christianity from paganism

[Chatelaine]

I particularly mean the council of Nicaea. There were bishops from all Roman, defining God. The nicene creed and the holy trinity are heavily influenced by pagan philosophy. in nicaea they made father god, son god, and holy spirit god. the bible never says son and holy spirit are god.

The Council of Nicaea was the first attempt to attain consensus through assembly, because, as it happens with everything, the more an idea spreads, the more inventively it gets interpreted. The Church, especially in those times of precarious communication, had to be on the same page on which interpretation would be considered correct. Hence, Nicene Creed.

The New Testament canon was not yet complete at the time of Nicaea. The first canon listing we have dates from 367AD, and it was not even officially adopted until a few decades later. Taking the Bible alone and at face value as a source is a Protestant thing. The early Church sifted through layers and nuances like nobody's business. Have a look here - and that's just what has been salvaged.

[Hariti]

The first Christians were all pagans and their thinking was paganistic.

You are half right; some of them were Jews.

[Hariti]

No they weren't. They were Jews.

You are also half right. Some of them were pagans, some of them were Jewish. There were both.

[Hariti]

The vast majority of early Christians were functionally illiterate and didn't have and relied on teachers from their cultures to explain things to them.

I'm not so sure about this. Define "early."

If you mean in the early third century onward, once it became a popular movement, sure, that's more or less accurate. However, I've read that during the first two centuries, it was actually most common for middle class and upper class people to become Christian, and that literacy among early Christian communities was quite common.

The stereotypical late-classical/medieval framework of an educated Bishop with an illiterate congregation was something that came about later in the history of the Church. Most of the original Christians were literate.

I could be wrong about this. I'm just going by what I've read in the following books:
*The World of Late Antiquity, by Peter Brown
*The Early Christian Centuries, by Philip Rousseau
*Lost Christianities, by Bart Ehrman

[Hariti]

he definitely was a monotheist and not a Pagan.

In the ancient Mediterranean, those two things weren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Chatelaine]

I'm not so sure about this. Define "early."

If you mean in the early third century onward, once it became a popular movement, sure, that's more or less accurate. However, I've read that during the first two centuries, it was actually most common for middle class and upper class people to become Christian, and that literacy among early Christian communities was quite common.

The stereotypical late-classical/medieval framework of an educated Bishop with an illiterate congregation was something that came about later in the history of the Church. Most of the original Christians were literate.

I could be wrong about this. I'm just going by what I've read in the following books:
*The World of Late Antiquity, by Peter Brown
*The Early Christian Centuries, by Philip Rousseau
*Lost Christianities, by Bart Ehrman

From what I gathered, mostly through university courses, in the very early 'quaint Jewish sect' days, Christianity was dismissed by the Roman government, local and central, as a religion of slaves and women. It began to be seen as a threat in need of active suppression once it started spreading among upper-class citizens and treason (in the form of pacifism and/or rejection of imperial divinity) became a possibility. Of course those citizens and their entourages were literate, and that's where the first generations of bishops and Church Fathers came from. Their women generally were not, beyond some rudimentary skills (with enlightened exceptions), neither were the poor and the slaves, all of whom made the bulk of the congregation.

Plus, when your religion is underground because being identified as a member means torture and death, you can't exactly go about making copies of every letter the great preachers send to your bishop so everyone can have one at home and keep on top of developments. Too much evidence.

[Hariti]

Their women generally were not, beyond some rudimentary skills (with enlightened exceptions), neither were the poor and the slaves, all of whom made the bulk of the congregation.

You are right, in general terms, but I do find it telling that Shepherd of Hermes, the single most widely read Christian book in the first five centuries A.D. (outpacing even the various Gospels of the time), was written by a slave. Christianity promoted literacy, even among it's unprivileged followers. 

[Chatelaine]

You are right, in general terms, but I do find it telling that Shepherd of Hermes, the single most widely read Christian book in the first five centuries A.D. (outpacing even the various Gospels of the time), was written by a slave. Christianity promoted literacy, even among it's unprivileged followers.

It certainly did. They took 'all one in Christ Jesus' seriously back then.

(As an aside, I find Roman slavery fascinating in the sheer amount of social mobility it incorporated. Privileged people could end up slaves for debt or as punishment for something their family had done, and otherwise completely common people could rise in their masters' households to places of power they'd never have access to as free people. I can't think of another culture where status could be so fluid.)

[ehbowen]

I can't think of another culture where status could be so fluid.

[In case the video goes down: Clip of Yakov Smirnoff in Brewster's Millions [1985]. Intended as a humorous response to the post above.)

[MadZealot]

the bible never says son and holy spirit are god.

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -- II Corinthians 3:17.

For in Christ all fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form... -- Colossians 2:9

"I and the Father are one." -- John 10:30

"The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel ('God with us'). -- Matthew 28:19

The nicene creed and the holy trinity are heavily influenced by pagan philosophy. 

[citation needed]

[arete]

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -- II Corinthians 3:17.

For in Christ all fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form... -- Colossians 2:9

"I and the Father are one." -- John 10:30

"The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel ('God with us'). -- Matthew 28:19

[citation needed]

neoplatonism was the major influence, the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism_and_Christianity about orthodoxy says a lot. I don't know about caholics, but orthodox christians are practicaly pagan risen.

[MadZealot]

neoplatonism was the major influence, the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism_and_Christianity about orthodoxy says a lot. I don't know about caholics, but orthodox christians are practicaly pagan risen.

A major influence, I'd agree, but surely there's more to the development of Christian orthodoxy than the writings of St Augustine alone?

As for Neo-Platonism, I'm generally aware of what it is, but what exactly is pagan about it, other than it being espoused by people who happened to be pagan?

[Hariti]

As for Neo-Platonism, I'm generally aware of what it is, but what exactly is pagan about it, other than it being espoused by people who happened to be pagan?

By that logic, what's pagan about consulting oracles, or worshiping Zeus? Those are just theological standpoints that were espoused by people who happened to be pagan as well.

If something is:
A) Overtly theological in nature
B) Put forth by followers of a specific religion

Then I would say that it's rooted in that religion. Karma is Dharmic, Purgatory is Catholic, double predestinarianism is Calvinist, so why shouldn't Platonism be considered Pagan?

It was invented by a Pagan, practiced, taught, and refined by pagans, and expressly explained in Hellenistic, Pagan terms. Just because Christians adopted it long after it's creation and use by Pagans, doesn't change it from a Pagan philosophy, any more than 19th century theosophists adopting Karma makes it non-Dharmic.

[Chatelaine]

neoplatonism was the major influence, the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism_and_Christianity about orthodoxy says a lot. I don't know about caholics, but orthodox christians are practicaly pagan risen.

A better article (link heavy, but worth it): http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2014/04/08/early-churchs-choice-between-neoplatonism/

[Yei]

A major influence, I'd agree, but surely there's more to the development of Christian orthodoxy than the writings of St Augustine alone?

As for Neo-Platonism, I'm generally aware of what it is, but what exactly is pagan about it, other than it being espoused by people who happened to be pagan?

Wasn't Neo-Patonism a response, or became a response, to pressure exerted on traditional religion by Christianity?I know that several prominent Roman figures such as Julian the Apostate, modified polytheistic worship into something with more structure, mainly to counter Christianity's growing power. Furthermore, it is just as likely that polytheistic religions absorbed Christian ideas as vice-versa, making them more structured and defined in the process. I've seen it happen in my own religion. Influence is a two way street.