Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 203

Thread: The root of Christianity

  1. Top | #21
    Senior Member Gnostic Christian Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    515
    Rep Power
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    And Gnostic Christianity based somehow on Jesus is a combination of beliefs?
    Exactly what the bible shows, by design.

    We use the Chrestian parts that Christianity usurped and made their own.

    Do there remind you of a supernatural god or yourself as god of the more esoteric ecumenist, or more of an Eastern mystic teaching?

    Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

    Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

    John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

    Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

    Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRN...layer_embedded

    Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

    The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

    Regards
    DL
    The usual theo-babble.

    Apparently you use the same 'Chinese menu' approach to Christianity. Pick one from column a and one from column b..

    I always thought there was a homosexual theme to the gospels. You reject divinity but you love a man from 2000 years ago based on a few lines in what was an obviously embellished crafted narrative. From the gospels if anything Jesus was arrogant and craved attention. Love Me!!

    BTW, do you keep kosher and stone adulterers? Jesus did not suften Mosaic Law, in fact he reinforced it saying Jews had strayayed. .
    We might chat again when you stop lying about what I believe.

    As I have told you, I will not waste my time correcting your lies.

    Regards
    DL

  2. Top | #22
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    7,411
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post

    The usual theo-babble.

    Apparently you use the same 'Chinese menu' approach to Christianity. Pick one from column a and one from column b..

    I always thought there was a homosexual theme to the gospels. You reject divinity but you love a man from 2000 years ago based on a few lines in what was an obviously embellished crafted narrative. From the gospels if anything Jesus was arrogant and craved attention. Love Me!!

    BTW, do you keep kosher and stone adulterers? Jesus did not suften Mosaic Law, in fact he reinforced it saying Jews had strayayed. .
    We might chat again when you stop lying about what I believe.

    As I have told you, I will not waste my time correcting your lies.

    Regards
    DL
    Point being that I really don't know what you believe. You do a lot of posturing, handwashing, quoting scripture, ranting, and preaching typical of Evangelical Christian types. Especially the use of the word evil.to describe others.

    You apparently do not want to discuss Sermon On The Mount or 'turn the oter cheek'. Also typical, Christians typically do not want to discuss actual morality in the gospels.

    In case you have not noticed, this is not a place to preach without being challenged.

  3. Top | #23
    Senior Member Gnostic Christian Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    515
    Rep Power
    27
    You apparently do not want to discuss Sermon On The Mount or 'turn the oter cheek'.

    Your error is duly noted.

    Where in our chat did you even mention those?

    You did elsewhere, where I just replied, but here?

    Regards
    DL

  4. Top | #24
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    7,411
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop View Post
    You apparently do not want to discuss Sermon On The Mount or 'turn the oter cheek'.

    Your error is duly noted.

    Where in our chat did you even mention those?

    You did elsewhere, where I just replied, but here?

    Regards
    DL
    I get no great pleure from these exchanges. I partipate becuse us Atheists have to rotect ourselves from all forms of relgion, even Gnostic Christianity.

    As I am now officaly retired I take pleasure in exploring math and science in a more leisurely fashion than my hectic high pressure engineing career.

    Anger and tension can be a normal response to being confronted by your inconsitncies. You may feel some tension, maybe hitting the keyboard hard and so on.

    It is sometimes called a reality check or an attitude adjustment. A thinking mind would objectively evaluate criticism, and do a little introspection. That is not the way of religion and secular beliefs as well, such as politics.

    Realizing the truth of it but avoiding it is called being in denal.

    The last word is yours.

  5. Top | #25
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,808
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,554
    Rep Power
    62
    I highly recommend this podcast series. Since it doesn't care about current doctrine. It only analyses the text itself and puts it into the historical context of the period. It's a brave thing to do.

    Here's the next interesting bit he said about the Pauline epistles. It's a lot of massaging history. Paul argues against a lot of straw men, as well as creates dichotomies where there are none. He also paper over conflicts, to create an illusion of a unified early church.

    https://literatureandhistory.com/ind...uline-epistles

    Here's what I think are the highlights from this episode.

    1) Ancient Judaism did not believe in heaven or a life after death. That's something introduced from Zorastrianism after the Old Testament was written. And this was something that was discussed within Judaism around the time of Jesus' birth. We don't need to speculate on which team Jesus chose to join. But it was a preexisting team. Jesus didn't start this idea.

    2) Pre Christian Judaism was a collective religion without an afterlife. It didn't matter whether or not you as an individual was a good person or if you did good deeds. What mattered was the collective, and it was your responsibility (if you were a Jew) to make sure the other Jews were in line.

    3) The big debate in Palestine during the life of Christ was the one between Sadjusees and Pharises

    Sadducees were more cosmopolitan and liberal. They did not believe in an afterlife. They had support from the wealthy and the rabbinical/priestly class. They did NOT care what you believed. It was a religion of ritual, not faith.

    Pharisees were conservative, were focused on following the Jewish commandments (all 613) as well as extra ones they'd added, they DID believe in an afterlife in heaven. These did also NOT care what you believed. It was a religion of ritual, not faith.

    There was a third group, the Essenes. This was the sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These were essentially Christian, with very similar beliefs. Albeit believed that only Jews could be saved. Except of course, no Jesus, because this group predate Jesus' birth. This group is also entirely different that what later became Christianity. Which tells us a lot about the thoughts that swirled around the time of Jesus.

    The fact that Sadducees and Pharisees didn't see Essenes as a group worth debating with, inspite of having significant theological works as well as many members, also tells us what a mess, theologically, Judaism was at this point.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

    Worth noting is that Pharisees (as described in the Bible) didn't have the power the Bible says they had. Rome was in charge and they did their best not to get involved in theological debates between Jews. Rome forced the Jews to sort their differences themselves and get along peacefully. The story in the Bible regarding how Jesus was treated wouldn't have happened like that. It's a story tweaked to be more exciting. More importantly, during the life of Christ, the Sadducees were firmly in control over Jewish religion. Not the Pharisees. Pharisees persecuting Christians only started well after Jesus was long dead.

    4) Judaism was popular in the Roman empire. Romans revered anything that was old and the Torah's size and age made it fascinating to them. So Judaism had a special status in Rome, and many gentiles followed Jewish commandments and sat in on Jewish mass. When Paul wizzed around the Mediterranean converting pagan gentiles he was doing so in Synagogues to gentiles who were already converted in practice. It was an easy sell.

    5) Paul was a maverick, and early on, to a large extent operating alone. in the book of Galatians, (which by experts is considered a genuine letter by Paul) it makes it very clear that early Christians did not agree on much, and most were NOT ok with letting gentiles convert to Christianity. Since Paul was a later convert, and not part of the apostolic generation, he had low status in the early church. Paul was just very good at getting Christians to convert. This is what later lead to the many doctrinal conflicts which had to be sorted in the counciles of Nicea. It was a mess.

    6) Paul's doctrine that we don't need to follow all the Jewish commandments makes no sense. If we don't need to follow some of the laws, how do we know which we should or which we shouldn't follow? This was never made clear by Paul. The personal opinion of Doug Metzger, the guy who has the podcast, is that Paul took a lot of things as obvious and natural, due to his Jewish upbringing, and somehow just assumed it would be obvious and natural to everybody. The things he saw as obvious and natural we should do. And the things he didn't, we shouldn't. But he was very much a product of his age, so this does not help us much. It's a nice theory. Either way, Paul's position on this in the Epistles is incoherent. And that's objectively true, regardless any personal opinion.

    7) Paul didn't believe in personal salvation, nor did he believe we will be judged by our actions. That's lifted straight from Egypt theology, and worked itself into Christianity much later, and wasn't on Paul's mind at all. To be saved you just need to believe in Jesus Christ. If you did, Paul thought you'd automatically become a good person. But there were no rules as such. As long as you believed in Jesus no amount of mortal sinning would prevent you from going to Heaven. He certainly didn't believe in Hell. Which wasn't at all a thing in any ancient religion and didn't show up in Christianity until much later.

    This is what John Calvin noticed when he gave the Pauline Epistles a bit of a closer read. And which then became Calvinism. The problem of course is that there's no incentive for the individual to be a good person in this version of Christianity. The reason for this is because that requires individualism. That wasn't a thing in the ancient worlds. These were all collectivist ways of thinking. Individualism is a product of the European Enlightenment, much much later.


    These are just a couple of things that popped out at me while I read it.

    It's obvious that he contacted every possible expert when writing this podcast episode due to the sensitive nature of it for our modern world. It's extremely well researched.

  6. Top | #26
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    7,411
    Rep Power
    23
    It should be Paulism not Christianity.

  7. Top | #27
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,808
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,554
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    It should be Paulism not Christianity.
    I think anybody who believes that Jesus is the son of God and the Jewish messiah, no matter what rules they follow or otherwise believe, can be considered Christian. By tradition a Christian is someone who believes exactly what I believe (if I'd be a Christian, I'm not) and if they don't, we will label them with whatever heretic subsect label we want. I don't think it's helpful. I think it's clanish mud slinging, doesn't help and is stupid.

    He does mention later Christians who took Paul very seriously on that they didn't have to follow Jewish law and went completely off the rails inventing all manner of cooky Christianities that have very little to do with Judaism. The Gnostics and the Marcionists for example.

  8. Top | #28
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,935
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,841
    Rep Power
    81
    Isn't Jesus reported to have said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to uphold it? Did they miss that bit, or just rationalized it away?

  9. Top | #29
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,677
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Isn't Jesus reported to have said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to uphold it? Did they miss that bit, or just rationalized it away?
    And what is Torah, to you? Just an English translation of an ancient book of laws? Is that what you think Jesus came to uphold? Why would God visit us in person just to tell us to do what we were already doing, worshipping books and hurting each other? I don't think it was crazy or mistaken to search for a deeper meaning within those words as the Gnostics did and do.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  10. Top | #30
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,808
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,554
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Isn't Jesus reported to have said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to uphold it? Did they miss that bit, or just rationalized it away?
    This isn't from the podcast but what I know from other sources, it's hard to know what Jesus really said or didn't. Since Christianity is so focused on Jesus and his personal opinions, that any Christian theologian would put words in the mouth of Jesus. To the point where we know Jesus existed. But we know nothing else about him. Not his life story. Not his opinions, other than in the most general sense. Add to that the obvious embellishments to the Jesus narrative to emphasize his humble origins, to a point where its not believable. Fat chance a unmarried poor illiterate carpenter would get the amount of impact and followers as he did.

    This podcast doesn't talk about the real life of Jesus. It only cares about what is written in the Bible and why it's written there. He doesn't seem to pick a team.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •