[Forest Keeper]

There is no way that the "Bible" could have played a significant role in the early Church, for the simple reason that the Bible as we know it did not exist for the first four hundred years, and that until then there was no corresponding theology to fall back on.

What? I don't understand this at all. For the purposes of it being taught, the fact that the Bible was not in an organized and printed form for a few hundred years is irrelevant. Its contents were taught from the beginning. Do you really think that the theology of the Bible was unknown UNTIL the Bible was formally put together? That would mean there was no such thing as Christianity until hundreds of years after Christ, AND that the Apostles did not individually TEACH Christianity. You can't mean that. :)

The first attempt at bridging the gap between the OT and the NT began with Irinaeus towards the end of the 2nd century, and only because he was looking for an authoritative source that would give the Church's NT some leverage in his dealings with heretical sects which challenged the Church authority and interpretation.

There is no "gap" between the OT and NT (aside from 400 years). They describe the same God. Naturally, that God is different from the God of those who think that only a small part of the Bible describes God.

Reasonably uniformed Christian theology really did not exist for the first 200-plus years since Christ, and even after that only loosely until the Nicene Council in 325 AD, and the Canon until 396 AD! Until then, the Church was completely heterodox in her beliefs and practices, and her approach to the scriptures.

That can't be right. Paul specifically told the Bereans to compare the NT God he was telling them about to the OT God in scriptures to make sure they were the same. If you want to say that Orthodox theology did not come along for a few hundred years that is fine, but the OT and NT God being one is not something that had to be invented.

The idea of Trinity was likewise very heterodox. The names were there but outside of the three Hypostases mentioned in the Bible (and not even mentioned as Hypostases!), there was no uniform theology as to how they relate, what their nature is, and so on.

Believers knew. Of course not all who put out "theology" were believers. I make no judgment as to names, but it is not surprising at all that individual beliefs were all over the place.

So, the Church, by consensus, and based on a belief, gave itself the authority to infallibly define what God is, based on the "raw" material found to be useful for the narrow agenda, in various writings the Church later canonized, while rejecting (and even destroying) everything that did not suit her purpose and goal. And all this was made "legitimate" by claiming the Holy Spirit was behind it!

I certainly can't argue that this is a view out there. I have read many posts consistent with it. But if the Church gave itself the authority, then what would be the problem with saying that it is a man-made faith?

Sometimes, I wonder if people claim their believe in God simply because they consider themselves holier than others, and God is nothing but a projection of their own ego.

I'm sure there are many examples of that across Christianity, but a true believer would have no use in comparing himself to anyone else. The Bible teaches plainly on this very subject.

[kosta50]

For the purposes of it being taught, the fact that the Bible was not in an organized and printed form for a few hundred years is irrelevant. Its contents were taught from the beginning

How do you know that? We don't know who was teaching what. Out of eleven Apostles at the Pentecost, only two decided to write something, and even that is questionable.

That would leave nine others who have written nothing. It is only our guess what they taught, but we do know that Christianity was a heterodox movement, consisting of a wide range of beliefs and practices, with only Christ's name in common (not much different than today).

[kosta50]

Do you really think that the theology of the Bible was unknown UNTIL the Bible was formally put together?

Pretty much so, FK, with only a few decades separating the two events. The Creed was finalized at the First Council of Constantinople (Second Ecumenical Council), only about a decade before the canonization of the Bible in the west.

The first attempt at theology was not made until c. 190 AD (late 2nd century) by Irenaeus of Lyons, but that was rudimentary. It was not until well into the 3rd century that Origen of all people really set the stage for a systematized Christian theology, which was officially established in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea (First Ecumenical, aka Nicene Council).

The Trinitarian creed was confirmed and wastly expanded by the second Council in 381 AD and the Bible was canonzied at the local African Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD, following the canon of Athansius of Alexandria form c. 360 AD.

Moreover, extant Bibles dating from circa middle of the 4th century contain books that are no longer considered canonical. Any copies of the New Testament books prior to the Nicene Council are mysteriously missing (presumbaly destroyed by the Church), but fragments and indirect evidence shows that the post-Nicene sources have been heavily redacted to more closely reflect the new trinitarian dogma of the Church.

That would mean there was no such thing as Christianity until hundreds of years after Christ, AND that the Apostles did not individually TEACH Christianity

Oh it was Christianity insofar as all heterodox groups claimed to follow some idea of Christ, just like today. But there was no systematic theoogy, systematized liturgy, uniformed vocabulary, unformed canon, or for that matter unity of beliefs.

[kosta50]

There is no "gap" between the OT and NT (aside from 400 years). They describe the same God.

I understand that this is your opinion and that we will not agree.

Paul specifically told the Bereans to compare the NT God he was telling them about to the OT God in scriptures to make sure they were the same

That's not what the Bible says. It says the Bereans "received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." (Act 17:11) There are a couple of things that seem to stand out here.

First there is no mention that Paul told them to check the scriptures. Second, it is reasonable to assume that only the rabbis did. Third, it says that "any believed" which also means that many didn't. And the scripture could not be the reason, both believers and nonbelievers consulted the scriptures. Fourth, what Paul was telling them was that, based on the Old Testament Jesus was the Christ. Fifth, and most importantly, if that were the case, then we wouldn't need the New Testament at all! We could just use the Old Testament and be "Christians!" And, sixth, last but not least, Paul really does not treat Jesus as God but as someone God raised, someone lesser than the Father, the only God as far as Paul is concerned.

[kosta50]

If you want to say that Orthodox theology did not come along for a few hundred years that is fine, but the OT and NT God being one is not something that had to be invented

Of course it did. There is no mention whatsoever of any co-eqaul, co-eternal Trinity in the New Testament. The Trinitarian formula of the Great Commission is a latter-day addition to the text based on references made by some anti-Nice authors, particularly Eusebius who quotes Mat 28:19 no less than 17 times without the Trinitarian formula.

Christian theology was like a puzzle made up of many unrelated pieces, like someone cutting out desired words from the New York Times and making up a paragraph and then claiming that the paragraph is from the NYT! Well, the words are but the paragraph isn't!

[kosta50]

I certainly can't argue that this is a view out there. I have read many posts consistent with it. But if the Church gave itself the authority, then what would be the problem with saying that it is a man-made faith?

The faith is not man-made if it was given by Jesus. The authority, on the other, hand is a different thing. But that's the whole point I was making: there is no divine authority unless men conveniently proclaim it to be divine authority! The Bible is valid only because we agree that it is valid, and the Koran is valid for the Muzzies only because they agree that ti is valid. Neither has any seal of authenticity or intrinsic authority. All the authority comes from man's willingness to believe it has.

I'm sure there are many examples of that across Christianity, but a true believer would have no use in comparing himself to anyone else

The very concept of being the "elect" or "chosen" is a testament that believers hold themselves higher than the rest. In Judaism and Islam that is much more pronounced and sometimes carried into the extreme. In Christianity it takes on a life of its own, not necessarily less extreme at times, but always veiled in some imaginary humility which is rather transparent.