Coping with evidence that Christianity morphed

[Meriweather]

Add to that the fact that the Esatern and Western branches never could agree which was to be primal -- Rome or Constantinople. That back-and-forth continued until the Great Schism of 1054 -- which has NEVER been reconciled. Only one of the doctrinal and theological differences that, seeminly, will never be reconciled is the filioque clause in the Creed. So, the idea that there has been One Teaching in the One Church is a little disingenuous, and represents a biased perspective.

The filoque clause should be the easiest to resolve. It's basically a matter of semantics, or more accurately, the differences between the Greek word/definition for "proceeds" and the Latin. Both the East and the West agree that the Holy Spirit initiates with the Father. The Greek word clearly states this.

However, when translated into Latin, things get muddied, because when the word for "Proceeds" is used in Latin, there has to be information about the progression, otherwise nothing happens.

A common analogy is to imagine a game of catch and the Father has the ball (Holy Spirit). The Greek word portrays the ball proceeding from the Father. When (in Greek) "and the son" is added, by definition, two people would now be holding/throwing the same ball. This would be dual procession, the one ball proceeding from two hands. This does not hold true in the Latin, in fact, quite the revers.

In Latin the Father has the ball (Holy Spirit) and there it remains ...until it goes somewhere. Where does it go? Through the Son. In Latin, action must be shown to have taken place, whereas in Greek, the action is perceived to be taking place. This is why when the the Roman Catholic Mass is said in Greek it eliminates "and the Son" for the simple reason that in the Greek it changes from a single progression to a dual progression. If Mass is said in Latin, "and the Son" is included to show a procession is truly taking place. Neither Church believes in dual procession. It is the grammar of two different languages that started the problem--and subsequent issues between the East and the West that blew this out of proportion. Grammar issues are easily resolved.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

But Paul did not write in a vacuum, and we know his letters were widely circulated throughout the church and even used more than the gospels were at first, the latter of which obviously had later writings. Paul was not an outcast with the Jerusalem authority as he met with them at least three times as recorded in Acts, plus he had correspondence with Peter and the others, plus he raised funds for them.

The vacuum was created by the fall of Jerusalem. And, yes he was tolerated for a time, probably in part because of the money, but the riot he caused at the Temple happened apparently just after the last one meeting, probably due to either them finding out he was skimming funds. And that would have paled in comparison to them finding out that he was a Roman citizen which would have essentially identified his Herodian heritage.

 

[picnic]

The thing is, the evolution of Christian theology is very obvious to anyone who reads Christian material - from the church fathers to today. These writings for the most part were never lost and have been widely read and available since the invention of the printing press in the 16th century.

For the past 200 years, critical scholarship has known about the development of earliest Christianity and several theories about it have come and gone, but most of these theories dealt with all of the changes in Christian theology.

So let's say that you have a vision of Jesus where he looks and behaves and thinks like an ordinary mainline Christian would expect. What would you think of that vision given that the expectations of mainline Christians reflect an evolved image of Jesus that is probably nothing like the historical Jesus?

I see two possibilities:
(1) The vision is psychological, and mainline Christian ideas predominate in our culture, so of course any hallucination of Jesus will match mainline ideas.
(2) Something else is using these mainline Christian ideas as potent symbols to communicate its own message.

I suppose Occam's razor favor's possibility #1.

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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's one of the things I tried to rationalize away as a Catholic. We can't even be sure that much of anything in the Bible is actual history, whereas it's obvious that a lot of it wasn't. We don't even really know if Jesus, the Apostles, Paul or the Patriarchs were actual people or not. Who knows. Christian history is full of lies, redaction, destroying evidence, etc. Personally, I think Christianity is best treated as the Gnostics tended to view it - as an esoteric Mystery school religion, much like Orphism. Tacking the Hebrew Bible, with its petty, violent tribal deity, onto the story of Christ was a horrible idea. It's apparent that Judaism grew out of native Canaanite polytheism, too. So the whole popular assumption of the backstory of the Abrahamic religions is just a sham.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, and then Jesu praying to /supposedly/, the cosmic tyrant, yet telling people they don't even know the father? What?

Well, the Gnostics had a more consistent view of it - that the Father Christ spoke of is an altogether different entity from the Yahweh of the OT. It is very strange that Christianity is very much the odd one out of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Judaism and Islam are very much focused on this world and worldly success (although Islam has a very Dark Age notion of heaven and hell). However, Christianity - especially in Catholicism and Orthodoxy - is very ethereal and focused on spiritual matters. It actually has more in common with Jainism and Buddhism than it does with either Judaism or Islam, when it comes down to what it holds as its primary focus and its ethics. For example, Christianity has the concept of asceticism, which neither Judaism or Islam have. Very strange.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, the Gnostics had a more consistent view of it - that the Father Christ spoke of is an altogether different entity from the Yahweh of the OT. It is very strange that Christianity is very much the odd one out of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Judaism and Islam are very much focused on this world and worldly success (although Islam has a very Dark Age notion of heaven and hell). However, Christianity - especially in Catholicism and Orthodoxy - is very ethereal and focused on spiritual matters. It actually has more in common with Jainism and Buddhism than it does with either Judaism or Islam, when it comes down to what it holds as its primary focus and its ethics. For example, Christianity has the concept of asceticism, which neither Judaism or Islam have. Very strange.

Many of the Christians were Essenes. They are ascetic. Esha was most liKely related /in religion matters/, to the Essenes. His background, /I believe/, was traditionally related to the Essenes, like a variant type thing. What we think of as ''Xian'' customs are Essenic as well, or can be.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Many of the Christians were Essenes. They are ascetic. Esha was most liKely related /in religion matters/, to the Essenes. His background, /I believe/, was traditionally related to the Essenes, like a variant type thing. What we think of as ''Xian'' customs are Essenic as well, or can be.

That's one theory. Another is that Christianity is a sort of hybrid of Greco-Roman esoteric schools and Eastern philosophy (which was well-known in the Greco-Roman world) . Seems it has Zoroastrian influences, as well, since those religions are more similar than different. That's what makes the most sense to me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

An allusion to Zoroastrianism is actually written into the Nativity story with the "three wise men" - the "magi". Magi were Zoroastrian priests or Zoroastrians in general, depending on usage.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, Zoroastrians are not connected to Jesus. They have a completely different G-d, etc. They would not honor or be represented as honoring Esha, imo.

Um, no. First:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi

Zoroastrianism and Christianity has these things in common:
Monotheistic (some see Zoroastrianism as duotheistic, but it's practiced and viewed by Zoroastrians as monotheistic, generally)
Dualist (has a strong view of good and evil, along with a cosmic war between the two being fought with humans being in league with either side)
Strong universalist moral/ethical teachings, along with a belief in purity
Belief in hell (although in Zoroastrianism, hell is similar to the Catholic purgatory)
Belief in the resurrection of the dead
Belief in a savior
Belief in the remaking and perfection of the universe with good triumphing over evil
Belief in prophets

Etc. Christianity is almost a copy of Zoroastrianism, when it comes to the religion in general and its basic narrative. Even while I was Catholic, I believed that Zoroastrians worshiped the same God, while I would hesitate to say the same about Jews and Muslims!

 

[Desert Snake]

You have to take into consideration the context of Xianity, the theology of such, and the traditional Xian beliefs. You can't just say 'well it's similar, Xian ideas came from Zoroaster!'.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You have to take into consideration the context of Xianity, the theology of such, and the traditional Xian beliefs. You can't just say 'well it's similar, Xian ideas came from Zoroaster!'.

It's way too similar to Zoroastrianism to just be a coincidence.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The theology is different. 'Jesus', is not a deified 'man', He is a Deity form with a human aspect. That is why He does not have a father, and ascends, etc. Normal people have fathers, and don't ascend, etc. He is an aspect of JHVH, and hence in Spirit form, is called G-d, or Jesus as God. The Bible alludes to this, but some churches ''manified'', the Deity, either through some confusion, or possibly even under some external social or political pressure, to do such. Hence, the Deity is totally different, between ''Xianity'', and Zoroastrianism. The faiths simply have common ideas, and perhaps even shared history, as do some other faiths /did , with Jesus worship, or what is known commonly as ''Christianity'', ie what it is in known as in European zeitgeist, of course. //The familiar churches.
This is why
/Jesus is not a replacement temple sacrifice. /can't be, as He is JHVH/it's a metaphoric ''sacrifice''
/Jesus is not referred to as a man, but G-d, the creator, so forth
/Jesus is said to be ''one'' with father, /He is an aspect of the father, or G-d in non-Jesus form
/Jesus baptizes differently from Johanan/ He does not baptize as a man does, hence people are baptized ''in the name of'', rather than 'by' Jesus //no one assumes the nature of Jesus
/Jesus has no human father, an earthly form manifested through Mary, via the Spirit//part of the Godhead

Have you had too much cappuccino today?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So let's say that you have a vision of Jesus where he looks and behaves and thinks like an ordinary mainline Christian would expect. What would you think of that vision given that the expectations of mainline Christians reflect an evolved image of Jesus that is probably nothing like the historical Jesus?

I see two possibilities:
(1) The vision is psychological, and mainline Christian ideas predominate in our culture, so of course any hallucination of Jesus will match mainline ideas.
(2) Something else is using these mainline Christian ideas as potent symbols to communicate its own message.

I suppose Occam's razor favor's possibility #1.

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

Yes, you're abusing Occam's razor. You've presented a complex answer, claiming that it is the simplest explanation.

Only the most ardent American evangelical would be uncomfortable realizing that the ideas concerning Jesus have changed, and only in rare circumstances. Most evangelicals pride themselves in thinking that they are somehow accessing the original Jesus, skipping over all of the misinterpretations throughout history. So they would agree with you that the interpretations of Jesus have changed, but they have the earliest and best. Many other Christian sects believe something like this.

The real challenge would be convincing them that their interpretation of Jesus is dictated by their contemporary context as every other interpretation before them.

All that being said, I've taught about the historical Jesus for several years now on many levels (graduate, undergraduate, and even high and middle school), and only one student that I know of had an existential crisis because of it (he ended up - against my recommendation - dropping out of seminary).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There was very much lost that was attributed to the opposition of the victorious version of Christianity--with their texts being burned and their adherents being killed or driven underground. And they did a pretty good job, until some of that opposition material (apocrypha) such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library along with other Gnostic material (and the Talpiot Tombs) etc., only now being found 2000 years later.

Not enough was lost that we don't know that the interpretations of Jesus changed. I did not intimate that nothing was lost, but that the fact that interpretations changed is well known from the information that we've always had. My point is simple: the argument that interpretations of Jesus changed is not based on newly found material that was previously lost, but is well established with information that has been easily accessible for hundreds of years.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Lol I'm showing you the obvious differences between Zoroastrianism, and ''xianity''. I'm not sure what makes you think that Xianity is any more similar to Zoroasters schtick, as it is to anything else. When the theology does not share Deity similarities, etc., there is a problem in relating religions. The focus of theistic religions is the Deity. In this sense, Xianity and Judaism, are more similar, and in fact, if you consider things like the Jewish Mikveh, shared religious Holy sites, etc., it is pretty clear to me that Xian belief did not come from Zoroastrianism.

Er, Christianity has the Trinity. Judaism does not.

 

[picnic]

All that being said, I've taught about the historical Jesus for several years now on many levels (graduate, undergraduate, and even high and middle school), and only one student that I know of had an existential crisis because of it (he ended up - against my recommendation - dropping out of seminary).

A piece of evidence that many Christians use is their conversion experience. The Christian usually prays the sinner's prayer. Here is an example used by Billy Graham:

Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior. In Your Name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinner's_prayer

So the Christian prays this and feels a warmth in his/her heart or great joy or something. (I never had this type of experience as a Christian, so I have no idea what it is like.) Later this Christian might learn that many early Christians would not have thought that Jesus died for anybody's sins. Maybe the rest of the sinner's prayer would have made sense to early Christians. If you teach classes, then you can tell me better than I can tell you LOL.

Wouldn't this be a problem if the sinner's prayer that created the conversion experience would not have made sense to the historical Jesus - if Jesus would have replied "what are you talking about?"

 

[picnic]

^ @angellous_evangellous , I wanted to add a non-evangelical example for balance. Many Christian denominations attach great significance to communion and experience visions of Jesus, blood, flesh, or whatever. My understanding is that communion was not originally understood as a sacrifice of Jesus with literal body and blood. Originally communion was simply a small ritual meal to bond the religious community. So visions of sacrifices, body, and blood at communion wouldn't have made sense to the earliest Christians.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

^ @angellous_evangellous , I wanted to add a non-evangelical example for balance. Many Christian denominations attach great significance to communion and experience visions of Jesus, blood, flesh, or whatever. My understanding is that communion was not originally understood as a sacrifice of Jesus with literal body and blood. Originally communion was simply a small ritual meal to bond the religious community. So visions of sacrifices, body, and blood at communion wouldn't have made sense to the earliest Christians.

I see. I'm glad you're specific here.

I would agree that the doctrine of the Trinity would be something that took hundreds of years to develop, but not the doctrine - in some type - of the literal body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. That's in the earliest traditions, and it's not a complex doctrine - like working out the precise nature of the divinity of Jesus.

So did the doctrine of 'transubstantiation' evolve, sure it did - and you'd be arguing with Roman Catholics who have no problem with the concept of evolution in general and know full well that their doctrines were clarified through church tradition. But the heart of the issue for me is that (1) that particular doctrine is not complex (there isn't a lot of room for development in a doctrine so simple) and (2) it's in the earliest Christian traditions.

I would disagree then that the earliest Christians would have a difficult time with the modern doctrine - it simply isn't all that different from what we find in Scripture and the church fathers.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A piece of evidence that many Christians use is their conversion experience. The Christian usually prays the sinner's prayer. Here is an example used by Billy Graham:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinner's_prayer

So the Christian prays this and feels a warmth in his/her heart or great joy or something. (I never had this type of experience as a Christian, so I have no idea what it is like.) Later this Christian might learn that many early Christians would not have thought that Jesus died for anybody's sins. Maybe the rest of the sinner's prayer would have made sense to early Christians. If you teach classes, then you can tell me better than I can tell you LOL.

Wouldn't this be a problem if the sinner's prayer that created the conversion experience would not have made sense to the historical Jesus - if Jesus would have replied "what are you talking about?"

Yeah, I think you're right about the so-called 'sinner's prayer.' That's obviously a by-product of American religious experience, harkening from the individualism of the religious experiences of the Great Awakening (and connected before that to the religious journals that Calvinists kept regarding their personal religious experiences). I think that Billy would agree on that point.

An important point to ponder here is simply this -- we know that culture changes, and because of that our religious experience changes. The Bible - and earliest Christianities - were created by and for people in a completely different cultural context. So we need to make adjustments or the message will be completely irrelevant to us today. It's a two way street in other words - much of what modern Christians do would be unintelligible to the earliest Christians, but the opposite is also true. The earliest Christians are largely unintelligible to modern Christians.

 

[picnic]

I see. I'm glad you're specific here.

I would agree that the doctrine of the Trinity would be something that took hundreds of years to develop, but not the doctrine - in some type - of the literal body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. That's in the earliest traditions, and it's not a complex doctrine - like working out the precise nature of the divinity of Jesus.

So did the doctrine of 'transubstantiation' evolve, sure it did - and you'd be arguing with Roman Catholics who have no problem with the concept of evolution in general and know full well that their doctrines were clarified through church tradition. But the heart of the issue for me is that (1) that particular doctrine is not complex (there isn't a lot of room for development in a doctrine so simple) and (2) it's in the earliest Christian traditions.

I would disagree then that the earliest Christians would have a difficult time with the modern doctrine - it simply isn't all that different from what we find in Scripture and the church fathers.

Doesn't it seem suspicious that the communion prayers in the Didache speak of the bread and wine as symbols of something different than body and blood? The Didache speaks of the wine as symbolizing the vine of David and the bread as symbolizing a church that is scattered and gathered. The modern Eucharist symbolizes the sacrifice of Jesus at crucifixion and the consumption of his literal body and blood to symbolize redemption from sins and salvation. It seems quite different to me.

Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html