Osiris

[DavidSMoore]

Spin is what we put on it today, but back then it was not such difficult reading. I don't think that the gospel of Matthew was written to be read by everyone in a literal way, however I don't think its malicious spin either. I think that to the Jewish people reading it that it would obviously be considered midrash, beginning with its weird geneology of 42 generations and spooky talk about the number fourteen. Nothing wrong with midrash. As for the word 'Fulfil' its a dead giveaway that this is midrash. I checked, and each and every use of this term 'fulfil' by Matthew is used in the sense of 'Imitate', despite the dictionary definition of the word. That's not spin. That is literary art. A Jewish reader in that day and age would have instantly picked up on this. A Jewish reader in that day and age would also know that midrash was Ok, and what mattered was the commentary about how to live and to interpret the law. We should pay attention to what Jesus says about the law, about converts, about Romans, about various issues of concern to those people in that time. Matthew is probably a commentary on the law and how best to live in the present difficult moment, not a literal account despite what its introduction says. Calling it 'Spin' attributes a malice that is unecessary. It is about Jesus, but obviously it is about Israel, the resurrection of it. I think anybody can see that if they are familiar and look up all the references Matthew uses, but most people don't do like I do or think like me. Most are looking for assurances of some kind. If you take away the assurances then they don't see the point, lose interest or get annoyed. Perhaps they aren't ready for the material. When the student is ready the teacher will appear.

Very interesting. Thanks for the background info.

I understand what you are saying, however the Jewish concept of paradise is much different than the modern Christian sentiment. Even in Matthew repentence equals resurrection. It is the resurrection. This is not going to break any Jewish minds. Since it is midrash they can take it or leave it. Christians having incorporated a solid belief in an afterlife do run into the problems that you point out in your sets.

I don't think we need to know the NT authors personally to know that they are not writing literally, and I think we can also presume they are writing in a Jewish context about problems happening around Jerusalem in a tumultuous time when the Romans are stomping about with swords and harrassing the populace. Personally I think the gospel material is likely a result of the temple's destruction rather than predicting it. Its a bird in the hand. I can't think of anything which would impact the Jews more than the destruction of their temple and crucifixion of 30,000 men. Certainly they must have had many conversations and written many midrash as a result. What Matthew puts forward is a peaceful response to this trouble.

There is a focus upon perfection, yes. The writers are working with the visions of Ezekiel and other prophets. They are dealing with an unbelievable event. If the temple has been destroyed *again* it must mean an even greater refining of Israel has come. Perfection is what the prophets say all of the suffering is for. Israel must be refined until it is like silver. It must also have a new kind of holiness that is contagious. Therefore perfection is expected and more perfection than ever. Whether this is literal or midrash I'd say they try very hard to take that literally. They want an end to the cycle of suffering for Israel and to help the rest of the world, too. Obviously they'd like Rome to become peaceful; and that is what Matthew is aiming for.

Orally transmitted, but then the temple is destroyed and the streets lined with tortured dying men. Then the gospels are written down afterwards -- after the most disruptive event, most traumatic since the Assyrian invasion.

So I think that your exclusion sets are probably correct, however I don't think that they are discrepancies so much as literary art that has been taken too literally with understandable plot holes that result.

I agree that the NT authors weren't malicious, and that they were producing what they would have considered to be art.

 

[DavidSMoore]

This is more rather silly reasoning, Dave. Let me ask you this: Do you actually believe, actually genuinely honestly believe, that there were Christians running around in the 1st century who thought that faith was irrelevant and it didn't matter for people's salvation? That's a very simple yes or no question. Do you actually think that happened?

Not sure. Yes, we have the Parable of the Talents to tell us that faith is important. But we also have the Lord's Prayer which says nothing explicit about having faith in Jesus. That seems like a pretty significant difference. If faith were crucial to a Christian's path wouldn't Jesus have asked his followers to think about it every day in prayer? It seems like an odd omission.

To consider just one of the passages we've been discussing, Matthew 6:14-15, it doesn't say anything explicit about having faith. Isn't it possible that there was an early Christian tradition that held that the key to salvation is forgiveness alone and not faith, while at the same time there were other groups of early Christians who believed that faith is essential? Isn't it possible that the differences that you have said are only figments of my hyper-critical reading are reflective of different traditions that influenced Matthew's writing?

 

[Left Coast]

Not sure. Yes, we have the Parable of the Talents to tell us that faith is important.

You missed it. The point of the parable is that both faith and works are important.

But we also have the Lord's Prayer which says nothing explicit about having faith in Jesus. That seems like a pretty significant difference. If faith were crucial to a Christian's path wouldn't Jesus have asked his followers to think about it every day in prayer? It seems like an odd omission.

How would one pray the Lord's Prayer without faith?

You're now demanding that literally every passage of the Bible explicitly mention both faith and works in order to concede the point here?

This is getting rather silly now, David.

To consider just one of the passages we've been discussing, Matthew 6:14-15, it doesn't say anything explicit about having faith. Isn't it possible that there was an early Christian tradition that held that the key to salvation is forgiveness alone and not faith, while at the same time there were other groups of early Christians who believed that faith is essential? Isn't it possible that the differences that you have said are only figments of my hyper-critical reading are reflective of different traditions that influenced Matthew's writing?

No, to be honest it really isn't. We have no evidence of such a sect, no scholar I've ever read on early Christianity has endorsed such a sect, no early Church Father espoused such a view. And the Bible is chock full of passages indicating we need faith, interwoven throughout with passages indicating we need works.

Like Matthew 6, for example! Where Jesus tells his followers not to worry and chides their lack of faith:

"But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?" (Verse 30)

 

[DavidSMoore]

No, to be honest it really isn't. We have no evidence of such a sect, no scholar I've ever read on early Christianity has endorsed such a sect, no early Church Father espoused such a view.

Okay, thank you.

 

[Betho_br]

Four thousand years ago the Osiris cult began to spread throughout ancient Egypt. That faith held that after death your soul would be resurrected and would be put on trial by Osiris and his council of 42 other gods and goddesses. First you would be asked to assert that you had never committed any of 42 specific sins. If you passed that part of the test, your heart would be weighed against the feather of Ma’at, the goddess of truth and justice. If your heart were lighter than her feather, then you would be granted eternal life.

The genealogy in Matthew 1 is divided into 42 generations.

Egypt was divided into 42 NOMOS.

Psalm 78:67 King James Version
Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim:

Asenath was the wife of Joseph, son of Jacob. She was the adopted daughter of Potifera, priest of On, Egypt.

Jesus hid in Egypt and also in the tribe of Ephraim.

Psalm 78:67 King James Version
Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim:

John 11:54 King James Version
Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.

Hosea 11:1 King James Version
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

The Lord will make himself known to Egypt and call them "my people." Isaiah 19.

Zechariah 10:6-7 King James Version
And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the Lord their God, and will hear them. And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord.

 

[DavidSMoore]

No, to be honest it really isn't. We have no evidence of such a sect, no scholar I've ever read on early Christianity has endorsed such a sect, no early Church Father espoused such a view. And the Bible is chock full of passages indicating we need faith, interwoven throughout with passages indicating we need works.

I apologize for responding so late to your posting. I was traveling and was unable to do any research.

Let’s begin with Gnosticism, which was a belief system that predated Christianity. But there were some Gnostics who considered themselves Christians-- like Valentinus. As his following grew his theology was considered a significant threat to what ultimately became Christian orthodoxy. Gnosticism took many forms, but all of its variations asserted more or less the following:

• The world-- and indeed all physical matter-- is inherently evil, and the God who created the world is also evil.
• Salvation cannot be attained through either faith or works, but only through knowledge-- specifically self-knowledge. Salvation means to be reborn as a purely spiritual being, untainted by the evil of the physical world.
• There are different classes of people: the choics, purely carnal pursuers of material things; the psychics, those who live by faith and works (and who, in a Christian context were the majority of church goers); and the pneumatics, the Gnostics themselves who are the only people who can ascend to their divine origin.

In some versions of Gnosticism each soul that has not ascended may go through many cycles of death and rebirth and may, through each iteration, come a bit closer to the final state of knowledge that will ultimately lead to its salvation.

The primary fault that orthodox believers found in the gnostic teachings was that Gnostics depicted Jesus as a purely spiritual being, not a human. This was the essence of Docetism-- an idea that appeared and flourished many times in various Christian belief systems. But in addition the idea that only a certain class of Christians-- the Gnostics themselves-- could ever attain salvation was anathema to Christian orthodoxy.

The New Testament has many Gnostic elements, including its many mentions of the “elect” (i.e. the pneumatics):

• Matthew 24:22-31
• Mark 13:20-27
• Romans 8:33
• Romans 11:7
• 2 Timothy 2:10
• Titus 1:1

And this passage, from Luke:

Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’, or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.”
(Luke 17:20-21, NRSVue*)

The Gospel of Thomas, a Christian Gnostic codex from the Nag Hammadi library, says the following:

His disciples said to Him: “When will the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?”
He said to them, “What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it.”
(The Gospel of Thomas, Nag Hammadi Library, pg. 123)

And this:

His disciples said to Him, “When will the Kingdom come?”
<Jesus said,> “It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying ‘Here it is’ or ‘There it is.’ Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth and men do not see it.”
(The Gospel of Thomas, Nag Hammadi Library, pg. 130)

As I read them, these examples are variations of the Gnostic idea that the knowledge necessary for salvation is available to those who can perceive it in the world around us.

The book The Gospel of Jesus, by James Robinson, presents the results of several decades of academic research into the real teachings of Jesus. Mr. Robinson provides his own translation of the Sayings Gospel Q, which is alleged to be as close to the actual teachings of Jesus as modern scholarship can reconstruct. According to Mr. Robinson, the authors of Matthew and Luke combined the book of Mark with the Sayings Gospel Q to produce their separate writings-- the book of Matthew directed to a predominantly Jewish Christian community and the book of Luke targeted for a gentile Christian audience. The Sayings Gospel Q includes the following:

But on being asked when the kingdom of God is coming, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God is not coming visibly. Nor will one say: Look, here! Or: There! For, look, the kingdom of God is within you!
(The Sayings Gospel Q, The Gospel of Jesus, James Robinson, pg. 52)

So Gnostic elements were in the sayings that can be attributed to Jesus before the Gospels were written.

The early Christian writer Origen also had Gnostic-like ideas:

Depending on the quality of their life on earth, souls might evolve or degenerate. After further lives of striving, finally, all would be saved. This last belief was contrary to that of the Gnostics, who assumed a pre-destined elect. Origien believed that every man has within him the image of the Divine Word. Unless he destroys this entirely, there is always hope for him.
(Early Christian Heresies, Joan O’Grady, pg. 49)

So as I see it, at least some Gnostic ideas were held by some early Church leaders.

Marcion was an early Christian thinker who also attained a large following. He agreed with the Gnostics that the material world is inherently evil, and he further claimed that only St. Paul knew the true teachings of Jesus. He also agreed with the Gnostic concept of classes of humans-- only the Perfect, in his view, could attain salvation.

In seeming contradiction to the strictness of their hierarchical rules, the Marcionite Church insisted that only faith in God’s love was needed for salvation, humanity having been freed from the legislation of the Old Testament God.
(Early Christian Heresies, Joan O’Grady, pg. 59)

That’s a very early expression of the “faith alone” theology.

Then there were the Donatists:

The Donatists held to the ‘orthodox’ teachings of the Great Church. They separated themselves from it on the issue of who was the truly appointed bishop. But their attitude towards this issue emphasised the old point of conflict: was the Church for the perfect, or was it a Church for all levels of men? Should only good people be recognised as members of a divine society?
The Donatists called themselves the ‘communion of saints’. The Catholic Church, according to them, was tainted with worldliness and unworthy members destroyed the Church’s holiness. The Donatist Church was holy and so it was the one true Church of God. A holy Church could not include unholy members.
(Early Christian Heresies, Joan O’Grady, pg. 81)

That’s a church that is based on the Gnostic idea of classes of humans, with only the pneumatics being allowed to join the Church.

And we also have the followers of Pelagius:

“If I ought, then I can,” was the motto he used, therefore insisting on human freedom of will to choose. God’s grace was there to help all to salvation, but man must make himself worthy of it by striving. Pelagius insisted that we are ourselves able to do all that God commands: “Where the will is not absolutely free, there is no sin.” This conception of man’s will was based on the theory that, at each moment of volition, no matter what came before, the will is in equipoise, able to choose good or evil.
(Early Christian Heresies, Joan O’Grady, pg. 114)

That’s a school of thought that says that each individual person has within him the power to make choices in his daily life to do either good or evil-- in direct contrast to the predestinarian ideas of Paul, who explicitly said that God fashions some people to be evil, as in Romans 9:14-18. Pelagius’s teachings provoked a virulent response from St. Augustine, who attacked him bitterly.

In addition there were other groups with other dissenting interpretations of the biblical writings: the Montanists, the Nestorians, the Manichees... All of the above examples are from a time prior to about 500 CE-- so at least 1000 years before the Reformation.

The point of all of this is that, in my view, the early history of Christianity is a welter of competing ideas and theologies, especially as regards the notion of salvation. As I see it there wasn’t one single common set of beliefs among the early Christians-- there were many competing ideas that affected all aspects of Christian theology. So overall, my impression is that your depiction of early Christian teachings is too simplistic.


*NRSVue = New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition, published in 2019 by the National Council of Churches of the United States of America.

 

[Left Coast]

I apologize for responding so late to your posting. I was traveling and was unable to do any research.

No worries!

Let’s begin with Gnosticism, which was a belief system that predated Christianity.

Hold on. Before we get into this, what I was responding to was the idea that there was some sect of early Christians who believed "forgiveness alone," without faith or any other works, was all that was necessary for salvation. I said there was no evidence for such a sect.

You're not suggesting the Gnostics fit that bill, are you?

 

[DavidSMoore]

You're not suggesting the Gnostics fit that bill, are you?

Nope-- read on. You'll find what I think is an adequate example under the discussion of Pelagius.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Nope-- read on. You'll find what I think is an adequate example under the discussion of Pelagius.

Sorry-- I should have said Marcion.

 

[Left Coast]

Sorry-- I should have said Marcion.

You think Marcion believed "forgiveness alone," apart from any other works or faith, is all that's necessary for salvation? Nothing you cited indicates that.

 

[DavidSMoore]

You think Marcion believed "forgiveness alone," apart from any other works or faith, is all that's necessary for salvation? Nothing you cited indicates that.

Wow, where was my head? The heat must be turning my brain to mush. My bad.

But I hope we can agree that long prior to the Reformation there were different groups of people who called themselves Christians who had a wide range of beliefs concerning what must be done to be saved, when the resurrection of the dead would happen, and who the Church is for, including:

Gnostic Christians who believed that salvation depends only on self-knowledge, that only the pneumatics can attain that knowledge, and that the resurrection isn't going to happen at any specific time but is instead happening all the time: people are always dying and their souls are reborn; and those souls that have attained knowledge will be reborn as pure spirits, free from the evils of the material world.

The Marcionists, who believed that the gospels are not to be trusted, and that only faith in God's love is necessary for salvation.

The Donatists, who believed that only those who are holy (i.e. the pneumatics) should be allowed in a Christian Church.

The followers of Pelagius, who held that the human will must be absolutely free, because if it were not there would be no sin, and that Christians must constantly earn God's grace through their actions. That's pretty close to saying that actions determine one's worthiness for salvation, not faith.

Those are some very diverse views on basic Christian tenets. I can only assume that prior to the writing of the New Testament the thinking of early Christians must have been equally diverse-- and perhaps more so.

 

[DavidSMoore]

This is perhaps the silliest criticism of the thread. The fact that the Catholic Church doesn't include forgiveness on their list of virtues doesn't mean they don't care about forgiveness. Forgiveness, I would argue, is an expression of the virtue of love.

On forgiveness:

"Christian prayer extends to the forgiveness of enemies, transfiguring the disciple by configuring him to his Master. Forgiveness is a high-point of Christian prayer; only hearts attuned to God's compassion can receive the gift of prayer. Forgiveness also bears witness that, in our world, love is stronger than sin. The martyrs of yesterday and today bear this witness to Jesus. Forgiveness is the fundamental condition of the reconciliation of the children of God with their Father and of men with one another." CCC, Paragraph 2844

That doesn't strike me as words of a religion that doesn't value forgiveness. Forgiveness is one of the most central spiritual themes of Christianity. You really don't know this?

The Catholic Church has an entire sacrament specifically dedicated to forgiveness. The fact that the Church doesn't categorize forgiveness as a cardinal virtue is a very odd nit to pick.

Your comment forced me to go back and reevaluate the Catholic Catechism, and I agree that you were right. The Catholic Church does indeed accept the teaching of Jesus that Christians are to forgive the sins of others, and are even to forgive their enemies. It just seems odd to me that the Catechism wouldn't include forgiveness among its 7 Christian virtues. Anyway, thank you for challenging me and forcing me to rethink my position.

I already mentioned the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, which explicitly says that one's actions can never earn God's forgiveness-- only faith. Here's a couple of other such statements-- first from the Presbyterian Church:

God instead set in motion His plan to save His people from sin and judgment and set free the entire creation from its subjugation to sin and the curse. How? By sending His Son as a true man who would bear the penalty for our sin and die in our place: “Christ died for our sins in accordance with Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3).
The best-known verse in the Bible summarizes the required response to this good news: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
To “believe in” Jesus includes both a wholehearted trust in Him for forgiveness of sins and a decision to forsake one’s sin or to “repent”: All who truly “repent [or turn from their sins] and believe [in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins]” will be redeemed (Mark 1:15) and restored to a right relationship with God. To “believe in” Jesus also requires relating to, and putting trust in, Jesus as He truly is-- not just a man in ancient history but also a living Savior today who knows our hearts and who hears our prayers.
("Good News" - pcanet.org)

No mention of doing good works there. Here's the Southern Baptist Convention:

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
(Baptist Faith & Message 2000 - The Baptist Faith and Message)

Again, it's faith, not works. Here's the United Methodist Church:

The Rev. Junius Boyd Dotson: "What does it mean to be saved? Scripture declares that if you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, we shall be saved.”
(United Methodist Beliefs: What does it mean to be saved?)

It would appear that the Catholic Church is an outlier on this point. Also, the Catholic Catechism says the following:

The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful the people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.
(Catholic Catechism, 2266)

I fully agree with that statement, but it is unlike anything Jesus ever said. He advocated forgiveness without punishment, and that is the behavior he modeled in all of his interactions with persons whose sins he forgave.

The point I was trying to make in my original posting was that Christians have focused on faith as the key to salvation, but that Jesus talked extensively about forgiving the sins of others and being charitable-- and I recommended that Christianity should focus on works over faith. I now see that I had exaggerated, certainly in the case of Catholicism. But maybe we can agree that there is a broad contingent of non-Catholic Christians who believe that faith is the only avenue to salvation, and that good works cannot guarantee it?

 

[Left Coast]

Your comment forced me to go back and reevaluate the Catholic Catechism, and I agree that you were right. The Catholic Church does indeed accept the teaching of Jesus that Christians are to forgive the sins of others, and are even to forgive their enemies. It just seems odd to me that the Catechism wouldn't include forgiveness among its 7 Christian virtues. Anyway, thank you for challenging me and forcing me to rethink my position.

It takes a lot of guts to rethink your position and openly concede it. So good on you for doing that!

I already mentioned the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, which explicitly says that one's actions can never earn God's forgiveness-- only faith. Here's a couple of other such statements-- first from the Presbyterian Church:



No mention of doing good works there. Here's the Southern Baptist Convention:



Again, it's faith, not works. Here's the United Methodist Church:



It would appear that the Catholic Church is an outlier on this point. Also, the Catholic Catechism says the following:



I fully agree with that statement, but it is unlike anything Jesus ever said. He advocated forgiveness without punishment, and that is the behavior he modeled in all of his interactions with persons whose sins he forgave.

The point I was trying to make in my original posting was that Christians have focused on faith as the key to salvation, but that Jesus talked extensively about forgiving the sins of others and being charitable-- and I recommended that Christianity should focus on works over faith. I now see that I had exaggerated, certainly in the case of Catholicism. But maybe we can agree that there is a broad contingent of non-Catholic Christians who believe that faith is the only avenue to salvation, and that good works cannot guarantee it?

It's a pretty basic and well-known fact that Protestants subscribe to Sola Fide and the older Christian traditions (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) don't. Is that all you're trying to say here? If so....okay? haha