Coping with evidence that Christianity morphed

[picnic]

There is another thread somewhat similar about the nature of Jesus, but I thought it might be worth asking this question more directly. There are lots of popular books available describing evidence that early Christians had diverse ideas about Christology and other things. In other words, Christianity seems to have evolved in fundamental ways over the first couple of centuries. Scholars aren't certain who Jesus was or what Jesus taught. Was Jesus a revolutionary, a faith healer, a teacher, a doomsday prophet, ...? Similar things can be said about Judaism. Neither religion seems to have appeared abruptly like we should expect from a divine revelation.

On the other side of the scale, many people claim to have personally experienced Jesus or God. Even I can claim some small experiences that seemed to indicate the existence of Jesus and God.

If the historical Jesus and the historical Yahweh were mundane and carnal, then how can a personal experience of Jesus or God make sense?

EDIT: Maybe this is too controversial for DIR? If so, I am fine with a moderator moving it to religious debates or something. (Probably that is where I should have created it if I had been thinking.)

 

[lovemuffin]

I'd say there's more to it than "coping with the fact that Christianity morphed" as if that were only something that occurred during the first few centuries, because the truth is the process of change has never ceased, and while there are more or less mainstream "orthodox" views, there have always been a wide variety of beliefs and practices in Christianity. That process of change is as visible in the Protestant reformation or the peculiarities of evangelical Christianity in the US as it is in the 2nd century or the 4th.

That fact is certainly a problem for those with fundamentalist or strongly ideological views about what constitutes the "truth" of Christianity, especially regarding the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture, or of the authority of revelation in general, but it doesn't really imply an immediate problem for someone claiming an experience. I guess your question is presupposing that the earliest variants of Christianity deny any sort of supernatural reality to Christ or the Hebrew God ("mundane and carnal"?) but that is not historically accurate.

1st century Jews certainly didn't conceive of God as being mundane and carnal, and while its difficult to ascertain in any systematic way the Christological beliefs of early Christians, in no small part because they hadn't systematized those beliefs yet, it is not as if they were modern naturalists, and there's plenty of evidence in the N.T. that in some sense they conceived of Christ (and certainly of God the father) as realities beyond the mundane, or beyond the physical.

 

[Brickjectivity]

***** Thread moved to 'Religious Debates' *****

 

[picnic]

Thanks, @well named , that is true that the morphing only presents a problem if the original Christology was not divine. I personally suspect that Jesus did not see himself as divine, but anybody can think almost anything about the historical Jesus due to the limited information (besides the Gospels of course).

So, yes, that is a very good point.

 

[metis]

All religions evolve over time and are influenced by outside factors. If they didn't, they would tend to lose their relevancy after a while. It's sort of a balancing act between being at least somewhat flexible versus being too flexible or not flexible enough.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is another thread somewhat similar about the nature of Jesus, but I thought it might be worth asking this question more directly. There are lots of popular books available describing evidence that early Christians had diverse ideas about Christology and other things. In other words, Christianity seems to have evolved in fundamental ways over the first couple of centuries. Scholars aren't certain who Jesus was or what Jesus taught. Was Jesus a revolutionary, a faith healer, a teacher, a doomsday prophet, ...? Similar things can be said about Judaism. Neither religion seems to have appeared abruptly like we should expect from a divine revelation.

On the other side of the scale, many people claim to have personally experienced Jesus or God. Even I can claim some small experiences that seemed to indicate the existence of Jesus and God.

If the historical Jesus and the historical Yahweh were mundane and carnal, then how can a personal experience of Jesus or God make sense?

EDIT: Maybe this is too controversial for DIR? If so, I am fine with a moderator moving it to religious debates or something. (Probably that is where I should have created it if I had been thinking.)

I'm no Biblical scholar, but from a wider perspective; how do you write a book that is the most widely read, influential, inspirational work in the history of humanity- across multiple millennia, continents, cultures? i.e. it has to be able to speak to different people in different ways- just as in our personal divine experiences yes? So wouldn't we expect this capability from a divine revelation?

 

[Hawkins]

There is another thread somewhat similar about the nature of Jesus, but I thought it might be worth asking this question more directly. There are lots of popular books available describing evidence that early Christians had diverse ideas about Christology and other things. In other words, Christianity seems to have evolved in fundamental ways over the first couple of centuries. Scholars aren't certain who Jesus was or what Jesus taught. Was Jesus a revolutionary, a faith healer, a teacher, a doomsday prophet, ...? Similar things can be said about Judaism. Neither religion seems to have appeared abruptly like we should expect from a divine revelation.

On the other side of the scale, many people claim to have personally experienced Jesus or God. Even I can claim some small experiences that seemed to indicate the existence of Jesus and God.

If the historical Jesus and the historical Yahweh were mundane and carnal, then how can a personal experience of Jesus or God make sense?

EDIT: Maybe this is too controversial for DIR? If so, I am fine with a moderator moving it to religious debates or something. (Probably that is where I should have created it if I had been thinking.)

That remains your own speculation and you need faith (large amount of it) to believe what you yourself said here.

 

[picnic]

All religions evolve over time and are influenced by outside factors. If they didn't, they would tend to lose their relevancy after a while. It's sort of a balancing act between being at least somewhat flexible versus being too flexible or not flexible enough.

That is true, but when divine revelations are claimed, I expect the fundamentals of those divine revelations to remain unchanged. For example, in the gospel of John, Jesus seems to openly claim some sort of God-like status. If the historical Jesus made these claims, then I would expect the early Christians to have been mostly consistent on that fundamental point. I would not expect to see the God-like status of Jesus evolving gradually like a tall tale growing taller with each repetition. It all depends on what historians you trust more of course.

 

[picnic]

I'm no Biblical scholar, but from a wider perspective; how do you write a book that is the most widely read, influential, inspirational work in the history of humanity- across multiple millennia, continents, cultures? i.e. it has to be able to speak to different people in different ways- just as in our personal divine experiences yes? So wouldn't we expect this capability from a divine revelation?

That is true I suppose.

 

[picnic]

That remains your own speculation and you need faith (large amount of it) to believe what you yourself said here.

Hmmm. I thought what I said was pretty bland and non-controversial. What part do you think is speculative and why? (If you feel like going into more detail of course. If it is too much trouble to explain in detail, that's fine too. Not trying to be argumentative - just curious.)

 

[sojourner]

There is another thread somewhat similar about the nature of Jesus, but I thought it might be worth asking this question more directly. There are lots of popular books available describing evidence that early Christians had diverse ideas about Christology and other things. In other words, Christianity seems to have evolved in fundamental ways over the first couple of centuries. Scholars aren't certain who Jesus was or what Jesus taught. Was Jesus a revolutionary, a faith healer, a teacher, a doomsday prophet, ...? Similar things can be said about Judaism. Neither religion seems to have appeared abruptly like we should expect from a divine revelation.

On the other side of the scale, many people claim to have personally experienced Jesus or God. Even I can claim some small experiences that seemed to indicate the existence of Jesus and God.

If the historical Jesus and the historical Yahweh were mundane and carnal, then how can a personal experience of Jesus or God make sense?

EDIT: Maybe this is too controversial for DIR? If so, I am fine with a moderator moving it to religious debates or something. (Probably that is where I should have created it if I had been thinking.)

There have always been conflicting ideas about doctrine, belief, practice, etc. Christianity has always been a "living faith" -- that is, there is room for change, reinterpretation, growth, and development. Personally, I would worry if Christianity became stagnant. The church is said to be "organic," and that means, like any other living thing, growth and change are inevitable. Stagnation means death. So, for me, "coping" with change isn't an issue; it's expected.

 

[picnic]

There have always been conflicting ideas about doctrine, belief, practice, etc. Christianity has always been a "living faith" -- that is, there is room for change, reinterpretation, growth, and development. Personally, I would worry if Christianity became stagnant. The church is said to be "organic," and that means, like any other living thing, growth and change are inevitable. Stagnation means death. So, for me, "coping" with change isn't an issue; it's expected.

I agree that some sort of changes are inevitable and useful.

If somebody has a dream or vision of a god-like Jesus, then it seems that this personal experience must either support the god-like Jesus hypothesis or this personal experience must be dismissed as psychological. Historical evidence suggesting that early Christians did not think Jesus was god-like would force anybody with a personal experience to dismiss it. Historical evidence that early Jews understood Yahweh in a way that is incompatible with the modern Christian notion of God would force anybody with a personal experience of God to dismiss it. (Hopefully I explained my reasoning so that it makes sense.)

Has anybody else here faced these questions regarding their personal experiences?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There is another thread somewhat similar about the nature of Jesus, but I thought it might be worth asking this question more directly. There are lots of popular books available describing evidence that early Christians had diverse ideas about Christology and other things. In other words, Christianity seems to have evolved in fundamental ways over the first couple of centuries. Scholars aren't certain who Jesus was or what Jesus taught. Was Jesus a revolutionary, a faith healer, a teacher, a doomsday prophet, ...? Similar things can be said about Judaism. Neither religion seems to have appeared abruptly like we should expect from a divine revelation.

It evolved much more quickly than that. But all the diverse, conflicting sects were eliminated in the first 300 years. Paul melded whatever it was that succeeded Jesus in Jerusalem under his brother James, into the religion of upper class Romans, Mithraism--which was centered in his home town of Tarsus.

On the other side of the scale, many people claim to have personally experienced Jesus or God. Even I can claim some small experiences that seemed to indicate the existence of Jesus and God.

Even if you did have such an experience, that' no good to anyone else if all you can offer is hearsay. Why would God just speak to a few, including prophets, and then leave them with nothing of substance to pass on. Why would God not communicate to everyone, at once, uncorruptably, in their own language, instead of counting on a few fallible humans.

If the historical Jesus and the historical Yahweh were mundane and carnal, then how can a personal experience of Jesus or God make sense?

No personal experience, revelation, or miracle only a few can witness, makes any sense. God being completely laissez-faire and non-interactive is the only viewpoint that makes any sense and fits with the evidence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

There is another thread somewhat similar about the nature of Jesus, but I thought it might be worth asking this question more directly. There are lots of popular books available describing evidence that early Christians had diverse ideas about Christology and other things. In other words, Christianity seems to have evolved in fundamental ways over the first couple of centuries. Scholars aren't certain who Jesus was or what Jesus taught. Was Jesus a revolutionary, a faith healer, a teacher, a doomsday prophet, ...? Similar things can be said about Judaism. Neither religion seems to have appeared abruptly like we should expect from a divine revelation.

On the other side of the scale, many people claim to have personally experienced Jesus or God. Even I can claim some small experiences that seemed to indicate the existence of Jesus and God.

If the historical Jesus and the historical Yahweh were mundane and carnal, then how can a personal experience of Jesus or God make sense?

EDIT: Maybe this is too controversial for DIR? If so, I am fine with a moderator moving it to religious debates or something. (Probably that is where I should have created it if I had been thinking.)

I don't see why there is a problem in things evolving. Consciousness evolves, life evolves, understandings evolve.

 

[metis]

That is true, but when divine revelations are claimed, I expect the fundamentals of those divine revelations to remain unchanged. For example, in the gospel of John, Jesus seems to openly claim some sort of God-like status. If the historical Jesus made these claims, then I would expect the early Christians to have been mostly consistent on that fundamental point. I would not expect to see the God-like status of Jesus evolving gradually like a tall tale growing taller with each repetition. It all depends on what historians you trust more of course.

Again, it's a "balancing act", so I am not suggesting any religion throw the baby out with the bathwater just to try and remain "relevant".

 

[jonathan180iq]

There is another thread somewhat similar about the nature of Jesus, but I thought it might be worth asking this question more directly. There are lots of popular books available describing evidence that early Christians had diverse ideas about Christology and other things. In other words, Christianity seems to have evolved in fundamental ways over the first couple of centuries. Scholars aren't certain who Jesus was or what Jesus taught. Was Jesus a revolutionary, a faith healer, a teacher, a doomsday prophet, ...? Similar things can be said about Judaism. Neither religion seems to have appeared abruptly like we should expect from a divine revelation.

On the other side of the scale, many people claim to have personally experienced Jesus or God. Even I can claim some small experiences that seemed to indicate the existence of Jesus and God.

If the historical Jesus and the historical Yahweh were mundane and carnal, then how can a personal experience of Jesus or God make sense?

EDIT: Maybe this is too controversial for DIR? If so, I am fine with a moderator moving it to religious debates or something. (Probably that is where I should have created it if I had been thinking.)

Are you asking because you're having a problem with this realization?

Your faith isn't something that has to be shattered just because you've gained some more knowledge about the reality of your religion's history. Faith goes deeper than that, and I'm telling you this as an atheist.

I imagine you've been able to recognize the factual carnal history and evolution of other religions in the world for quite some time. You just never critically reasoned your own faith system against the truths you observed about the cultural and social origin of other faith systems... Am I right? We all like to believe that we are unique and that the things we believe are special and exempt from critical reasoning, but it's simply not true. The good part is that you've realized that now and you can grow even deeper in your application of thought as it intermingles with your faith, should you choose to keep it. This is actually going to make your faith a much deeper thing than it was before, even though it may seem like now you want to question why you should believe anything at all if it's all just a bunch of made up stuff...

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter. If anything at all gives meaning and value to your life, then it's valuable. I don't care if you're talking about cheese or god. If you care about it, and have developed a personal philosophy which gives richer and fuller meaning to other aspects of your life, then keep it. You probably never believed that Mohammed was the last true prophet of god. But that didn't stop billions of other people on this planet from creating a deep personal connection to their belief that Mohammed was special. Do you see what I'm saying? I don't believe that there was anything magical happening in Judea 2,000 years ago. But that has never stopped you from applying value and deep personal attachment to such a belief, right? So why stop now, just because you've become aware of a few truths about faith systems? I mean, even if it's 100% fabricated, does that really matter?

Just be content in the knowledge that you've gained and do with that knowledge whatever you like. The only thing that I suggest you don't do is pretend like your new knowledge doesn't exist. Something doesn't become untrue just because we don't like it... So chew it for a while and see where it fits in your worldview. Knowledge is only a threat to a very narrow version of faith.

 

[picnic]

I don't see why there is a problem in things evolving. Consciousness evolves, life evolves, understandings evolve.

The as problem, @well named highlighted in his post, is only if the evolved understanding contradicts the initial understanding at the time of the revelation. For example, if the historical Jesus did not consider himself to be divine, and I have a vision of a divine Jesus, then I must suspect that my vision is not legitimate. Probably my vision is caused by the current Christian culture that considers Jesus to be divine.

Obviously it isn't clear what the historical Jesus claimed about himself. Maybe he was divine and claimed to be divine. Maybe he wasn't divine but was bipolar and claimed to be divine. Maybe he wasn't divine and didn't claim to be divine... Just trying to describe my own musings on these issues.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The as problem, @well named highlighted in his post, is only if the evolved understanding contradicts the initial understanding at the time of the revelation.

Yes, it would seem it would have to backed up in scripture.

For example, if the historical Jesus did not consider himself to be divine, and I have a vision of a divine Jesus, then I must suspect that my vision is not legitimate. Probably my vision is caused by the current Christian culture that considers Jesus to be divine.

Obviously it isn't clear what the historical Jesus claimed about himself.

Yet he spoke in Jh 14 and said to Philip do you not yet know who I am. In him we see the Father and the Father is said to be God. 1Cor 8.6

Maybe he was divine and claimed to be divine. Maybe he wasn't divine but was bipolar and claimed to be divine. Maybe he wasn't divine and didn't claim to be divine... Just trying to describe my own musings on these issues.

Don't forget, he spoke in parables. So it is not going to be plainly written. Fascinating, is it not, that two thousands years on, the debate about him still goes on.

 

[picnic]

Are you asking because you're having a problem with this realization?

Your faith isn't something that has to be shattered just because you've gained some more knowledge about the reality of your religion's history. Faith goes deeper than that, and I'm telling you this as an atheist.

I imagine you've been able to recognize the factual carnal history and evolution of other religions in the world for quite some time. You just never critically reasoned your own faith system against the truths you observed about the cultural and social origin of other faith systems... Am I right? We all like to believe that we are unique and that the things we believe are special and exempt from critical reasoning, but it's simply not true. The good part is that you've realized that now and you can grow even deeper in your application of thought as it intermingles with your faith, should you choose to keep it. This is actually going to make your faith a much deeper thing than it was before, even though it may seem like now you want to question why you should believe anything at all if it's all just a bunch of made up stuff...

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter. If anything at all gives meaning and value to your life, then it's valuable. I don't care if you're talking about cheese or god. If you care about it, and have developed a personal philosophy which gives richer and fuller meaning to other aspects of your life, then keep it. You probably never believed that Mohammed was the last true prophet of god. But that didn't stop billions of other people on this planet from creating a deep personal connection to their belief that Mohammed was special. Do you see what I'm saying? I don't believe that there was anything magical happening in Judea 2,000 years ago. But that has never stopped you from applying value and deep personal attachment to such a belief, right? So why stop now, just because you've become aware of a few truths about faith systems? I mean, even if it's 100% fabricated, does that really matter?

Just be content in the knowledge that you've gained and do with that knowledge whatever you like. The only thing that I suggest you don't do is pretend like your new knowledge doesn't exist. Something doesn't become untrue just because we don't like it... So chew it for a while and see where it fits in your worldview. Knowledge is only a threat to a very narrow version of faith.

Just to clarify, I've been an agnostic atheist most of my adult life (due to lack of evidence for God). My problem is that I have experienced things that seem like evidence for God or something transcending physical reality - synchronicities, ghosts, visions, dreams, precognition, telepathy, UFOs, etc. The frequency of these experiences is very low - like once in my life - but they were each very memorable. A few of these experiences fit the genre of Christianity. The historical evidence that Judaism evolved is even stronger IMO than the historical evidence that Christianity evolved. It's hard to believe the historical Jesus was divine if he didn't recognize that Judaism was not exactly true (IMO of course). I think all early Christians assumed that Jesus was a believing Jew. So I continually reevaluate these experiences. On the one hand, they are hard to dismiss. On the other hand, they don't make sense. I label myself as an atheist, but I keep reevaluating that.

Just wondering if others have this problem.

 

[picnic]

Yes, it would seem it would have to backed up in scripture.

Yet he spoke in Jh 14 and said to Philip do you not yet know who I am. In him we see the Father and the Father is said to be God. 1Cor 8.6

Don't forget, he spoke in parables. So it is not going to be plainly written. Fascinating, is it not, that two thousands years on, the debate about him still goes on.

Of course the problem with scriptures is the editing that probably happened in the early centuries - either intentional or unintentional. The fact that the character Jesus in the gospel of John said something doesn't necessarily imply that the real historical Jesus said something. We have to make educated guesses and the evidence isn't sufficient to decide much. There are probably 10 different theories about the historical Jesus that I'm aware of with my little bit of reading. All those theories were developed by smart scholars, but they weight facts differently.

It is definitely interesting that Christianity remains relevant after all this time. The world has changed a lot in 2000 years, but many of the ideas are still fresh.