Any good books on the early church?
the bible?
Unironically the Bible, especially Acts and all the letters.
>>1414982
How early do you want? Acts pretty much describe how apostles spread all over Roman cities to preach the gospel to the Gentiles and established the first Christian communities, you can pretty much pinpoint the moment when Christianity stopped being a strictly Jew religion and became a Greek one.
>>1414982
the book of Acts and the Roman letters are a good source of the earliest church history.
if you want to go later, there's plenty of sources, even primary material on the Council of Nicaea, Arianism, the Council of Chalcedon and the Monophysite split.
if you just want tl;dr: Christians from various regions all believed in different doctrines and was risking splitting the church apart, Constantine ordered a Council of all the Bishops and Priests to get the church to agree on one single doctrine, spitting out the Nicene Creed most churches recite every Sunday.
>>1414986
Perhaps I should have capitalized Church, I mean the early Church post collapse of Rome and its ealiest pope
I've read through Acts and the NT, I just know nothing about the earliest point where Christianity is beginning to dominate Europe without Rome. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong?
>>1415058
>I just know nothing about the earliest point where Christianity is beginning to dominate Europe without Rome
Christianity spread via Rome, both the Franks and the Greeks claimed to be Romans later on and they did the most to spread the new religion.
Here's one.
>>1414970
Nope thats propagandist bullshit.
>>1415095
How so?
Henry Chadwick's book is old but quite good, used to be one of the standard texts for the early church.
There's also Justo Gonzales The Story of Christianity, vol. 1.
I really liked Ivor Davidson's Birth of the Church: From Jesus to Constantine, AD30-312
>>1415096
You do know how it was put together dont you?
That makes is propaganda.
>>1415111
Letter were written in 1st century AD.
>>1415149
What?
>>1415153
Letters*
>>1415159
What doe that have to do with anythong?.
>>1415058
The Earliest "Churches" is the groups of people who followed Christ and listened to His teachings, so all it would take to truly understand the "Chruch" (group) is to understand the teachings of the Christ which are not exclusively His own.
Why the modern day churches try to steal this basic principle away is of high cincern, but the division of Christians doesn't happen with Christ or even Paul, but happens when the denominations of Christianity, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Catholicism, etc etc etc all went against eachother when Christ says "A house divided against itself cannot stand"
I know it might sound ridiculous, but as a Christian believing that Christ is an eternal spirit, wouldn't it be wise to follow that spirit of eternity over a church pastor / church elite leader who only partakes in ritual priest craft for the benefit of its group rather than the whole of humanity?
Christ died for every sinner, but the church only chooses to bring salvation to those who agree with the specific creed and expectations of acceptance
>>1415163
any good books on that
>>1415163
Are you actually fool enough to think the early 'churches' agreed on everything?
>>1415166
Not that I have read but there are a few good reads that teach Christian teachings rather than go out of their way to convince you which church is the right one
>>1415174
Not really, but notice when each one decided to attempt to get everyone to believe in the same thing it started to divide itself.
All those councils and different groups that tried to mold Christianity in their own image forgot to spread the basic teachings of Christianity so they could put themself into power or butcher the truth with ritualistic manner, though even those statement and accusations are too general to base any conclusion off of.
>>1415187
The truth they butchered was the Teachings of the Christ which where not His own but that of His Father. The truth of the religion is not in the denomination or the creed but in the Teachings of the Teacher.
>>1415192
Those teachings are open to interpretation, which is what happened and could be no other way. There is simply no right way.
>>1415162
???
The letters are in the Bible
>>1415204
Christ says "I am the Way no one comes to the Father except through me" so Christians should follow the Risen Lord before they intend to follow anyone else. They are able to be interpreted by every living being God has made in God's own image therefore everyone has a personal relationship to GOD and is clearly capable of accessing His divine truth through perseverance.
The best church is "if two or three are gathered in My Name I am there" so if you have a close friend who love Christ as much as you do, that is the true ministers that is the true priest, that is the true devotee
>>1415221
Matthew Mark Luke and John are all books about the Earliest Church dwelling in the Son of God.
>>1415232
No I want scholarly historic shit about hundreds of years after Jesus not the bible
That's like me asking for something on the rise of Stalin and giving me the Communist Manifesto
>>1415247
Why would you trust information about Christ hundreds of years after He existed?
The teachings of Christ is what is important and those are the truths of the original "church"
The churches that came hundreds of years after are the ones that divided Christianity to exalt their own groups and denominations.
That is like not watching Friends on TV because they'll have books about it hundreds of years later. That doesn't make any sense
>>1415257
I'm NOT fucking looking for info on super wizard JC-man the water-walking man
I want history on the church. I don't care how bullshit you think it is
>>1415271
Well the earliest church would have been the groups of people who chilled out with Christ and listened to what He taught. They would have traveled and learned more about His Teaching up front and personal than what we have today.
>>1414852
What you seek is any book or lecture on the subject by Bart Ehrman.
>>1415278
Is he any good? I heard his book on the divinity of Christ was met with criticism
>>1415232
Yes and thats exactly how we get different interpretations. You cant exactly call it truth when its diffrent for every other person.
>>1415228
But how does that relate to propaganda?
Fucking explain yourself retard.
Nag Hammadi library
No, seriously
>>1415110
Thanks
>>1415257
There's nothing wrong with studying the books of the Bible whether for info or spiritual edification but he clearly wants a comprehensive history of the early church which the Bible cannot offer considering it stops at about AD 60-something chronologically.
>>1414852
Cambridge History of Christianity Vol 1
JND Kelly-Early Christian Doctrines
How Jesus became God by Ehrman
>>1415516
Because I was talking about the letters and the retard (probably you) said it's propaganda.
>>1416705
Because they are.
You arent worth interacting with.
