Ok, I know a lot of people here believe all manner of stuff about Christianity. What I want to do here is offer the true history which should explain why there's so much noise about "types and modes" of Christianity, Bibles etc

I will be starting from where it started i.e. the Ascension of Jesus. I will also try to avoid using the Bible as its own witness and let history and reason work it out. I welcome all questions "after the fact" e.g. after I say "I'm a man", ask me "whats my name" rather than the thread derailing confusing trend of asking before the fact.

Back in a few with my first submission.

Fire on! eagerly waitng your submissions

Early Christianity

At the time of the ascension, almost all the existing followers of Jesus were Jews. Their movement was centered in Jerusalem, in an "Upper Room" where they met and were led by James the Just. The Acts of the Apostles asserts "All the believers were united and shared everything with one another. They sold their possessions and goods and distributed the proceeds to anyone who was in need." They held faithfully to the Torah and Jewish law which included acceptance of Gentile converts based on what appears to be a version of the Noachide laws (Acts 15 and Acts 21).

Their worship mode took the form of a Jewish eschatological faith. The book of Acts reports that the early followers continued daily Temple attendance and traditional Jewish home prayer. Other passages in the New Testament gospels reflect a similar observance of traditional Jewish piety such as fasting, reverence for the Torah and observance of Jewish holy days. The earliest form of Jesus's religion is best understood in this context.

Following the travels of Paul and subsequent conversion of many "Gentiles", a problem arose. The Gentiles did not circumcise themselves and the Jews insisted on circumcision. Both Peter and Paul found themselves in favor of relaxing the requirements for Gentiles, and their arguments carried the day. It was agreed that circumcision and the full Jewish dietary restrictions were not compulsory for Christians. A letter to this effect is sent to all Gentile Christians. When it is read out aloud to each assembled community, the Gentiles 'rejoice for the consolation'. It is a turning point for the growing church as the Christian population literally explodes overnight.

Between 132 - 135, a foremost Rabbi of the Jews named Akiva found his own "military interpretation" of the Messiah in a man named Simon bar Kokhba. This man led a revolt against Rome believing they had support from God and they would win against Rome. The Christians of course, believing Jesus to be their Messiah, had rejected Bar Kokhba and refused to join the revolt. Needless to say, the revolt failed and all ties to the word "Messiah" suddenly had very grave connotations. Christians became as it were, a hunted peoples because they were believed to, also having a Messiah, be against the Emperors. Over the next few hundred years, they were tortured, burnt alive, thrown to wild animals etc. But underground, they existed and continued their pure undefiled form of worship based on the Jewish Torah combined with an understanding that now, they had a voice in Heaven.

Nuclear -

The above is interesting general knowledge, but can you cut to the chase please. You talked about all manner of things being said about christianity.

Would you be so kind as to indulge my own key concerns about "Christianity" -

They are -

1. The claim that Jesus is God

2. The Claim that Jesus is the only begotten son of God

3. The claim that Jesus was born of a virgin

4. The claim that his death on the cross is salvation for mankind

5. The claim that belief in that sacrifice is required for salvation

- All of which to my mind, render Christainity the most outlandish admixture of myth, fantasy and ridiculous legend that world religion has ever seen.

Pardon my words, but none of the foregoing seem any more credible to me than the legend that Oduduwa was sent to create the world on a rope from heaven bearing a cockerel and a small pouch of sand and commencing at Ile Ife.

@DeepSight:

Please open another thread and I'll go straight to "that" chase there. What I'm trying to do here is different from what you're asking.

BTW, I like your words. Its how I express myself too when something doesn't make sense to me.

"Wide Acceptance"

In 312AD, then General Constantine faced a battle with another rival general over the throne of Rome. He had a rag-tag weary army that was up against a much larger army. Whist musing over his chances one day, He had a vision in which He saw a cross in the sky with the words "in hoc signo vinces" (In this sign, conquer). Having no other source of encouragement, he had his men inscribe the sign of the cross unto their shields and marched to an amazing victory. Following this upset, he became Caesar and proclaimed himself Christian. History shows though, that this man lived as far apart from the tenets of Christianity as possible. He knew that a ruler of such as Rome had to do things that were against Christian teachings, so he waited until he no longer had to do such things and thus was baptized only on his death-bed. Still, he was the 1st Pope.

His "political" Christianity required he carry along the roman nobility who had many gods and were not amenable to the strict discipline they saw in Christianity. He allowed them bring amongst others, the end of the winter solstice (December 25), a holiday they had celebrated for many years as birth of the SUN-god into Christianity as birthday of the SON OF GOD. Same for the festival of Ishtar, the goddess of fertility, which suddenly became Easter.

Some of what he brought in compelled him to turn to the Word of God and try to change it to achieve unity. The council of Nicea decided to bring together the books of the Torah and the writings and accounts of the earlier Apostles into a single volume called the Bible.  By the time Constantine was on his deathbed, Rome had a new power which was not only military political but also religious. The church of Rome or the Papacy. The Pope now sat on the throne of the Caesars and this power had its own interpretation of what Christianity had to be like.

For more information on Constantines' Christianity, see
http://www.reformation.org/pope-constantine.html

My interpretation of my prior post is that Satan had decided to fight against Christianity not only from without but also now from within. Watering down the truth is a far more effective weapon than telling an easily recognizable outright lie. The tortures and killings were only adding to the number of Christians as many onlookers experienced a conversion to the dismay of Rome and Satan.

Now, the christian had a dilemma. We've accepted you, even accepted your religion and changed our festivals to honor YOUR OWN GOD. what then is your reason to continue refusing to negotiate with us? The watering down had started

nuclearboy:

@DeepSight:

Please open another thread and I'll go straight to "that" chase there. What I'm trying to do here is different from what you're asking.

BTW, I like your words. Its how I express myself too when something doesn't make sense to me.

as requested:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-369330.0.html

The ten commandments are sourced from the Jewish Torah which luckily has survived to date. They detail that the Vulgate or Bible of the Catholic Church has changed those commandments. However, the protestant Bibles agree with the Torah in the listing of the commandments. The Roman Church also kept the Scriptures hidden away for hundreds of years and the ordinary man had no access to the Word of God except as preached by Priests on the Altar. Mary became "revered" and "divine", the wafer became the real flesh of Jesus, "purgatory" (a term not found or supported by the Bible) came into the pulpits and so many other things started to happen. These people were interested in Power and so the Pope became "Vicarius Filli Dei" (Vicar of the Son of God), a post other christians believe belongs to the Holy Spirit itself. During the hundreds of years that the Papacy sat astride the world, another notable religion came up. Islam. This too became another major alternative to Christ and in fact claims Jesus was a prophet under their religion. We believe all these were tactics meant to take more and more away from true Christianity as practiced by the early Christians. For more information on the changes effected by the Papacy, see

http://www.reformation.org/vatican-against-orthodox-church.html
http://www.reformation.org/6-constantinian-changes.html

I have offered ALL the above simply because I see so many claims that there are different Christianities with differing number of gods and ideologies. Regardless of the number of Bibles or denominations, there is only 1 Christianity and its not what many think. It is the pure belief system we find in the lives of the early church

@poster.nice one.This is what we need as we celebrate jesus birth

Thanks for this thread, nuclearboy!

@Mavenbox:

All the above is a background. I'd like to treat issues like Destiny, Holiness, Church attendance, Tithes, Marital and other "emotional" relationships etc, providing for each a purely Biblical perspective. Could you please help kick off with "Christian emotional and physical relationships up to and including marriage and the place of both spouses in the union"? Thanks.

nuclearboy:

@Mavenbox:

All the above is a background. I'd like to treat issues like Destiny, Holiness, Church attendance, Tithes, Marital and other "emotional" relationships etc, providing for each a purely Biblical perspective. Could you please help kick off with "Christian emotional and physical relationships up to and including marriage and the place of both spouses in the union"? Thanks.

All right, bro. I may not write a lot at the moment but I can say a bit for now:

From a bird's eye view, the simplest perspective to Christian relationships is to compare with God's relationship with man

Wooing => Jesus' teaching, living by example
Proposal => Jesus' death and resurrection, offer of eternal life
Acceptance => Salvation by faith in Christ
Courtship => A steady walk with the Holy Spirit
Going out, spending time together to understand one another => Diligent Word Study
Constant communication => Prayer
Marriage => Jesus' return for the Church

Considering each of these things carefully will answer ANY question about relationships in Christianity. e.g. there is a level of communication we can have with Christ now, but the deepest level of "intimacy", spiritually speaking, will be when he returns for us. That makes the entire NO pre-marital sex issue very clear (some Christians have stopped preaching this).
1Co 13:12  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
1Jn 3:2  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

My analogy as presented also answers to other questions like dealing with relationships: just think about anything that has to do with relationships, and answer: will God deal with a Christian THIS way? Etc Etc

Will talk more later

nuclearboy:

I'd like to treat issues like Destiny, Holiness, Church attendance, Tithes, Marital and other "emotional" relationships etc, providing for each a purely Biblical perspective.

A 'purely Biblical perspective' - That sounds quite ambitious. IMO, I don't think any single Christian (theologian or lay) could give a 'pure' perspective on any subject of the Bible where loopholes are absent. What you may be able to do is give your own understanding - which again cannot serve as standard for all Christians.

Mavenb0x:

Wooing => Jesus' teaching, living by example
Proposal => Jesus' death and resurrection, offer of eternal life
Acceptance => Salvation by faith in Christ
Courtship => A steady walk with the Holy Spirit
Going out, spending time together to understand one another => Diligent Word Study
Constant communication => Prayer
Marriage => Jesus' return for the Church

Considering each of these things carefully will answer ANY question about relationships in Christianity.

Lol, that analogy is simplistic. There are very many questions about relationships in Christianity that cannot be answered by that comparison. What about the saints who lived before the Incarnation? They surely cannot be termed 'Christian' or be said to have Jesus' teaching to live as example, no? Are those also outside of the 'Bride' of Christ?

I think we should be careful in making very polarised statements. Just my observation.

@Viaro:

This thread is meant to educate ourselves and readers, not wonder what happened to the peoples in ages past? And yes, the analogy is simple but makes sense. No-one can read it and make a case for pre-marital sex. _{[size=8pt][size=8pt]Ehm, actually, we all can (as a function of our lusts but not with Biblical support)[/size][/size]}

@nuclearboy, I get what you're trying to convey and appreciate your efforts.

However, I meant 'simplistic' (not 'simple') in the sense of something being 'characterized by extreme and often misleading simplicity'.

Which was why I wondered that the simplistic generalizations we often make about relationships in Christ may not serve well, especially when we think that such generalizations could answer 'ANY question about relationships in Christianity' - clearly, they do not. They may make some sense; but they do not answer to just 'any question' one may have about relationships in Christianity.

@Viaro:

Did you understand me at all? When I said ANY, I meant it with reference to US who are Christians, not to pre-incarnate saints or Jews or Yisraylites or some aliens in outer space.

THIS is the reason I posted that, by extrapolation:

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Please, understand that when I make posts on Nairaland, I often speak in relation to the understanding of the one that I am replying, and not to everyone. Whoever then does not understand or disagrees, I may attempt to clarify for that one as well. If I could speak one thing and everyone will get their own EXACT PRIVATE interpretation then I guess I may as well be divine

Even YOU cannot make a statement, no matter how simple, and everyone in the world would see it in the same perspective so wetin you dey yarn sef?

@Nuclearboy: Yes. For instance, a friend, a medical doctor, who was my college friend, asked me some months ago what He ought to do when his girl was misbehaving and just being difficult. As simple as that analogy above is, you can see what he OUGHT to do, in light of how God treats us patiently when we are stubborn and running against his Will. It's dead easy, but for those who try to make things complex, it goes over their heads.

Mavenb0x:

Even YOU cannot make a statement, no matter how simple, and everyone in the world would see it in the same perspective so wetin you dey yarn sef?

@mavenb0x, I was not trying to be complex - and if anything, viaro is one guy that likes the KISS method and is quite disinclined to illations that complicate matters. It was that reason that made me clarify what I meant by 'simplistic' rather than simple - your analogy/comparison may be useful, but it is quite misleading; and there, we should avoid making such generalizations that are more problematic than solving enigmas.

Did you understand me at all? When I said ANY, I meant it with reference to US who are Christians, not to pre-incarnate saints or Jews or Yisraylites or some aliens in outer space.

I tried to understand you; but when you said 'ANY question about relationships in Christianity', it seemed to me to be stretching Biblical truth. I shall show this in a moment from the same Ephesians you referenced.

THIS is the reason I posted that, by extrapolation:

Eph 5:23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

That is not all there is in relationship[b]s[/b] (note, plural - relationship[b]s[/b]) in Christianity. In the same Ephesians, those who lived before the Incarnation are definitely included in that relationship: "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him" - Ephesians 1:10. Let's note them carefully:

         1.   God meant to 'gather together', not separately
         2.   This 'gathering together' included all things, not just Christians
         3.   the scope of this is 'both which are in heaven, and which are on earth'
         4.   It is in Christ that all things will be gathered together - IN ONE.

This verse shows us that we should be very broad in our thinking - God's divine economy includes 'ALL things' according to that verse, and not just 'Christians' which are only a portion of that gathering. This scores well with chapter 3:15 of the same Ephesians - Of whom (the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ - v. 14) the whole family in heaven and earth is named' - and on that note I wondered if the whole family excluded those saints who lived before the Incarnation.

Surely God would not be speaking of the whole family in heaven and earth as referring to just 'Christians', especially when His Word says that it is in Christ that He is gathering together all things, no?

Please, understand that when I make posts on Nairaland, I often speak in relation to the understanding of the one that I am replying, and not to everyone. Whoever then does not understand or disagrees, I may attempt to clarify for that one as well. If I could speak one thing and everyone will get their own EXACT PRIVATE interpretation then I guess I may as well be divine

I get you, maven. That was the reason why I said earlier:[list]

IMO, I don't think any single Christian (theologian or lay) could give a 'pure' perspective on any subject of the Bible where loopholes are absent.

[/list]
It happens to everyone, so please understand that viaro was not trying to complicate matters. Rather I was cautioning that we be careful to not make simplistic generalizations which eventually turn out to be more problematic than the solutions we hope to proffer.

@Viaro: I dont think you understand me, yet. When I speak of relationships, I was referring to unions that are geared towards marriage. Then I compared it to a Christian's union with Christ, also geared towards marriage. If one cannot understand the kind of love that Christ has for the church, he cannot understand the kind of love (relating the spiritual to the physical) that is necessary to have a fulfilled romantic relationship. It seems words often fail me *sigh* Thanks.

Mavenb0x:

@Viaro: I dont think you understand me, yet. When I speak of relationships, I was referring to unions that are geared towards marriage.

Possibly, and indeed I could have misunderstood you. Let me explain:

1. You were right on track from the onset, for I understood that you set out to deal with 'Christian emotional and physical relationships up to and including marriage and the place of both spouses in the union'. No problem there.

2. My worry came at reading your 4th paragraph in post #12: 'but the deepest level of "intimacy", spiritually speaking, will be when he returns for us.'. That was what made me wonder - does that 'deepest level' not deal with matters far, far above marriages and romatic relationships? I had in mind those saints who were not married, though. . . and that was what brought about a wider circle of saints than 'Christians' in my post of #14 this thread.

Yes, Maven, I could have misunderstood you between those two points. So no need for me to be stubborn on any point: I already said I appreciate your (and nuclearboy's) efforts in this thread.

@maven
pls check our blackboard.Im waiting

@Mavenbox and Viaro:

Its all so simple really!

High intellect has the tendency to try to over-simplify and then you find other high intellects needing to read meaning where there's none. I doubt either of you should feel bad that the other has a really high intellect. I think Viaros' mind just kept going and took it to levels Mavenbox didn't intend and then her own mind spun into gear and on and on and on

Imagine a marriage between such! Hell would run and hide 

@ OP

The thread seems overly ambitious. why should the narrative in the OP be believed by anyone? and why defend Christianity?
Considering that historical analyses are usually constructed to suit a preconceived agenda. . .what then is the use of this exercise? and whats the ulterior motive behind this? why is the narration above believable?

Christianity has to do more with faith and an incessant relationship with the father. . . . .that explains the collection of scriptures called the bible. attempts at constructing historical paths like this are not only deceptive and misleading but also aid confusion and misinform the saints of God.

The bible is enough reference for true believers.

noetic15:

@ OP

The thread seems overly ambitious. why should the narrative in the OP be believed by anyone? [b]and why defend Christianity? [/b]Considering that historical analyses are usually constructed to suit a preconceived agenda. . .what then is the use of this exercise? and whats the ulterior motive behind this? why is the narration above believable?

Christianity has to do more with faith and an incessant relationship with the father. . . . .that explains the collection of scriptures called the bible. attempts at constructing historical paths like this are not only deceptive and misleading but also aid confusion and misinform the saints of God.

The bible is enough reference for true believers.

True and genuine christianity established by the apostles is what is being defended not the adulterated man modified version that is being practised today by various denominations all giving the impression that they are practising true christianity.

how then do we authenticate ur so called \"genuine Christianity established by the apostles \"?


The point is that ur so called analogy is fraudulent.

1. The historical path to the genuine teachings of the apostles is not a highway. There are several divergent views on it all. . .how and why should anyone take the OP or ur submissions as a true or final authority? why should anyone believe the analogy on this thread? why are the other versions of history on this subject false? why is urs alone right?

2. The teachings of the apostles can be found in the bible. . . .some of them have written gospels or letters which are part of the bible.
But the core teaching of the apostles is a Christ-like life which explains the continuous emphasis on the scriptures about Jesus. anyone looking for the core teachings of the apostles does not need this thread. . .the bible contains sufficient information.

3. u call all other versions of Christianity false and call urs right simply because u choose to include the poor, widowed and fatherless (while u have no sufficient proof to show that others are ignoring this creed of Christ). Good. . . .but the essence of Christianity is fellowship with fellow saints in God and NOT a one man crusade like u try to make it. From that point of view, ur attempts look more hypocritical than genuine IMO.

4. apostle Paul took this same route that u (kunleOshob) are taking. . . . .but He planted churches that fellow-shiped with other xtians every where he went to, while emphasizing the need to give to the poor and needy.

noetic15:

why should anyone believe the analogy on this thread?

Lol, noetic15. . there's nothing super-tight about analogies, so that should not be such a problem to readers. I reckon I made the mistake of seeing far too much and having great expectations in the OP and subsequent posts. On the whole, analogies are helpful - and we can appreciate the efforts here while hoping to make our own contributions inbetween, yes?

___________________

nuclearboy:

@Mavenbox and Viaro:

Its all so simple really!

High intellect has the tendency to try to over-simplify and then you find other high intellects needing to read meaning where there's none. I doubt either of you should feel bad that the other has a really high intellect. I think Viaros' mind just kept going and took it to levels Mavenbox didn't intend and then her own mind spun into gear and on and on and on

Imagine a marriage between such! Hell would run and hide

Hehe. . nuclearboy, thank you, I heed your call.

@Maven, hugs - let's get on with the thread.

I actually think NOETIC the 15th ( ) makes sense. Problem is he doesn't seem to get the point here. When I thought of this issue, NOETIC15, my propellant was comments passed on this forum (especially by Muslims), that we do not know what we serve and that Christianity is multi-faceted. You repeatedly come across phrases like "three gods", "many bibles and versions differing from each other" etc.

I thought to re-align and show that there was a deliberate concerted effort to derail Christianity from ages past whist re-iterating that Yes, this seems to have been done but true Christianity does exist disparate from all of those efforts. I personally had a long tortured walk in Christianity which saw me come in and go back out a number of times before I understood many things about the "corruption of the Bible" etc. Did you ever read the Vulgate? Did you notice the 10 commandments in it are different from those in the KJV? Have you ever wondered about what Easter eggs and Rabbits have to do with Jesus? There's a great deal more confusing many young believers and helping others outside to stay outside.

Such things made me think of telling a story that those confused as I once once could check. There obviously remains a great deal I didn't include but pointing readers towards the online references I made would help a true seeker to find his answers.

That was my intention, Sir. To point such as I was before in the right direction so they could understand and defend their faith.

nuclearboy:

That was my intention, Sir. To point such as I was before in the right direction so they could understand and defend their faith.

A sort of apologetics? Okay, let's keep the thread going.

so he waited until he no longer had to do such things and thus was baptized only on his death-bed. Still,[b] he was the 1st Pope[/b

]

This is the most ridiculous post of the year,the roman emperor constantine the first pope ??!!!

Did he ever sit on that seat ?

I ve said it over and over again ,the office of the bishop of rome and the catholic church has existed centuries before the birth and ascension of this man constantine.It is erroneaously beleived by sme protestants that this man constantine empowered the church of rome and corrupted christianity,this is very far from the truth.

constantine was never pope and he did not even pretend to be one.

Some of what he brought in compelled him to turn to the Word of God and try to change it to achieve unity. The council of Nicea decided to bring together the books of the Torah and the writings and accounts of the earlier Apostles into a single volume called the Bible.

The council of nicea did not discuss the canon of the scripture,it was not even mentioned in that council,the bible was decided about sixty years after the death of the emperor constantine by the synod of hippo in 393 CE and the council of carthage in 397 CE.

@NUCLEARBY

STOP FEEDING PEOPLE WITH LIES,I VE ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE BEFORE. IF YOU WANT AUTHENTIC INFORMATION GO TO WIKIPEDIA,THERE ANY INFORMATION PASTED CAN BE CHALLENGED AND ERRONEOUS ONES REMOVED

@Chukwudi44:

Hello there. I've been expecting you'd get here sooner or later. I actually wished for sooner as it provides a prompt opportunity to present information, not only to yourself but a lot of other readers.

I want you to know I do not belong to ANY Church system. I'm not protestant or Seventh-day or pentecostal or whatever. I am a believer and NO ONE stands between me and God as mediator.

I know you're Catholic and needs must defend that faith. But you and other readers might want to take a look at the following and make up your minds as to the role the RCC has played in Christianity

WAS CONSTANTINE POPE?
http://www.reformation.org/pope-constantine.html
http://www.themillennialdispensation.org/kcttaoc.html
http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question36118.html

NEGATING PETER BEING THE FIRST POPE
http://www.bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm
http://www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/peterpope.htm

Now lets suppose the version you heard puts another name as the second pope after Peter. The web after-all allows anyone put whatever information they wish on it.

Where did anyone get the idea that Peter was pope? What about the changes you have today in your ten commandments which differ from what the Torah, its source says? The canonization of human beings? Your decision that Mary is the Mother of God. The Idols you set up everywhere when plainly the Torah states "MAKE NO GRAVEN IMAGES"? Your insistence that a wafer is the actual flesh of Jesus simply because a Priest mumbled over it? Where do you get purgatory from? And there are dozens more of issues like this

Give a scriptural backing for ANY of the above or else you just accepted that you guys created a new brand of Christianity separate from what the Apostles practiced which is simply what this thread is about. You sought to change the WORD OF GOD, HIS LAWS and THE PRACTICES OF THE APOSTLES. You also brought in DOCTRINES UNKNOWN TO THE APOSTLES.