WI: Different early Christianity

What if the catholic and orthodox viewpoints lost out and other Christian groups rose to prominence. What if we had Christianity based on.

Adoptionism
Arianism
Donatism
Pelagism
Gnostic influences
Hellenic pagan influenced Christianity
Christianity that doesn't recognize Jesus as the son of god.
 
How could you have a Christianity that believes Jesus isn't the son of god? That being the basis that Christianity is founded on, I don't think you cannhaavenit without that .

Unless you mean they believe only that Jesus was god , not his son ?
 
No Messalians?

Anyways it would be very interesting to see how it plays out

At the same time it would be interesting to see Islam come about as a heresy of Christianity

I cant see the last one on that list as Christiniaty at all
 
To elaborate on that last one. They would believe that Jesus was the messiah and redeemer of mankind through his sacrifice on the cross. But, at the same time, they would deny that Jesus was actually the son of god.
 
Hellenic pagan influenced Christianity

Would a Christianity with more influences from the Hellenic faiths have an earlier influence on Rome, or expand faster and earlier than it would without the influences? If so, would certain Roman/Greek practices (such as animal sacrifice) become a major part of the emerging faith.

Christianity that doesn't recognize Jesus as the son of god.

If the early "Christians" ultimately rejected Jesus' status as the son of god, and only adopted his teachings and morals, his "religion" would essentially devolve into another Jewish denomination, or a faith linked quite closely to Judaism. IMO, this is the most interesting of all the choices, and would make for a good timeline.
 
I wonder. Would an adoptionist be able to declare themselves as another adopted son of god? If enough people accept it that could spiral off into a new religion.
 
Just a quick response...there were early Christian sects that struggled with the divinity of Jesus...I'll see if I can locate some references
 
Would a Christianity with more influences from the Hellenic faiths have an earlier influence on Rome, or expand faster and earlier than it would without the influences? If so, would certain Roman/Greek practices (such as animal sacrifice) become a major part of the emerging faith.



If the early "Christians" ultimately rejected Jesus' status as the son of god, and only adopted his teachings and morals, his "religion" would essentially devolve into another Jewish denomination, or a faith linked quite closely to Judaism. IMO, this is the most interesting of all the choices, and would make for a good timeline.

He could just be a Western Buddha.
 
Heres some food for thought.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies#Trinitarian.2FChristological
[FONT=&quot]Trinitarian/Christological Heresies[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Heresy[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Description[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Origin[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Official Condemnation[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Other[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Adoptionism[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Belief that Jesus was born as a mere (non-divine) man,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was supremely virtuous and that he was adopted later as "Son of God" by the descent of the Spirit on him.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Propounded by Theodotus of Byzantium, a leather merchant, in Rome c.190, later revived by Paul of Samosata [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Theodotus was excommunicated by Pope Victor and Paul was condemned by the Synod of Antioch in 268[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Alternative names: Psilanthropism and Dynamic Monarchianism.[9] Later criticized as presupposing Nestorianism (see below)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Apollinarism[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Belief that Jesus had a human body and lower soul (the seat of the emotions) but a divine mind.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Apollinaris further taught that the souls of men were propagated by other souls, as well as their bodies. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]proposed by Apollinaris of Laodicea (died 390)[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Declared to be a heresy in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Arianism[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Denial of the true divinity of Jesus Christ taking various specific forms[/FONT][FONT=&quot], but all agreed that Jesus Christ was created by the Father, that he had a beginning in time, and that the title "Son of God" was a courtesy one.[10] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The doctrine is associated with Arius (ca. AD 250––336) who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Arius was first pronounced a heretic at the First Council of Nicea, he was later exonerated as a result of imperial pressure and finally declared a heretic after his death. The heresy was finally resolved in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]All forms denied that Jesus Christ is "consubstantial with the Father" but proposed either "similar in substance", or "similar", or "dissimilar" as the correct alternative.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Docetism[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Tendencies existed in the 1st century, but it was most notably embraced by Gnostics in subsequent centuries.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Docetism was rejected by the ecumenical councils and mainstream Christianity, and largely died out during the first millennium AD. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Gnostic movements that survived past that time, such as Catharism, incorporated docetism into their beliefs, but such movements were destroyed by the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Luciferians[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Strongly anti-Arian sect in Sardinia [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Founded by Lucifer Calaritanus a bishop of Cagliari[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Deemed heretical by Jerome in his Altercatio Luciferiani et orthodoxi[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Macedonians or[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Pneumatomachians[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]("Spirit fighters")[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]While accepting the divinity of Jesus Christ as affirmed at Nicea in 325, they denied that of the Holy Spirit which they saw as a creation of the Son, and a servant of the Father and the Son [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Allegedly founded in 4th century by Bishop Macedonius I of Constantinople, Eustathius of Sebaste was their principal theologian.[11][/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Opposed by the Cappadocian Fathers and condemned at the First Council of Constantinople. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]This is what prompted the addition of “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is equally worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets,” into the Nicene Creed at the second ecumenical council. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Melchisedechians[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Considered Melchisedech an incarnation of the Logos (divine Word) and identified him with the Holy Ghost [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Refuted by Marcus Eremita in his book Eis ton Melchisedek ("Against the Melchisedekites")[12][/FONT] [FONT=&quot]It is uncertain whether the sect survived beyond the 9th century. They were probably scattered across Anatolia and the Balkans following the destruction of Tephrike.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Monarchianism[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An overemphasis on the indivisibility of God (the Father) at the expense of the other "persons" of the Trinity leading to either Sabellianism (Modalism) or to Adoptionism. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Stressing the "monarchy" of God was in Eastern theology a legitimate way of affirming his oneness, also the Father as the unique source of divinity. It became heretical when pushed to the extremes indicated.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Monophysitism or [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Eutychianism[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Belief that Christ's divinity dominates and overwhelms his humanity, as opposed to the Chalcedonian position which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human or the Miaphysite position which holds that the human nature and pre-incarnate divine nature of Christ were united as one divine human nature from the point of the Incarnation onwards.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After Nestorianism was rejected at the First Council of Ephesus, Eutyches emerged with diametrically opposite views. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Eutyches was excommunicated in 448. Monophysitism and Eutyches were rejected at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Monophysitism is also rejected by the Oriental Orthodox Churches[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Monothelitism[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Belief that Jesus Christ had two natures but only one will. This is contrary to the orthodox interpretation of Christology, which teaches that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) corresponding to his two natures [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Originated in Armenia and Syria in AD 633[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Monothelitism was officially condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council, 680–681). The churches condemned at Constantinople include the Oriental Orthodox Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic churches as well as the Maronite church, although the latter now deny that they ever held the Monothelite view and are presently in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Christians in England rejected the Monothelite position at the Council of Hatfield in 680.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Patripassianism[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Belief that the Father and Son are not two distinct persons, and thus God the Father suffered on the cross as Jesus.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]similar to Sabellianism[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

Psilanthropism[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Belief that Jesus is "merely human": either that he never became divine, or that he never existed prior to his incarnation as a man.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Rejected by the ecumenical councils, especially in the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened to deal directly with the nature of Christ's divinity. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]See Adoptionism[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Sabellianism[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three characterizations of one God, rather than three distinct "persons" in one God. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]First formally stated by Noetus of Smyrna c.190, refined by Sabellius c.210 who applied the names merely to different roles of God in the history and economy of salvation. N[/FONT][FONT=&quot]oetus was condemned by the presbyters of Smyrna. Tertullian wrote Adversus Praxeam against this tendency and Sabellius was condemned by Pope Callistus. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Alternative names: Patripassianism, Modalism,Modalistic Monarchianism

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Ebionites[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A Jewish sect that insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites,[19] which they interpreted in light of Jesus' expounding of the Law.[20] They regarded Jesus as the Messiah but not as divine. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The term Ebionites derives from the Hebrew אביונים Evionim, meaning "the Poor Ones",[21][22] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Justin Martyr considered them heretical at Dialogue with Trypho the Jew chapter xlvii [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In 375, Epiphanius records the settlement of Ebionites on Cyprus, later Theodoret of Cyrrhus reported that they were no longer present there.[23][/FONT]
 
There could be grounds for seeing a form of Adoptionism. Ie that Jesus is seen as a prophet so great he was adopted into divinity. That could be palatable to those with Greco-Roman views.
It would amplify consecration of bishops etc and saints would perhaps be considered later full adoptees.
 
How could you have a Christianity that believes Jesus isn't the son of god? That being the basis that Christianity is founded on, I don't think you cannhaavenit without that .

Unless you mean they believe only that Jesus was god , not his son ?

The Ebionites did not accept the divinity of Christ, and prechristian interpretations of the pending messiah made to claim to his being divine either.
 
What if the catholic and orthodox viewpoints lost out and other Christian groups rose to prominence. What if we had Christianity based on.

Adoptionism
Arianism
Donatism
Pelagism
Gnostic influences
Hellenic pagan influenced Christianity
Christianity that doesn't recognize Jesus as the son of god.


  • Adoptionism, Arianism: Greater acceptence among Pagans; Jesus would be sen as a mediator, a demi-God who is neither fully divine neither flly humane, rather than a God.
  • Donatism: The church would have a greater expectation of purity toward priests. See this thread.
  • Pelagianism: Maybe a greater religious tolerence - "if he don't want to believe, we can't force him" - and greater expectations of purity toward faithfuls.
  • Gnosticism: Greater acceptence of suicide (if the infos given by the mainline Christian authors are exact) and more "hatred of the flesh", perceived as corrupt (some argue St. Augustine introduced Gnosticism in the Church by his formalization of the notion of Original Sin); it is unfortunately difficult to determine which form of Gnosticism would win in such scenario.
 

Stolengood

Banned
Marcionism might actually be preferential, to be blunt.

And let it not be forgotten that Paul wasn't the only guy preaching: There were TONS of people preaching different versions of Christianity in his time and after, and he was one of them. It just happened that his version either won out or was found to best fall-in-line with what the later Church councils deemed practical.

Of course, even people of his time, who weren't of his sect, were up in arms about his beliefs. Why? Well, let Paul explain it for you:

"We believe in Christ crucified." (emphasis mine)

That is the key. Christ being crucified, the death of a common criminal, is what got people up in arms and angry at Paul... which means that, though they also believed in Christ, they didn't believe in a Christ that was crucified.

That's very telling.
 
Top