You mean besides a couple dudes running around telling us to be cool to each other?
You didn’t even read the wiki entry, did you.
I did, and it’s already knowledge we know about the early church
You said:
The article says:
So you’re making a huge, sweeping statement that Christianity as we know it today is based on something…we don’t know much about? There are 6 major Christian denominations, not to mention hundreds of smaller ones. Which one is the “as-is” one? The one that is exactly “as-is” from CE 100?
You’re forgetting that denominations aren’t actually that different. They all ascribe to the fundamental beliefs in the death and resurrection of Jesus. We do have the Acts of The Apostles as well which documents the early church. The New Testament was written within 100 years of Jesus and all Christians still follow it
Nonetheless they are different. And you skipped past the whole “little is known” part, not to mention all the parts that got tossed out along the way.
But things like church structure, importance of tradition and beauty, exact liturgy formats aren’t fundamental to the faith. The fundamentals stayed the same. The only real evolution was Roman Catholicism which adopted additional dogmas over time, but that’s it really.
See, now you’re moving the goalposts. You made a sweeping statement that Christianity is as-is compared to the first century CE. Yet here you are breaking it down and excluding things.
Let’s just face it, you don’t mean Christianity as a whole is same as 2kyr ago. It isn’t. They held on to some facets of it, got rid of others, but kept the main themes like resurrection and the like. Heck, there are even some that suggest the resurrection story was added centuries later.
I said it was as-is in the context of your statement. Your claim was that the figure of Jesus had evolved over hundreds of years like King Arthur. I said that no, the doctrine surrounding Jesus was basically as-is. Now you’re being pedantic about it. The fact is, 99% of the things believed about Jesus nowadays was believed by first century Christians. We can use the New Testament as a source for that, as they are what our beliefs are based on. There are no early records about a Jesus existing that show him not being a divine miracle worker who rose from the dead. Unlike figures - even Christian figures such as St Patrick who had later attributions of legend like leading snakes out of Ireland, or even the Virgin Mary in the Assumption of Mary, Conceived without sin, perpetual virginity, etc. All of which are found centuries later than the original documents actually surrounding Mary, some of which could have even been written in her lifetime.