How Christianity Changed Over Time

[Kitsune]

I am referring to basically the treatment of worshipers and those around them. Looking for things which have changed effectively 180 degrees.

My specific reason is wonder stuff that Christians of the past would react just as some do as badly as they do today to Gay Marriage.

For example, I am wonder what reactions in the past would have been to women dressing in breaches. Would it have been considered extremely immoral in the past whereas there are only a few tiny splinters today who still believe that.

[Samuel]

Secular government, clothing, tolerating heathens, public atheism, etc. What wouldn't piss them off?

[PainRack]

Surprisingly, Paulinity was more tolerant of women...... Although Paul directly preached that women should wear veils and demonstrate their subsveriance to men, its demonstrable that the more extreme passages disregarding women and their inability to hold authority were inserted by later authors/scribes.

Given that the various testaments talk about female leaders and even directly address women christian leaders/disciples/apostles under Paul, one would had expected Paul to be dismayed at the attitude towards female priests.


Also, there's the whole Nazareanths and how Christianity was orginally just another Jewish sect as opposed to the current Gentile.

[Superman]

Surprisingly, Paulinity was more tolerant of women......

How did you come up with that?

[TheLegion]

Surprisingly, Paulinity was more tolerant of women......

How did you come up with that?

Maybe it's true because Paulinity isn't a word in the dictionary so it's thrown in as a stun grenade to make you go "hmm...that's interesting" and not look into it deeper. You can't say that it was all the scribes and the like adding things to the Pauline epistles and act like the ideas of Paul were in line with Feminist ideas or even progressive for that time. He probably wrote everything and there was no "scribes" adding anything to his writings.

[Superman]

Surprisingly, Paulinity was more tolerant of women......

How did you come up with that?

Maybe it's true because Paulinity isn't a word in the dictionary so it's thrown in as a stun grenade to make you go "hmm...that's interesting" and not look into it deeper. You can't say that it was all the scribes and the like adding things to the Pauline epistles and act like the ideas of Paul were in line with Feminist ideas or even progressive for that time. He probably wrote everything and there was no "scribes" adding anything to his writings.

What I mean is that it's pretty damn hard to attribute anything positive to Paul and how he took a big shit on what later became Christianity. When it comes to women, Paul was probably the single biggest woman hater in the entire New Testament. This is the guy who ordered they not be allowed to speak in the churches, that they stay home and take care of the kids, and that wives should be submissive to the mastery of their husbands. Personally, I think Paul is almost entirely responsible for this contemporary "clique" of Bible-worshiping evangelicals who think saying the word "shit" is a sin, but beating a child for saying it is perfectly fine.

Anyway, I'm just wondering how "Paulinity" was more tolerant of women.

[Kitsune]

According to Misquoting Jesus, the passage where women ware suppose to be silent in church was suppose to have been added later

[TheLegion]

According to Misquoting Jesus, the passage where women ware suppose to be silent in church was suppose to have been added later

Do they have any documents where it lacks the passage? How would they know that it was added if they don't have the original unaltered version? What is to say that there is no proof of such a addition? You can't tell me that nobody has thought of that or at least tried to find manuscripts from the first editions of the Bible.

[Kitsune]

According to Bart Ehrman, there are three specific reasons. First, it is shuffled around in location in the oldest ones including three Greek manuscripts and one Latin witnesses. It also does not fit with the immediate context which is referring to the issue of Prophecy in church. They also seem to contradict what is written written in other areas of 1 Corinthians - Basically keep head covered while speaking.

[Coyote]

I always thought that so much had been change dover the years it's difficult to get a clear picture of what was considered 'doctrine' or 'normal' from the earliest years. For all we know, the earlies Christian rites were drunken orgies, but the records were purged later by the uptight-ist movement.

I've heard that gay marriage used to be fairly normal, or at least not such a big deal, and that nunneries were supposed to be church prostitutes... but I can't ever recall any evidence, it's all "i've heard that, once..."

[Samuel]

I always thought that so much had been change dover the years it's difficult to get a clear picture of what was considered 'doctrine' or 'normal' from the earliest years. For all we know, the earlies Christian rites were drunken orgies, but the records were purged later by the uptight-ist movement.

I've heard that gay marriage used to be fairly normal, or at least not such a big deal, and that nunneries were supposed to be church prostitutes... but I can't ever recall any evidence, it's all "i've heard that, once..."

This is a two thousand year old religion. Of course it varies!

I don't think gay marriage existed- they probably banned it in the 300s. However, they didn't treat gays as bad as later times (no death penalty)- they considered it a minor sin.

As for nuns being prostitutes... what the heck is it with people wanting to bang nuns?

[PainRack]

How did you come up with that?

Because Paul directly address female christian leaders in the New Testament. In contrast to the current attitudes towards female priests where women cannot be leaders of the flock.

This is ignoring the fact that the do not speak in churches appear to be a later addition by scribes. Misquoting Jesus is a relatively good source, despite the fact that I'm amazed the author can still believe in Christianity after such extensive study.

Mind you, hanging the whole Christianity was favourable to female priests is laughable since Paul gospel is definitely not the whole of early Christianity, hence the use of the word Paulinity. Mark is definitely dismissive of females as disciples and leaders, given that in the end, Jesus appearence to the female wives of the disciples had them ignoring Jesus.... and assuming that the end 12 verses are a tack on, the story ends there, displaying the females as ignorant people who disobey christ.

As for nuns being prostitutes... what the heck is it with people wanting to bang nuns?

There were temple prostitutes from both Greek and even Judaist times:D

I always thought that so much had been change dover the years it's difficult to get a clear picture of what was considered 'doctrine' or 'normal' from the earliest years. For all we know, the earlies Christian rites were drunken orgies, but the records were purged later by the uptight-ist movement

There simply was no such thing as "'normal". I'm still looking for the source that shows that Constantine displayed the CROSS on his soldiers shields, as opposed to the more common symbol of Fish and Bread using Greek letters that were then used by the Christians in Rome itself. It appears that the use of the Cross as a symbol of Christ was a relatively late addon after the Council of Nicea, although its use was supposedly prevalent in Jeruslaem. If so, Constantine would had little reason to use an relatively unknown symbol for Christ for his soldiers.

Early Christian doctrine also differs as to the depiction of the cross which lasted up to modern times. Should it be empty? Bloodied? Has a body hanging on the cross? Each of these symbols represent important deviant views on the importance of the resurrection of Christ.

And this ignores how Christianity under the aegis of Peter was most definitely an orthodox Jewish sect whichs preaches reversion back to old Mosaic laws. Paul essentially won out only because the christians got slaughtered when the province revolted. Even after the council of nicea had created the creeds of being christian, there was still no unified Christian doctrine.... just a fictional display of one.

[Samuel]

There were temple prostitutes from both Greek and even Judaist times:D

That was the church having a monopoly on brothels. I am asking about the fetish.

This is ignoring the fact that the do not speak in churches appear to be a later addition by scribes. Misquoting Jesus is a relatively good source, despite the fact that I'm amazed the author can still believe in Christianity after such extensive study.

We have covered this ground with so many insults it isn't funny. Of course, the Catholic Church did something similar to show that the Gospels were infalliable... and then ended up declaring it the Modernist heresy when the people doing it got doubts. Differant levels of woo I guess.

[PainRack]

That was the church having a monopoly on brothels. I am asking about the fetish.

Corruption is fun:D Face it, if its not nuns, then its school uniforms:D

We have covered this ground with so many insults it isn't funny. Of course, the Catholic Church did something similar to show that the Gospels were infalliable... and then ended up declaring it the Modernist heresy when the people doing it got doubts. Differant levels of woo I guess.

Falliable or infalliable? I thought what they did was to show that the gospels required apostolic interpretation, and then decleare it a heresy when people show how the gospels were falsified?

[Samuel]

Falliable or infalliable? I thought what they did was to show that the gospels required apostolic interpretation, and then decleare it a heresy when people show how the gospels were falsified?

Could you explain what this means?

[PainRack]

Falliable or infalliable? I thought what they did was to show that the gospels required apostolic interpretation, and then decleare it a heresy when people show how the gospels were falsified?

Could you explain what this means?

I was referring to

Of course, the Catholic Church did something similar to show that the Gospels were infalliable.

I was under the impression that what the Church did was to show that the Testament was falliable, and thus required apostolic interpretation so that you won't be led astray, as opposed to the Protestant reliance on sola scripture.

[JGregory32]

There are earlier versions of the bible avaible if people want to study them. Look for either the Coptic, Ethiopian, or Eastern Orthadox versions. All three lack most of the modifacations made by the Roman Catholic church, and yes we can tell where the changes were made becasue in the middle ages the Vatican had teams of scribes goinging into the archives to 'correct' old documents. These documents have additional sub or superscript notations done in writing methods that are at odds to the rest of the document.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Falliable or infalliable? I thought what they did was to show that the gospels required apostolic interpretation, and then decleare it a heresy when people show how the gospels were falsified?

Could you explain what this means?

I was referring to

Of course, the Catholic Church did something similar to show that the Gospels were infalliable.

I was under the impression that what the Church did was to show that the Testament was falliable, and thus required apostolic interpretation so that you won't be led astray, as opposed to the Protestant reliance on sola scripture.

Yes, that is exactly the Roman Catholic (and to a somewhat lesser degree, Eastern Orthodox) view. The Roman Catholic church believes that it is the only Apostolic church and therefore it has the right (from God, no less) to interpret the scriptures according to its apostolic tradition. Protestants on the other hand believe that the true Christian faith can be read directly from the bible and no middle-men or apostolic tradition is required (sola scripture). In fact especially the younger Evangelical protestants believe that the Catholic traditions just get in the way of the True word of God. Lutherans and Anglicans are a bit more moderate, since they pretty much accept the early Catholic church up to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 CE. That is also the last Ecumenical council accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[Kuroneko]

That would seem to be extremely uncharacteristic for the Catholic Church. I'm not certain of official doctrine, but at least some Catholic theologians have affirmed infallibility of their scripture, including Aquinas, and given the conformity valued at the Church, it's hard to imagine that such views would remain unmolested if they contradicted official standing. Their position on interpreting the scripture probably has more to do with perceived fallibility of people rather than the scripture itself. Since the Catholic view is that the Church has a divine mandate for its teachings, it would therefore consider its interpretations likewise infallible.

[PainRack]

That would seem to be extremely uncharacteristic for the Catholic Church. I'm not certain of official doctrine, but at least some Catholic theologians have affirmed infallibility of their scripture, including Aquinas, and given the conformity valued at the Church, it's hard to imagine that such views would remain unmolested if they contradicted official standing. Their position on interpreting the scripture probably has more to do with perceived fallibility of people rather than the scripture itself. Since the Catholic view is that the Church has a divine mandate for its teachings, it would therefore consider its interpretations likewise infallible.

Its more along the lines that only the divine interpretation of the catholic church will allow you to understand the truth hidden in the Gospel and you just can't read it directly. As proof, they bring out the variants found. And of course, they would immediately blaze away at those who argue that the Gospels are in error............