What we should be able to deduce from the historical record is a concerted effort to de-Judaize the Church for nearly two centuries leading up to the Council of Nicaea, in effect shaking off the vestiges of the Hebrew Religion and the ways of the earliest followers. It would seem the efforts of those parties, (once deemed heretical up until the mid-second century), to separate the Church from their Hebraic roots was successful, at least from a doctrinal and basic practice/living perspective.
One might ask how this could be and why did the apostolic fathers not provide a stronger Hebraic foundation in the beginning if this was G_D’s intent? The answer to this is surprisingly simple:
According to traditional accounts Andrew was crucified by order of the Roman Governor, Aegeas or Aegeates, at Patrae in Achaia, Greece on a decussate (i.e., X-shaped) cross; hence, Andrew’s Cross. His martyrdom took place during the reign of Nero, on November 30th, in the year 60 Ce.
Although not one of the original twelve apostles, Barnabas is numbered among the first of the faithful at Jerusalem. He is noted for preaching at Antioch and for being a companion of Paul and accompanying him on his first journey. He was martyred c. 61 Ce at Salamis.
Bartholomew was always mentioned in the Gospels in connection with Philip. He is said to have preached in India, Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, Armenia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, and on the shores of the Black Sea. According to traditional accounts, he was flayed alive and crucified, head downward, at Albanopolis, Armenia, as punishment for having converted the King of Armenia to the Christian faith; the date is uncertain.
James the son of Zebedee and Salome and brother of John the Apostle is said to have preached in Samaria, Judea, and Spain. He was the first apostle to be martyred when he was put to death in Jerusalem by the sword at the command of Herod, c. 44 Ce. (Acts 12:2).
James the Lesser: He was the brother of Yeshua; brother of Jude Thaddeus and the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Known as James the Righteous, he was martyred in c. 62 Ce at Jerusalem by being thrown from a pinnacle of the Temple, then stoned and beaten with clubs and fuller's mallets, all the while he prayed for his attackers.
Matthew: Some traditions say that Matthew was martyred in Ethiopia while others say that he was martyred in Hierapolis of Parthia. According to Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, Matthew the Evangelist was martyred in Hierapolis, Asia Minor.
Matthias chosen to replace Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:21–26) is said to have preached the Gospel for more than thirty years in Judea, Cappadocia, Egypt, and Ethiopia. According to traditional accounts, he was stoned to death at Colchis c. 80 Ce.
Paul, also known as the Apostle to the Gentiles, as a Roman citizen he was exempt from crucifixion, so he was beheaded with a sword, in Rome c. 64 Ce.
Peter (Simon) was the brother of Andrew, who led him to Jesus. Peter was considered to be the Prince of the Apostles. Traditionally, he has always been considered the first bishop of Rome (Pope). He was crucified upside down because he claimed he was not worthy to die in the same manner as Yeshua in Rome c. 64 Ce.
Philip: Originally a disciple of John the Baptist, he brought Bartholomew to Yeshua. He is said to have preached in Asia Minor. According to traditional accounts he was martyred c. 80 Ce. at Hierapolis, Phrygia.
Simon the Zealot: Not much is known about him; he is said to have preached on the Black Sea, in Egypt, Northern Africa, Britain, and Persia. He was martyred, but the location is uncertain; some claim that he was crucified in Samaria, others claim that he was sawed in half at Suanir, Persia, still others claim that he was martyred at Weriosphora in Iberia.
Thomas, also known as Didymus, “Doubting Thomas,” is best remembered for doubting the resurrection until he was allowed to touch Mashiach’s wounds. He is said to have preached in Parthia, Persia, and India. According to traditional accounts, he was pierced through with spears by four soldiers, c. 72 Ce in India.
As we can see the early Church fathers were pretty much busy spreading the gospel and witnessing about Yeshua HaMashiach and for the most part being martyred for their glorious efforts. The same can be said for a significant number of immediate post Apostolic Age Church fathers. The reader must also bear in mind that there was a consensus belief among the early Church that Mashiach would imminently return. Subsequently we can logically conclude there would not be any pressing need to contemplate developing doctrinal collateral for the “long term.”
But … we must consider the real and most probable possibility that the apostles would not have considered creating significant doctrinal materials for another reason. The reason being that the foundational doctrines already existed within the Hebrew Religion and Holy Scripture! The Jewish apostles knew that Yeshua was the prophesied Hebrew Mashiach. The Jewish apostles knew the foundation of the faith was to be found in Holy Scripture. The Jewish apostles knew that Yeshua did not come to do away with the Hebrew Religion but to fill it up in a way that could only be done by G_D himself.
Additionally as the historical accounts also show this same knowledge was known by Polycrates Bishop of Smyrna and others as late as the early 4th century Ce. The knowledge that the Holy Scriptures to be used predominantly consisted of the Hebrew TANAKH … a.k.a. The Christian Old Testament!
So in light of the historical review of “persecutions,” “doctrinal heresies” and the “early Church and Jewish relationship” … is it possible to better understand why the early church did not develop any real doctrinal framework until the fourth century?
What we know from history and the records of the ensuing six ecumenical councils held by the Church after Nicaea between 381 Ce. and 787 Ce. is that notable doctrinal problems surfaced relative to: the nature of Yeshua HaMashiach, the nature of the Holy Spirit, Mary the mother of Yeshua, veneration and worship of icons, the preeminence of the “See of Rome” and numerous issues surrounding the “ecclesiastical organization” or priesthood.
Unfortunately for all mankind much serious doctrinal development within the Church would come at a time when the Church had already divested itself of its Hebraic Roots as can be seen through a simple review of historical records. Without viewing doctrinal development within a Hebraic context it is absolutely fair to contend that a complete and correct doctrinal exegesis is quite frankly not plausible. At least not in a contextually correct Biblical perspective!
In light of the circumstances reviewed, the movement away from basic “Hebraic Roots” was inevitable even if not tacitly planned or desired … although a strong case can easily be made that this split was assuredly planned and intentional. Nonetheless highlighting this split from the Church's Hebraic Roots is a valid conclusion that must be exposed.
So … if the doctrine, entire belief framework and structure of the fourth century church was not Hebraic … by Imperial mandate … than what was it?
Hmmm … Good Question!
[The primary religion throughout the Roman Empire was paganism. The paganism of the Roman Empire combined several different cult practices and embraced more than a single set of beliefs most assuredly. The Romans originally followed a rural animistic tradition, in which many spirits were each responsible for specific, limited aspects of the cosmos and human activities, such as “ploughing” for example. The early Romans referred to these gods as “numina.” Another aspect of this animistic belief was ancestor worship, with each family honoring their own dead by their own rites.
Early in the history of the Roman Republic, foreign gods were imported, especially from Greece, which had a great cultural influence on the Romans. In addition, the Romans connected some of their indigenous deities with Greek gods and goddesses. The old Roman gods became associated and sometimes synonymous with their counter-part Greek gods. Therefore Jupiter was perceived to be the same deity as Zeus. Mars was associated with Ares, and Neptune with Poseidon. The actual fact is of course that Jupiter had a distinctive Italic flavor that Zeus did not, and Juno retained as much of her Etruscan attributes as she borrowed from the Greek goddess Hera. It is a simplistic mistake to assume that the Roman gods simply absorbed completely the attributes and histories of these Greek gods, though they did come to be associated with them.
Based heavily in Greek and Etruscan mythology, Roman religion came to encompass and absorb hundreds of other religions, developing a rich and complex mythology. During the Roman Republic and early Empire, there was a strict system of priestly offices under the governance of the “College of Pontiffs.” This College of Pontiffs or “Collegium Pontificum” was a body whose members were the highest-ranking priests of the pagan state religion. At the head of this body was the “Pontifex Maximus,” the high priest and most honored position in Roman religion. A distinctly religious office under the early Roman Republic, it gradually became politicized until, beginning with Augustus, it was integrated into the Imperial office. “Flamens” were another class of major priests who took care of the cults of various gods, while “Augurs” were the “seers” or “prophets” entrusted with interpreting omens and determining the will of the gods.] xii
We know historically that Emperor Constantine nearly single handedly brought the Christian religion out of the ashes of near extinction. This is a historical fact! Historically the rise of Christianity from the depths of the third century Roman persecutions could be considered nothing less than extraordinary and perhaps miraculous from a certain perspective. In brief, the turn-around must be attributed in large part to the actions of the Emperor Constantine, who in 313 Ce issued the famous “Edict of Milan” which in effect “legalized” Christianity within the Roman Empire, though in the East the Persians reacted by persecuting Christians.
Within a very short time frame not only was the Church of Messiah thriving but it had become dominant within the empire. [Historically we see in the decrees of Emperor Theodosius (347–395 Ce.) a progressively anti-pagan stance being adopted. He declared in 389 Ce. that those pagan feasts which had not yet been rendered Christian were now to be workdays.
In 391 Ce, he outlawed blood sacrifice and decreed “no one is to go to the sanctuaries, walk through the temples, or raise his eyes to statues created by the labor of man.” The temples that were thus closed were to be declared “abandoned,” as Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria immediately noted in applying for permission to demolish a site and cover it with a Christian Church, an act which must have received general sanction, for mithraea forming crypts of Churches, and temples forming the foundations of fifth century Churches appear throughout the former Roman Empire.
Theodosius participated in actions by Christians against major pagan sites: most notably the destruction of the gigantic Serapeum of Alexandria and its library by a mob in around 392 Ce, authorized by Theodosius. The destruction of the greatest temple in Alexandria gave encouragement to Christian vigilantism and mob action in other centers, often spurred on by the local bishops, as early hagiographies proudly relate.
By decree in 391 Ce, Theodosius ended the subsidies which had still trickled to some remnants of Greco-Roman civic paganism as well. The eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum was extinguished, and the Vestal Virgins were disbanded. Taking the auspices and practicing witchcraft were to be punished. Pagan members of the Senate in Rome appealed to him to restore the “Altar of Victory” in the Senate House; he refused. After the last Olympic Games in 393 Ce, Theodosius cancelled the much-diminished games, and the reckoning of dates by Olympiads soon came to an end. Now Theodosius portrayed himself on his coins holding the labarum, the banner adopted by Constantine I after his conversion to Christianity.] xiii
Within the fourth century the tide had indeed turned in favor of the Christian church, and we in effect historically see the downfall of official Roman Paganism. The historical records show Christianity had become the de facto religion of the Roman Empire. These actions and policies undoubtedly inspired much of the population to convert to Christianity while in other ways conversion was not optional. Christianity in effect had absorbed paganism through imperial mandate!
This period marks the beginning of an extremely long time frame in which the Christian church would be deeply connected with the secular base of Western Power, be it identified as the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire or the Monarchical Kingdoms of Europe.
Regardless of apologists’ attempts to downplay the relationship between the Church and state, the game of politics would be ingrained within the Church of Messiah. Admittedly politics were often forced upon the Church but often the Church willingly indulged in politics. This simply cannot be refuted and historically is a result of the marriage between the Roman Empire and the Christian church … a marriage of the secular with the religious!
So how did the Church come to this position of power? As history declares the Church of Messiah became the religious arm of the secular Roman Empire during the fourth century. In conjunction with the Edict of Milan we also historically see the first reference to the Lateran Palace, a gift of Constantine, which housed the Bishop/Vicar of Rome until the early fourteenth century, or nearly 1,000 years. It was commonly referred to as the “Palace of the Popes.” Although history indicates the evolution and rise of the Roman Catholic Papacy occurred over many centuries it should be noted in 607 Ce, under a decree by Emperor Phocas, the bishop of Rome was deemed “Universal Bishop of the Church.” Prior to this time the term Pope had been used strictly as a courtesy for the Vicar of Rome.
To understand the position of the bishop of Rome and to a greater extent the governing ecclesiastical organization however, one needs to look at the relationship between the church and the Roman Empire.
As was previously detailed the pagan religion had its own priestly order. The reader will recall the order consisted of: the Pontifex Maximus at the top, the collegium of Pontifices, the Flamens/Priests and the Augurs or oracles. Most important to understand is the ingrained civic nature of this priestly order. This was not simply a religious component of the Empire by any stretch; the priestly order was deeply entrenched within Roman civil affairs and society in general. What is being pointed out is that with the fall of paganism and the priestly order there was a natural power vacuum which undoubtedly was filled by the Christian church.
When one objectively looks at the development of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical body one simply cannot ignore the similarities between it and the pagan priestly order from an organizational perspective. In essence the Pope assumed the role of the Pontifex Maximus, a literally gifted designation from the Emperor of Rome who was bearer of the title. It should also be noted this Latin term is still an official title of the modern Pope. We certainly cannot ignore the similarities between the college of pontiffs and the college of cardinals, etc.
It must be remembered the secular power base would not only desire to use the Church as a means of stability and influence but would have mandated such an arrangement. It was logically natural for this scenario to develop in light of the history of the Roman Empire. It was under this scenario in which the bishop of Rome assumed not just religious authority but also political authority. Within this environment the ecclesiastical organization would have followed suit and the hierarchical structure would and did evolve. Ultimately what emerged within the Church was an ecclesiastical institution, which unlike the Apostolic Age, comprised a distinct sector of individuals which had not only religious but secular authority as well. Much in the same manner that Jewish religious leaders exercised power under the influence of the Hellenistic Herodian Dynasty in Israel.
Naturally we could go on and on respective to Church History but this is not the intent by any means. This historical review is provided strictly to shed light upon the Roman Empire's integration of the early church. A Roman Empire which was thoroughly pagan and Hellenistic in a philosophical and civic perspective respectively! A Roman Empire which mastered the Hellenistic method of assimilation and control!
So is there any way to argue that the framework of Christian religious doctrine, thought and beliefs could not have been influenced by the Roman Empire? Add to the mix the conclusive evidence that the church had divested itself of its Jewish/Hebraic roots and governing framework of understanding! … What would be the logical conclusion … more Roman or Hebraic centric?
Now for those of you readers that may think themselves divested of Roman Catholicism by virtue of adherence to a “Reformed Church” doctrine, please be aware that the historical record depicts doctrinal development and exegetical methods of the Reformists churches to also be devoid of any Hebraic foundation as well.
Following is a very brief analysis of the Reformation:
[We know from history however that the call to reform the church from within would grow for centuries … finally reaching a crescendo in 1517 when Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic Augustinian monk and German Theologian posted his now famous, or infamous depending on your viewpoint, 95 Theses on the doors of the Castle Church requesting an open debate of the issues he perceived to be at hand.
The Theses in summary condemned greed and worldliness in the Church as an abuse and asked for a theological disputation specifically on what “indulgences” could grant. It should be noted that Luther did not challenge the authority of the pope to grant indulgences, or the validity of the papacy itself, in any of these theses.
As history relates the following three years of back and forth parlance between Luther and the church resulted in Luther taking stronger doctrinal positions different than those of the church as well as Luther pointing out vociferously the need to reform an abusive and failing church clergy.
On June 15, 1520, the Pope warned Martin Luther with the papal bull “Exsurge Domine” that he risked excommunication unless he recanted 41 points of doctrine culled from his writings within 60 days. In October 1520, at the “instance of Miltitz”, Luther sent his “On the Freedom of a Christian” discourse to the pope, adding the significant phrase: "I submit to no laws of interpreting the word of G_D." This last effort of for peace was followed on December 12 by Luther burning the papal bull, which was to take effect on the expiration of 120 days. Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther on January 3, 1521, in the bull “Decet Romanum Pontificem”. The protestant reformation had in effect begun.
In summary Martin Luther, more than the reformers that preceded him, shaped the Protestant Reformation. Thanks to the printing press, his pamphlets were well-read throughout Germany, influencing many subsequent Protestant Reformers and thinkers and giving rise to diversifying Protestant traditions in Europe and elsewhere. Protestant countries, no longer subject to the papacy, exercised their expanded freedom of thought, facilitating Protestant Europe's rapid intellectual advancement in the 17th and 18th centuries, giving rise to the Age of Reason. In reaction to the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Reformation, too, was a part of this intellectual advancement, for example, through its scholastic Jesuit order.
On the darker side, the absolute power of the feudal princes over their subjects increased considerably in the Lutheran territories, while Catholics and Protestants waged bitter and ferocious wars of religion against each other. A century after Luther's protests, a revolt in Bohemia ignited the Thirty Years' War, a Catholic vs. Protestant war which ravaged much of Germany and killed about a third of the population. And of course there was the damage done to greater Jewry by Luther himself. His frustration over failure to see his writings and teachings convert the Jews to Christianity led him to a point of calling for open persecution and oppression. Apparently Luther did not believe the right to “interpret the word of G_D” without domineering guidance, was a luxury applicable to the Jews!] xiv
The reader should note that there is little reason to address in great detail the doctrinal issues raised by Luther or responded to by the church. The primary reason is because a strong case was previously made that the doctrinal exegesis of the church was already fundamentally flawed dating back to the second century Ce. In fact the challenges that Luther made from a doctrinal perspective would in the grand scheme of things have to be considered minimal from a theological perspective when viewed in a Hebraic context.
This being declared however, it must be noted that the importance of Luther's actions in challenging the church to reconcile purported Apostolic Tradition, within doctrine and ecclesiastical structure, ultimately with Holy Scriptures can't be understated. Luther's actions in essence changed the course of history and ultimately led to another schism within the Christian church. A second great schism which although exhibiting more doctrinal discord than the first schism, once again boiled down to a rudimentary level of “ecclesiastical primacy” and even more specifically “papal primacy” over the church and the doctrines espoused! Most importantly however the Reformation did in fact create an atmosphere wherein Scriptural Interpretation became the purview of the individual … as opposed to Luther's intention that Scriptural Interpretation not be defined per se by Rome! And these are two distinct paradigms!
It must be noted as well that during this Reformation the development of doctrine and practices within the reformist movement would naturally be influenced by the enlightenment culture now freed from the authoritative bonds of the Roman Catholic Church. And the development of contrary doctrine seemed to have no end!
Historically it would seem that the reformation had spawned a religious environment whereby the societal mood and culture of the period could readily be adapted into a religious construct. In essence a relative matter. As such various regional or national movements could and would directly impact the developing reformist churches.
Putting this issue into a perhaps overly simplistic summary, it would seem that the reformation had spawned an age where any group of people would ultimately be able to define doctrine, practices and in essence their own church.
To support this point of view please refer to the Reformists’ reference to specific Reformist churches and groups as “denominations” to imply that they are differently named parts of the whole Reformist church. This "invisible unity" is apparently imperfectly displayed as some denominations are less accepting of others, and the basic orthodoxy of some is questioned by most of the others. Individual denominations also have formed over very subtle theological differences while other denominations are simply regional or ethnic expressions of the same beliefs. The actual number of distinct denominations in the contemporary era is hard to calculate, but has been estimated to be over thirty thousand. Various ecumenical movements have attempted cooperation or reorganization of Reformist churches, according to various models of union, but divisions continue to outpace unions. Many denominations do share common beliefs in the major aspects of the Christian faith, while differing in many secondary doctrines. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001) by David B. Barrett, et al, there are "over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries". Every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations.
The author strongly suggests that the reader perform their own research regarding the reformation attempts by Luther. To the author it would seem that Luther made a great effort to get the church to reform internally and initially had no intentions of parting from the church. Irrespective of Luther's theological positions it would seem historically apparent that the Christian church was indeed in need of reform. It would also seem apparent that the mingling of the Christian church with secular politics is ultimately not a good union. Still further it would seem that Luther could not have imagined a movement resulting in thousands upon thousands of disparate communities with thousands upon thousands of versions of truth.
* * * * * * *