It is a well regarded fact that the word "whiskey" derives from the Old Gaelic "uisce" (water) and "bethu" (life). Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Ancient Greek will recognize the ancient Goidelic word for "water" as being literally similar and functionally equivalent to the Greek word for "essence." Anyone who took the time to actually get their hands dirty poring over the extant transcripts of the Council of Nicaea will remember that a grand old "Schism" erupted there between the Apostolics and the Gnostics over the usage of two words in particular, "essence" and "substance." The following brief essay is cited entirely from Bart Ehrman's phenomenal introduction to the literature of the Pauline Christian Tradition: "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings published by Oxford University Press in 2008. It is offered in the sincere hope of offering a personal lens on some of that centuries-old confusion. The Nicene Creed was the great legacy of that body and their contentions, and any decently abused Catholic child should be able to recite it right off for you if you can just offer them either a dollar or a significant sum of candy;-). The citations used were selected for ease of internet users checking over my shoulder.
Word and Essence: A Discussion of Logos and Rligious Identity Among Early Christians (second re-edit; originally composed 2 February 2010, Candlemas)
Although the diversity of early Christian beliefs and practices create significant obstacles to both academics and votaries of Jesus the Nazarene, the unitive elements present in these disparate sects nevertheless constituted a new and distinct way of "doing" religion in the ancient world. For this reason alone, the unique and divergent literary tradition of Christendom merits the inclusion of heterodox positions (non-normative dialogues) in any serious discussion of early Christian thought and its development during the second and third centuries of the Constantinian (Common) Era. For the purposes of this essay, it is sensible to focus primarily on three groups of early Christians whose beliefs differed from what would eventually become the Universal (Catholic-Apostolic-Pauline) Church. This is firstly to illustrate that early Christians were in fact quite diverse as well as examine where and how they intersect, as well as what significance that might hold for scholars and people of faith. Taking our hands as initiators in this strange terrain are the Ebionites, Marcionites, and Gnostics; all nominally Christian, all beholden to received tests that purport to authoritatively document the life and philosophy of Christ, none in agreement on what would seem to be essential tenets of the faith. These include the number of Gods recognized or worshipped, the status of Jesus as a human or divine entity, and the specific texts appealed to for establishing a cohesive creed to which all members of a given sect may ascribe.
One prominent community of early Christians which took root in Palestine were the Ebionites, or so-called "adoptionists." These believers were distinguished from others in that they maintained that Jesus, although born a human man and one uniquely "innocent" within the context of Mosaic Legalism, was not himself the perfect Godhead worshiped by Abraham, Issac, Jacob, or even "a" God as understood in the Classical sense of a being/entity/substance that is perfectly unitive, self-aware, and self-mobile [Ehrman, p. 3]. It would not be inappropriate to refer to the Ebionites as "full-covenant Christians," because they preserved the traditional mitzvoth of the Old Testament while recognizing Jesus as the savior of the world and the architect of a second Covenant (contractual mutual-ism between Godhead and an elect Kindred of persons, "Israel." This is demonstrated by the fact that the singular aspect of Mosaic Law not observed by the Ebionites was blood sacrifice in propitiation of the Divine. The justification for this is that Jesus himself, to hearken back to the old Nicene formulation, was considered: 'a full and perfect offering, oblation, and sacrifice for the redemption of the faithful and the remission of sinfulness.' [Ehrman, p. 3]. To structure their Christology, this sect appealed to a text very much akin to the Book of Matthew as we know it, without the first two chapters. For modern Christians who only read English, that essentially means that they only accepted what we now refer to as the Gospel of Mark as "authoritative." It is worth noting on the side that Mark is the oldest and sparsest of the Gospels. You won't find much in the way of mythologizing there, not even a birth narrative. Of all the "big Four," Mark is most like an actual biography and least like a Caesar-Mithra story. These Christians, the Ebionites, were known to be staunchly averse to the particular teachings of Paul. This is obviously to be expected, given that prodigal Apostle's emphasis on the Trinity and on the obsolescence of the old Law. Because Peter and Paul seem to have been in personal accord, however, it is highly likely that the concept of a Holy Trinity was in fact the "meat n bones" of Jesus' "secret teachings" shared only with the living Apostles and it was this conceptual similarity in their streams of thought that allowed Paul "access," or rather the 'decoder ring' among the extant Apostles as they were still out and about after the Crucifixion and following Scandal.
The writings of Paul received an infinitely warmer reception among followers of Marcion. this second-century evangelist cast Paul as a monumental spiritual authority, one to whom the true revelation of Jesus was imparted personally after his resurrection/assumption [Ehrman, p.5]. Not unlike their Gnostic brethren, the Marcionites believed that the God of the Old Testament was of a different, vengeful, malevolent character than the God evidenced in the Gospels. {I would here like to point out that the concept of Sheol as resembling Gehenna rather than Hades is a Jesus-ism. That's your guy, such a nice little prophet-magician, right? LOL...Jesus invented Hell, and "upped the ante" for EVERYONE;-)}
Marcionites also advanced the notion that Jesus' human form was merely an illusion, and that Jesus was as much an autonomous and unitary Deity as the God of Judaism. (Ehrman, p. 5). If this is superficially confusing, a Muslim friend can help you get over that if your willing to sit for a spell and here a cool story about grave robbing. The contrast between these Marcionites and their Jewish counterparts originates in the texts which each group claims as offering the true teachings and biography of Jesus. For Marcion, an authoritative canon would include a version of Luke's Gospel (which definitely emphasizes the Divinity of Jesus and justifies the breaking of mitzvoth) as well as shorter variations of Paul's letters, expecting Timothy and Titus [Ehrman, p. 5].
Most "exotic" among early Christians were the Gnostics, a label which describes many individual sects and schools, all of which insisted that the imparted gnosis of certain secret teachings of Jesus was necessary and sufficient to salvation. These believers alternatively recognized several systems of Divine Hierarchy, ranging in population from three, thirty, or hundreds of divinities (remember your Medieval Ceremonialists, now, kiddies). The works of the late Valentinus were immensely influential among the Gnostics and to this day are just a fucking pill to read, but lay out the basic "idea" as painlessly as is probably possible in this day and time. Despite superficial differences in their schematics, the Gnostics were united in their rejection of Old Testaments' "YHVH" and the Mosaic Law, considering both in dualistic opposition to Jesus. (Ehrman, p. 6). Many Gnostics were particularly enamored of John's Gospel, but also honored others not considered ligitimate by other Christians, including the "Gospels" of Mary of Magdala, Phillip, Thomas, and Judas Iscariot.
Despite the differences of iteration among its earliest adherents, certain common elements emerged from the crucible of the Crucifixion and Scandal that became essential to the identity of the Jesus movement in the first three centuries of the Common Era through Nicaea. most notably, the early Jesus People were set apart from Jews and Pagans alike in that they placed supreme spiritual authority withing the *person of Christ*, the inspired writings of his travelling companions, and the personal interaction of the believer with both. These three elements seperated early Christians from Jews and Pagans alike, and eventually gave a concise meaning to the name "Christian." The crime, under Roman Law, which led to the Crucifixion of Jesus according to the Gospels was that he was understood by his own tribal community to have declared himself a higher authority than either the State or (and this was the real death sentence, the Law of Moses). To place yourself in the center of that society without effectively "clicking up" with either warring party was essentially putting a bounty on your own head. Too fucking bad Judas never got to see the "punchline..." excuse me, I mean "Resurrection and Assumption into heaven or whatever. He actually committed suicide on his own authority, without a single witness, because he believed that by following instructions to a "t", he had forever forsaken the love of his friends or the safety of his tribal community AND, and the same time, he was always an opponent of the Roman Occupation or frankly, he wouldn't have clicked up with the Disciples in the first place...
