How diverse was early Christianity? An overview of the Bauer Thesis
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- RTS Charlotte presents a series of talks on early Christianity with Dr. Michael Kruger and Dr. Andreas Köstenberger (Part 2/6)
For more RTS videos:
• Playlist
For more on RTS:
www.rts.edu
This video should have thousands and thousands more views. It is essential for Christians to understand the Bauer Thesis and its influence in our 21st century world.
The core argument here seems to be, "early Christianity was not diverse because the New Testament (the book compiled by orthodox Christians who rejected lots of other early Christian writings) does not show this diversity." What a stunning display of circular reasoning.
I don’t think that they deny the fact that Christianity was diverse.
The existence of heresies always existed.
I think that the NT and the patriotic shows that the orthodox Christianity, that one coming from the first century , was the dominant strand of Christianity.
@@StrivingMen ua-cam.com/video/7hppV_8uA8s/v-deo.html
I know this is very old, but someone else may read it like I just did and have that same question. Yes, there was diversity in the the belief of transubstantiation. Actually, there was a LOT of diversity of thought and practice in every aspect. The doctrine wasn't affirmed until Innocent III called the series of Lathern Councils, with this issue being affirmed at the Council of 1215. This is also when it was ordered that all members would confess sins to the priests in person in hopes the priest might be able to control some of the heretical ideas circulating. The early church was wild!
Great video
Non-Pauline doctrines would have been heretical in Pauline cults, and Pauline doctrine would have been heretical in non-Pauline cults. There may well have been a diversity of Christ cults despite lack of tolerance within eac one.
❤
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
Good stuff, but is that a wig?
What book did they write in which they criticize Bauer?
Stopped listening at 2:40 when he stated Edessa is east of Jerusalem. As the primary direction to go from Jerusalem to Edessa is North by far and only a little east, if they are making errors this basic, you really have to wonder if they know what they're talking about at all. Here's a Google Map showing a drive from Jerusalem to Edessa by the way: www.google.com/maps/dir/Jerusalem,+Israel/Şanlıurfa,+Şanlıurfa+Province,+Turkey/@34.4210099,32.3649132,6z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x1502d7d634c1fc4b:0xd96f623e456ee1cb!2m2!1d35.21371!2d31.768319!1m5!1m1!1s0x153471ebdc619091:0x8e788516b709466c!2m2!1d38.7955149!2d37.1674039!3e0
"Modern day Turkey" was his vertical direction. "East of Jerusalem" was his horizontal. Use context clues.
Looks like the basic error was made by Rho 😂
Four major urban centers: Rome, Ephesus, Alexandria, Turkey
The Catholic asks: Where was the diversity on the subjects below?
Can one cite anyone in these four major urban centers who professed :
*- that Jesus was speaking symbolically only on the Lord's Supper?*
_52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him._
Or did Christians in these areas believe literally, that the Bread and Wine became Christ's Body and Blood (resurrected) ? What does the evidence show? And if Christians in all these areas professed what Catholic's believe, doesn't that indicate that the apostles taught their descendants the same? If true, why would anyone want to believe differently? On what basis?
*- that baptism is symoblic only, not regenerative or salvific?* Again, the same questions above apply.
_Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you_ (1 Pet 3:21)
What does the evidence show? If Christians in all four major centers professed that baptism was salvific and/or regenerative, a sacrament, doesn't this indicate that the apostles taught their descendants the same, and that this teaching spread across the world at this time? If true, why would anyone 2000 years later profess differently? On what basis, sola scriptura?
They can just go to the church's fathers as early as 1st century and read what they believe which was taught by the apostols themselves. But maybe they would sound too catholic to consider them authentic...
your invited to more theology at Nugget of Truth..thanks for your posts :)
Now a days more and more people believes in Baur and Ehrman thesis as well as James Dunn and others.