Talk:Diversity in early Christian theology

Orphaned references in Diversity in early Christian theology
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Diversity in early Christian theology's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CC": From East–West Schism: Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972 From Athanasius of Alexandria: Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972. From Irenaeus: Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972 From Early Christianity: Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972 From Augustine of Hippo:  From Christianity in the 3rd century: Will Durant. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972, isbn: 1-56731-014-1 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely missing ...
... is trinitarism, just one branch in this diversity. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Diversity in early Christian theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223092632/http://www.lutterworth.com:80/jamesclarke/jc/titles/makingof.htm to http://www.lutterworth.com/jamesclarke/jc/titles/makingof.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Bauer's thesis
According to Bart Ehrman himself, scholars have shred to pieces every argument made by Bauer in support of his thesis, nevertheless, Bauer's thesis still stands and it is broadly accepted at mainstream universities. Same applies to the apocalyptic Jesus from Albert Schweitzer's study. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Tgeorgescu: If by saying that "Bauer's thesis still stands and it is broadly accepted at mainstream universities" you mean that virtually all scholars agree that early Christianity constituted a wide spectrum of different theologically diverse groups, then you are right (indeed, even the most conservative scholars and historians would agree with that claim too).
 * If by saying "Bauer's thesis still stands and it is broadly accepted at mainstream universities" you mean that all ancient Christian groups were equally ancient and had an equal claim to the apostolic tradition of the 1st century, then not all scholars and historians would agree (see Larry Hurtado as an example). Many of the groups which are named in this article only appear in the 2nd century or later. Potatín5 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * But we know that the claim to the apostolic tradition of the 1st century is rhetoric and propaganda rather than real history. It seems that the paupers who were chosen by Jesus to represent him (i.e. the Petrine Christianity) were defeated by the apostle Paul. So almost all we know about Jesus was censored by the Pauline Christianity, and represent Pauline views rather than the views of Jesus and his chosen apostles. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: Are you again proposing the old Hegelian reconstruction of early Christian history upon which it is hold that there was a conflict between "Pauline Christians" (thesis) and "Petrine Christian" (antithesis) and that from that conflict the proto-Catholics (synthesis) emerged later, as Ferdinand Christian Baur argued in the 19th century? Potatín5 (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't think there was a synthesis of the two. The offshoots of the Petrine Christianity were later hunted down as heretics.
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Catholic scholars behind the Catholic Encyclopedia state on the relationship between Peter and Paul: "Between Peter and Paul there was no dogmatic difference in their conception of salvation for Jewish and Gentile Christians. The recognition of Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles (Galatians 2:1-9) was entirely sincere, and excludes all question of a fundamental divergence of views." If Peter himself recognized Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles, them he seems not to have disagree with Paul in anything relevant. Potatín5 (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's what traditional Catholic dogma says. But mainstream Bible scholars (including Catholics) beg to disagree. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * James D. G. Dunn was a mainstream Bible scholar and he would disagree more with you than with the CE. Potatín5 (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As Bart Ehrman stated, “We don’t know how this dispute resolved itself. This is one of those instances when we hear only one side of the argument, and it’s never safe to assume that the side that reports the debate is the one that came out on top. Still, there is something remarkably consistent about the incident. Peter, once more acting rashly without thinking out the consequences, changed his mind, repented of his behavior, and was rebuked for it. The Rock appears to be sand.” So, Paul's report of the situation should be treated with a healthy amount of skepticism. If Paul would have admitted that Peter does not like Paul's preaching, and continued not to like it, that would have ruined all his claim of being an apostle himself. So, maybe there is no historical evidence that Petrine Christianity was at odds with Pauline Christianity, there is still reason to doubt the official dogma.
 * E.g.
 * Anyway, my claim is that the Petrine Christianity was just a footnote in the history of Christianity.
 * So, yeah, mainstream Bible scholars don't have to agree that Petrine Christianity was at odds with Pauline Christianity, but they have surely noticed that there is something fishy with the stories about the relationship between Peter and Paul.
 * A very readable overview is this: https://medium.com/@bcoverston/the-great-apostasy-2b12d25c9640 tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A very readable overview is this: https://medium.com/@bcoverston/the-great-apostasy-2b12d25c9640 tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Ask anyone who has recently studied Biblical studies at any mainstream university, and they will tell you that the notion that 1st century Christians believed in the Nicene Holy Trinity is pseudohistory. It is very easy to attack it as Ehrman's view until it suddenly dawns upon you that it is the view of every university from the Ivy League and the view of every US state university. It is the consensus view of Bible professors from the mainstream academia, including Christian professors (Protestants, Catholics, and so on).

Drawing the necessary conclusion: you're WP:SOAPBOXING for WP:FRINGE views. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Tgeorgescu: It is widely agreed that what you refer as the "Nicene Holy Trinity" predates the Council of Nicaea by several centuries. The first attested usage of the word Trinity appears in the writings of Tertulian, while Theophilus of Antioch already had used a very similar word earlier. You can check this Spanish article about the doctrine of the Trinity in the ante-Nicene Fathers if you want.
 * And yes, scholars and historians agree that there was a theological development between the 1st century and the conciliar definition of the doctrine. But this does not mean that the basic elements of the doctrine upon which later theologians elaborated it in a systematic way did not have their roots in the 1st century. Here in this point opinions are more divided. Potatín5 (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "According to Badcock virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent This also applies to Irenaeus and Tertullian and to Origen. The doctrine was also taught by Hippolytus, Justin Martyr and Novatian. Also being found in the Ascension of Isaiah. However Subordinationism wasn't taught by every single one of the early theologians, no indications of subordination of the Son to the Father exist in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch or in the early Odes of Solomon."
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: Subordinationism is not a non-trinitarian theological position. Potatín5 (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, it isn't Nicene either. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: I have already stated that there was some development in the early history of the Trinity. Potatín5 (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: I have already stated that there was some development in the early history of the Trinity. Potatín5 (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Missing citation
The phrase “ The sect's ecstasy, speaking in tongues, and other details are similar to those found in modern Pentecostalism.” has no citation and seems to be opinion. 173.17.232.242 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)