Coping with evidence that Christianity morphed

[Desert Snake]

You're the one who brought up Jesus being seen as a deity and then claimed that Christianity has more in common with Judaism, not me.

So?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you mean the interpretation I quoted and linked - in other words the interpretation from Greek or Latin to English? Or do you mean my understanding of the English translation that I quoted?

You linked an English translation that did not support your interpretation.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think the first paragraph is really a stretch, and I just don't consider it likely in the context of not only what the scriptures indicate but also how his books were circulated and how the very early church saw him.

As I indicated, I don't consider it likely either, but others have suggested it.

We have to remember that even though the church became increasingly gentile, especially after 70 c.e., there were a fair number who knew Jesus and also Paul, and no where in the church tradition does it show that they were at odds. Yes, Paul and James seem to have had an "issue" going, probably over the Law, but we don't know if they kissed and made up or whether that grudge remained. But either way, James was only one of the Twelve.

James was the undisputed successor to Jesus in the Jerusalem "church". Even Paul implies that in his writings. And the dispute was indeed over the Law, which is emphasized in the book of James. And as you've indicated, what really left Paul alone on the playing field with traditional Judaism was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Because Paul worked with the Romans prior to his conversion, certainly we can accept the idea that he became a Roman citizen, so I have no problem with that theory. Also, Paul's Greek education quite clearly shows in his writing style, which involved the extensive use of dichotomy (black/white, etc.). To me, Paul is actually the church's first "theologian" because he has the education and a good ability to use so much of the symbolic language (allegories, metaphors, parables, etc.) that we are known for.

Paul was a strong arm man for the Sanhedrin when he was persecuting the Christians. He wasn't working for the Romans. And as he says, he was (almost certainly) a Roman citizen by birth, which had to be a Herodian inheritance, which he hints at in his epistles, especially Romans. But being a Jewish Roman citizen in Judea is evidence enough. There's a lot more evidence than what I'm referencing here. See Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (2012), especially pp. 189-190 and the chart on p. 395, "The Herodians".

Either way, as Joseph Campbell was fond of saying, "and the myth became the reality". IOW, whatever happen, happened, but we are in the here and now.

The only thing that matters is the Truth, and the Truth exists.

 

[picnic]

You linked an English translation that did not support your interpretation.

O.k. that clarifies. thanks.

 

[Desert Snake]

O.k. that clarifies. thanks.

Is your OP asking how others cope with that idea, or how you might cope with the idea, with the intention of becoming religious?

 

[Desert Snake]

/You proposed that Christianity essentially was copied from Zoroastrianism
/I presented the fact that the deity ideas are different, then presented similarities between, Judaism, and Xianity
/You presented the statement that Judaism and Xianity have different Deity ideas
/I said, 'therefore'? /ie how would help your argument

//
Zoroastrianism and Xianity do not share the trinity, or the same deity
Xianity and Judaism, share Holy sites, and blatant similarities in Mikveh, Baptism, etc etc
Not to mention, Jesus is considered the Same Deity presented in the OT/Godhead

Not sure what you aren't understanding, here.

 

[picnic]

Is your OP asking how others cope with that idea, or how you might cope with the idea, with the intention of becoming religious?

That's a very perceptive question... Sometimes I wonder if I should be a Christian or at least some kind of believer. Intellectually I know reasons to be highly skeptical of Judaism and Christianity, but I find that my Christian beliefs persist just beneath the intellectual surface. I consider myself an atheist, but maybe others in my state consider themselves Christians. I wondered how they make it work.

 

[roger1440]

Scholars aren't certain who Jesus was or what Jesus taught.

Jesus probably taught very little. If we would put end to end everything Jesus said in the canonical Gospels and remove the redundancy, it would take less than two hours to read. Of the two hours of reading, the vast majority of material is coming directly from Jewish scripture. It appears Jesus didn’t have much material to work with. What’s up with that?

 

[Desert Snake]

That's a very perceptive question... Sometimes I wonder if I should be a Christian or at least some kind of believer. Intellectually I know reasons to be highly skeptical of Judaism and Christianity, but I find that my Christian beliefs persist just beneath the intellectual surface. I consider myself an atheist, but maybe others in my state consider themselves Christians. I wondered how they make it work.

A couple of ideas present themselves here..
/Atheists generally, or the definition, of ''atheism'', which I use, /declarative/, do not have any theism ideas, or such. If you think that you are a theist, then there is something to be explored, basically.
/Judaism, and Christianity, are religions. For example, I am a theist, yet neither practicing Judaism, nor do I label myself a ''Christian'', for various reasons. This does not mean that I do not have beliefs concerning God Jesus...
/an atheist imo, could makeXianity work in a secular or practical sense, ie following the teachings and morality of Jesu, /the man/. They simply would not have any theism.

 

[roger1440]

"Coping with evidence that Christianity morphed"
The only orthodoxy in Christianity is it’s diversity.

 

[roger1440]

Where does it say he was skimming funds? Regardless of what happened at the Temple, Paul was gaining converts throughout the diasporah for the early church. Since Paul persecuted the early church, and I'm quite certain the apostles even were leery of him at first after his conversion, the fact that they associated with him, corresponded with him, and took funds from his sources, speaks that he was accepted within their inner circle. There's really not other scenario that works.

"...Saul spent several days with the disciples Damascus.20 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21 All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name?And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah." (Acts 9:19-22)

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

"Coping with evidence that Christianity morphed"
The only orthodoxy in Christianity is it’s diversity.

Is there a denomination or sect that doesn't believe in Jesus' salvific death? Even the wacko cults give it lip service. And what's really corrupt is that it's nothing but human sacrifice in the raw. The (Paschal) Lamb of God indeed.

 

[roger1440]

Is there a denomination or sect that doesn't believe in Jesus' salvific death?

If you asked, “Was there a denomination or sect that doesn’t believe in Jesus’ salvific death”, I would answer, yes, the very people who knew Jesus.

 

[metis]

As I indicated, I don't consider it likely either, but others have suggested it.



James was the undisputed successor to Jesus in the Jerusalem "church". Even Paul implies that in his writings. And the dispute was indeed over the Law, which is emphasized in the book of James. And as you've indicated, what really left Paul alone on the playing field with traditional Judaism was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.



Paul was a strong arm man for the Sanhedrin when he was persecuting the Christians. He wasn't working for the Romans. And as he says, he was (almost certainly) a Roman citizen by birth, which had to be a Herodian inheritance, which he hints at in his epistles, especially Romans. But being a Jewish Roman citizen in Judea is evidence enough. There's a lot more evidence than what I'm referencing here. See Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (2012), especially pp. 189-190 and the chart on p. 395, "The Herodians".



The only thing that matters is the Truth, and the Truth exists.

Two points of clarification, and one is that there was collaboration between the Sanhedrin and Rome, much to the chagrin of the Essenes, the Zealots, and many other Jews. I agree that Paul was not working for the Romans, but they and also the Sanhedrin were suspicious of the new movement under Jesus, and we see how all that got played out over time.

As far as "the Truth" is concerned, no doubt there are a great many truths, but the problem has always been in scriptural studies is trying to find out what exactly that is. What Campbell was saying is that we not only cannot be sure of exactly what it is, but also that whatever it was is now pretty much irrelevant to those who follow what they think "the Truth" was and is.

For example, most Christians now believe that Jesus is and was God, but there's strong doubts by even some Christian theologians that Jesus actually stated or implied as such. Regardless as to what "the Truth" may have been back then, most Christians believe it's pretty much a slam-dunk today that he was and is God.

 

[roger1440]

Is there a denomination or sect that doesn't believe in Jesus' salvific death? Even the wacko cults give it lip service. And what's really corrupt is that it's nothing but human sacrifice in the raw. The (Paschal) Lamb of God indeed.

“…49But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, 50nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." 51Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,…” (John 11:49-51)

If that is an actually quote from Caiaphas, there is a likelihood he unknowingly started the ball rolling for Jesus being referred to as the “lamb of God”. The execution of Jesus fits nice and snug with what we know about the relationship between the Jews and Romans during the first century. Add to the mix 1st century Passover week and we have an even more plausible scenario.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Two points of clarification, and one is that there was collaboration between the Sanhedrin and Rome, much to the chagrin of the Essenes, the Zealots, and many other Jews. I agree that Paul was not working for the Romans, but they and also the Sanhedrin were suspicious of the new movement under Jesus, and we see how all that got played out over time.

Yes, we do.

As far as "the Truth" is concerned, no doubt there are a great many truths, but the problem has always been in scriptural studies is trying to find out what exactly that is. What Campbell was saying is that we not only cannot be sure of exactly what it is, but also that whatever it was is now pretty much irrelevant to those who follow what they think "the Truth" was and is.

For example, most Christians now believe that Jesus is and was God, but there's strong doubts by even some Christian theologians that Jesus actually stated or implied as such. Regardless as to what "the Truth" may have been back then, most Christians believe it's pretty much a slam-dunk today that he was and is God.

True as well, but it should have been rejected at some point as irrational (Jesus is god) and immoral (human sacrifice). That this 2000 year old hearsay has made it this far is beyond believable--yet there it is, a monument to man's dependence on emotions ruling our thoughts, because it's easier and feels better.

Absolutely, and that's the point. That he was/is God and died for us as a human sacrifice, is so inherently repugnant, Christianity should have gotten nowhere in that direction--but it did....in spite of the reasons against.

If you asked, “Was there a denomination or sect that doesn’t believe in Jesus’ salvific death”, I would answer, yes, the very people who knew Jesus.

“…49But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, 50nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." 51Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,…” (John 11:49-51)

If that is an actually quote from Caiaphas, there is a likelihood he unknowingly started the ball rolling for Jesus being referred to as the “lamb of God”. The execution of Jesus fits nice and snug with what we know about the relationship between the Jews and Romans during the first century. Add to the mix 1st century Passover week and we have an even more plausible scenario.

All this is very likely if not how it actually happened. My whole point is how Paul took original son of god, salvific death "Christianity" by melding it with pagan Mithraism. But even if Paul was completely not responsible, and Christianity was always what it is now, it should be rejected by people on the inherent, immoral face of it--as any hearsay set of revelations and miracles should be.

 

[metis]

True as well, but it should have been rejected at some point as irrational (Jesus is god) and immoral (human sacrifice). That this 2000 year old hearsay has made it this far is beyond believable--yet there it is, a monument to man's dependence on emotions ruling our thoughts, because it's easier and feels better.

Absolutely, and that's the point. That he was/is God and died for us as a human sacrifice, is so inherently repugnant, Christianity should have gotten nowhere in that direction--but it did....in spite of the reasons against.

But I wouldn't say it was "irrational" based on the time. place, and effects. Besides the various Jewish branches, there were also a people that were called "God-Fearers", namely gentiles who believed in the Jewish concept of God but who didn't convert for one reason or another (there were more women who converted to Judaism than men, and I betcha you can figure out why that was the case). Because they were gentiles, the Law did not apply to them, so they were pretty much free to choose whatever about Jesus.

At first, it was Jesus' humbleness and teachings about love that seem to have carried the day with them and the apostles, and I see no evidence of claims that he ever said or implied "I am God". No doubt that his followers felt at the end that he was of God, but no indication that they believe he was God.

However, after being martyred, plus due the gradual increase of gentile disciples not fully in tune with Jewish teachings, the "of God" eventually drifted to "was/is God", or so it appears. We actually saw a similar drift take place in the case of Gandhi's martyrdom, however he spoke and wrote that he was not God when alive.

So, what we have coming out of this was a general belief in one God, an emphasis on compassion and justice that are also the trademarks of Judaism in general, but with no obligation to follow the entire Law, all 613 of them.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

But I wouldn't say it was "irrational" based on the time. place, and effects. Besides the various Jewish branches, there were also a people that were called "God-Fearers", namely gentiles who believed in the Jewish concept of God but who didn't convert for one reason or another (there were more women who converted to Judaism than men, and I betcha you can figure out why that was the case). Because they were gentiles, the Law did not apply to them, so they were pretty much free to choose whatever about Jesus.

At first, it was Jesus' humbleness and teachings about love that seem to have carried the day with them and the apostles, and I see no evidence of claims that he ever said or implied "I am God". No doubt that his followers felt at the end that he was of God, but no indication that they believe he was God.

However, after being martyred, plus due the gradual increase of gentile disciples not fully in tune with Jewish teachings, the "of God" eventually drifted to "was/is God", or so it appears. We actually saw a similar drift take place in the case of Gandhi's martyrdom, however he spoke and wrote that he was not God when alive.

So, what we have coming out of this was a general belief in one God, an emphasis on compassion and justice that are also the trademarks of Judaism in general, but with no obligation to follow the entire Law, all 613 of them.

We don't really know what Jesus was like. And we have a built in moral conscience due to our full self-awareness. We should know inherently that being told to sacrifice a child for any reason is evil, telling "God" to take a hike in the process. But putting it in holy scriptures justifies it and makes it holy as well. BS.

 

[metis]

We don't really know what Jesus was like. And we have a built in moral conscience due to our full self-awareness. We should know inherently that being told to sacrifice a child for any reason is evil, telling "God" to take a hike in the process. But putting it in holy scriptures justifies it and makes it holy as well. BS.

What does this latter part have to do with what I said?