*** Burning

I find it interesting to note that in the bible, god killed untold multitudes of people (including babies and children). Usually though extremely unpleasant methods like drowning, burning and plague.

Satan killed around 10.

I don't know where the morality is.

I usually avoid posting about religion- but I just don't understand the logic of divorce being worse than murder. Market research being worse than murder. stability deprivision being worse than murder.

Desmond, I'm sorry but I don't get it.

One interesting thing that I like to think about is that the Antichrist is reckoned to precede the end times. If we are approaching the end times, I wonder if people look to the newly elected leader of the free world, who wouldn't know how to live by one of Jesus's principles if it hit them in the face, and think... "hang on... wait a minute.. maybe, just maybe I have go this all wrong?!"

Infodump from a special interest I phased through about 30 years ago…

The original Christians were what is now described as gnostics. They believed that the god of the Old Testament (who liked all the murder and cruelty) was in fact a fake god (the demiurge) who had trapped our divine souls in a corrupt physical realm.

The real god then sent Jesus to provide us with the knowledge (gnosis) to free our souls from this prison.

It was the Romans who later very much changed the nature of Christianity to what we see now.

I’m very much an atheist but the beliefs of the early Christians seem more sensible and consistent than those they were replaced with.

<infodump ends>

The early Christians were a VERY broad "church" consisting  of many differing theologies.  Paul  -v- James was the main battle of theology (from what i can gather) but i do agree that Gnostic theologies (difficult to define) also abounded.  It was a fascinating and  messy time.

History is generally  'established' by the victors, for good or ill.  This is why the Nag Hammadi library and the Dead Sea Scrolls are so fascinating = sets of "history" written/stashed by some of the loosers....for us to find just 80 years ago.

I still find this period of recent human history fascinating...... and like you....I don't feel a need to "pound a personal narrative."  It's just interesting.  Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to discuss these topics.....everyone is so utterly polarised these days.

I'm enjoying this thread, the input and the discussion  - thanks :-)  Everyone is so polarised? - maybe not   :-)

I've often wondered about that too, Martin, along with other questions like how things would be different if Harold Godwinson had won the Battle of Hastings, what if Boudicca had managed to kick the Romans out, what if Hannibal had beaten the Romans?

I think Oswiu's descision was largely political, to quote Lucilla from Gladiator, 'Once there was an idea that was Rome', I think this idea cast a very long shadow, nearly all the rest of western Europe was part of the Roman Church and of course there would of still been lots of Roman structures, artifacts and of course roads. I think Oswiu wanted to be part of a larger Europe rather than an insular one, trade with Europe was a big thing then as it is now. Another what if, is if we'd not have had Edward the Confessor rather than another decendent of Cnut would we have turned our political attention south rather north towards Scandinavia?

I agree with, and have some understanding of, all that you say.  I believe Paul had MUCH more money than James.......and that could explain a lot!

The one thing about Jesus of Nazareth that I would DEARLY like to understand (because I think it would shine a bright light on what he was really about)......is......where was he in his formative years!!?  NOTHING AT ALL is written about him from infancy to the year of his death.  I find this a fascinating fact.

One of the big 'what ifs' is what if Oswiu, King of the Northumbrians, had come down on the side of the Celtic Church he had been raised in at the Synod of Whitby. He was largely raised in exile in Ireland.

My area of interest in Medieval History is the Anglo-Saxon conversion period, I read quite extensively on what was going on in both the Catholic and Celtic branches of Christianity, I've also tried to research the British Christianity of the time. We know that there were Christians in Britain during the Roman period as there's some documentary evidence as well as much more archaelogical evidence, mostly from house churches, we're fairly sure, almost certain that Christianity survived  the collapse of Rome as an Imperial power and the withdrawl of what ever scraps of legions who were still here and felt loyal to Rome. Romano-British life continued cerainly in the West of Britian and presumably many other areas too, but we don't know what it was, how it was practised etc. St Patrick was a Briton, son of a Chrisian priest before his capture and enslavement by the Irish, who when he escaped them, went back to to convert them, but again, we don't know what type of Chrisianity it was. It almost certainly wasn't the Roman version because if it was and even if he was the first to evangelise in Ireland, which is historically questionable, did the Irish church have so many differences to the Roman one within a couple of centuries? The Irish Church, had a different calculation for the date of Easter, a different tonsure and a different system of hierarchy with abbots rather than bishops being the senior. One of the reasons this is thought to have come about is because bishops were metropolitan, their sees being based around cities and towns, Ireland whilst it certainly had population centres was largely rural and agricultural. Monastic centres rose up and abbots and abbesses were the leaders not just of their foundations, but of the wider church.

I've often wondered if the early British and Irish churches had more in common with what became Greek Orthodoxy, they too date easter differently to the Roman church. It could be that they were influenced by other non Roman Chrisitans such as the Copts or the Gnostics, one of the things noticeable if you really study the carpet pages of the Lindisfarne Gospels is the ecumenicism, the different types of cross used in those pages.

I too have often wondered if a lot of what we call Christianity is really Paulanity? And how did Paul manage to push James aside and become de-facto leader and main influencer of the later church? Paul never met Jesus, whereas James being Jesus's brother must have grown up with him and have known quite well what he actually said, his intentions for the direction of the church founded in his name and most importantly if it was to remain a totally Jewish sect, which James taught, or if it was open to Gentiles as Paul taught?

I'm not really into swapping tales of murders and horrors, numbers of persecuted etc because it's pretty meaningless, especially at a distance of 2000 years, or even 500 years, we can make estimates and educated guesses but we don't actually know.

My area of interest in Medieval History is the Anglo-Saxon conversion period, I read quite extensively on what was going on in both the Catholic and Celtic branches of Christianity, I've also tried to research the British Christianity of the time. We know that there were Christians in Britain during the Roman period as there's some documentary evidence as well as much more archaelogical evidence, mostly from house churches, we're fairly sure, almost certain that Christianity survived  the collapse of Rome as an Imperial power and the withdrawl of what ever scraps of legions who were still here and felt loyal to Rome. Romano-British life continued cerainly in the West of Britian and presumably many other areas too, but we don't know what it was, how it was practised etc. St Patrick was a Briton, son of a Chrisian priest before his capture and enslavement by the Irish, who when he escaped them, went back to to convert them, but again, we don't know what type of Chrisianity it was. It almost certainly wasn't the Roman version because if it was and even if he was the first to evangelise in Ireland, which is historically questionable, did the Irish church have so many differences to the Roman one within a couple of centuries? The Irish Church, had a different calculation for the date of Easter, a different tonsure and a different system of hierarchy with abbots rather than bishops being the senior. One of the reasons this is thought to have come about is because bishops were metropolitan, their sees being based around cities and towns, Ireland whilst it certainly had population centres was largely rural and agricultural. Monastic centres rose up and abbots and abbesses were the leaders not just of their foundations, but of the wider church.

I've often wondered if the early British and Irish churches had more in common with what became Greek Orthodoxy, they too date easter differently to the Roman church. It could be that they were influenced by other non Roman Chrisitans such as the Copts or the Gnostics, one of the things noticeable if you really study the carpet pages of the Lindisfarne Gospels is the ecumenicism, the different types of cross used in those pages.

I too have often wondered if a lot of what we call Christianity is really Paulanity? And how did Paul manage to push James aside and become de-facto leader and main influencer of the later church? Paul never met Jesus, whereas James being Jesus's brother must have grown up with him and have known quite well what he actually said, his intentions for the direction of the church founded in his name and most importantly if it was to remain a totally Jewish sect, which James taught, or if it was open to Gentiles as Paul taught?

I'm not really into swapping tales of murders and horrors, numbers of persecuted etc because it's pretty meaningless, especially at a distance of 2000 years, or even 500 years, we can make estimates and educated guesses but we don't actually know.

I've often wondered about that too, Martin, along with other questions like how things would be different if Harold Godwinson had won the Battle of Hastings, what if Boudicca had managed to kick the Romans out, what if Hannibal had beaten the Romans?

I think Oswiu's descision was largely political, to quote Lucilla from Gladiator, 'Once there was an idea that was Rome', I think this idea cast a very long shadow, nearly all the rest of western Europe was part of the Roman Church and of course there would of still been lots of Roman structures, artifacts and of course roads. I think Oswiu wanted to be part of a larger Europe rather than an insular one, trade with Europe was a big thing then as it is now. Another what if, is if we'd not have had Edward the Confessor rather than another decendent of Cnut would we have turned our political attention south rather north towards Scandinavia?

I agree with, and have some understanding of, all that you say.  I believe Paul had MUCH more money than James.......and that could explain a lot!

The one thing about Jesus of Nazareth that I would DEARLY like to understand (because I think it would shine a bright light on what he was really about)......is......where was he in his formative years!!?  NOTHING AT ALL is written about him from infancy to the year of his death.  I find this a fascinating fact.

One of the big 'what ifs' is what if Oswiu, King of the Northumbrians, had come down on the side of the Celtic Church he had been raised in at the Synod of Whitby. He was largely raised in exile in Ireland.