How can you admire a man, but not agree with half of what he says?
Ierrellus, thanks for clarifying, I feel I have something concrete to respond to now. And I must say, if we are discussing whether christianity is different to the teachings of Jesus, then I must agree with you. A prominent christian leader in the US, Erwin McManus, says on his website: “The greatest enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ is christianity.”
But where we might disagree would be on what constitues “christianity” and where the divergence occurred. Let’s explore that shall we?
-
If you are comparing the teachings of Jesus with christianity, you must have some idea of what Jesus actually taught, so I presume you are accepting, at least for the sake of discussion, that his teachings are recorded reasonably accurately in the gospels? (Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss.)
-
Fundamental to his recorded teachings is his belief in God, so I presume you accept that anyone who accepts Jesus’ teachings would believe a god exists.
-
That being so, at least as a presumption for the sake of discussion, then it seems unreasonable to think that Jesus taught truth, but this truth was corrupted by Paul and the other New Testament writers. If a god exists and Jesus taught the truth, that god would have to be a bit of an idiot if he/she/it couldn’t get those same truths recorded reasonably accurately. And a god who was an idiot wouldn’t be worth believing in.
-
So if there is a divergence between the teachings of Jesus and christianity, it must have occurred some time later, say from the second century onwards. And I would see nothing unreasonable in that proposition. There are many commentators who see the rot setting in from about the time that Constantine made christianity the state religion around 300 AD.
-
So I conclude the two most reasonable propositions are that (a) Jesus never taught the truth, or we cannot know what he taught, and we should not believe in him, or (b) he did tell the truth, and it is substantially recorded in the New Testament, with wrong teaching entering christianity sometime after about 300 AD.
How do you feel about that? Does it help clarify? I’d be interested in your views.
Best wishes
It is not suggested. It is commanded.
I doubt it. The earliest of Pauls letters (1 Thessalonians I think) is older in a written form.
Did any of the gospel accounts? I don’t think so. So why are you surprised?
The gospel of Thomas is a collection of jibberish sayings that was probably written 200 years after the gospel of Mark. It was rejected because it was (a) not in common useage, and (b) not thought to be up to much. If you read it you’ll understand why it was rejected.
Have you read it? It is an apocalyptic book from OT times. Why would anyone think it should be added to the NT? It is not in the OT because it was never in the Hebrew scriptures. A better case might be made for asking why the Shepherd of Hermas is not in the bible? But you really should read these books before spouting off.
The early fathers did the best they could, and some believe under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Don’t believe some conspiracy nonsense just because it sounds scandalous. Read some of the “excluded books”. They are frankly not as exciting as you appear to think.
Jesus can appear to be compassionate and harsh at the same time. Such is the nature of God himself. People like to overemphasise one or the other. Holding them in tension seems truer to the text. Yes, he cares for the poor and the orphan, but he will also slaughter those who stand against him.
Many responses needed here.
ercatli, Good synopsis and opinions. I’ll comment on them after I address some inaccurate assumptions. First, I have read the “Book of Enoch”, really enjoyed it despite Irenaeus. As is true of the gnostic gospels discovered at Nag Hammadi, it represents what the literalistic church fathers called “pseudepigraphic”, i. e. books written under known names by persons who could not have been who they said they were. But this is modern scholarship. Jesus did not have the advantage of such. He read "Enoch"as if it were part and parcel of the historical OT canon. Jude verifies this. Eastern Orthodox churches include the book in their scriptures. The “Gospel of Thomas” dating is up for debate; but most scholars agree that it is older than 200 CE.
Worship is not love, especially if it is coerced by fear. I would prefer to believe that the Jesus of the sermon on the mount and the Jesus of hellfire and fear worship may not be schizoid as I suggested, but may be different interpretations by different witnesses. Those witnesses who wanted their enemies zapped created a history of bloody intolerance. Those who wanted reconciled with their enemies created a history of hope.
N.F.-- On which side do you stand?
Dan,
Ad hominem is a dearth of ideas. No presumptions here but yours.
I came here to goof, and goof I shall.
Pass me the blood, please.
Dan, I can only wish that you came here to contribute ideas of agreement or disagreement. Why else waste your time? Go to threads you like.
while this thread does not “suck”,
Ierrellius, I feel that you have had many biased presumptions and claims based on personal opinion and that is why many people have a problem with this thread.
In my personal opinion i agree with you. I also feel that in many regards christianity is as far from what christ would have wanted as possible. and by christianity i think you need( and i would) specify it as the central power, the roman catholic church. I think if jesus was to look back on what has become of his teachings he would be thoroughly discusted. I dont think he ever inteded their to be wars and crusades enforcing christianity or diferent sects having internal conflicts, tension, massacre and politcal war.
we have strayed so far from the original ideas of christianity it is ridiculous.
[quote]
Worship is not love, especially if it is coerced by fear[/quote
i would have to disagree with this statement. not with the statement its self but the principle of saying it. I feel that fear for many is an external variable in worship and love. Fear dosent force someone to do anything. it can compel them, but not force them. the second worship or love for that matter is forced it stops being so.
yro,
I like your insights. I feel that if Jesus were to appear on the streets of where I live preaching love for enemies, he would be crucified immediately. It would not take three years. He wouldn’t last a week. And what has brought us to this point? I’m not alone in opining that without fear there would be no religion and that worship is not love. If my opinions are abrasive to anyone, please counter them with your own. I can pontificate with the best of them, but that doesn’t always prove me right. Come let us reason together!
Who’s gunnu kill all of the sinners and take the throne during armageddon?
Who’s gunnu kill all of the sinners and take the throne during armageddon?
You sure about this one? Tiberius??
Good point PersistantMemory!
Dr. T
yro,
How can my opinions prevent anyone who has their own opinions from stating them? I’m not that powerful or absolute and never hope to be. What scares many off is evidence of scholarship backing my opinions. But I am open to unresearched ideas that actually present credible agreement or opposition. My OP is not Mosaic Law; it is enticement for anyone who can or will to address the questions raised. If I’ve scared anybody off, it could only be from their lack of commitment to their own beliefs.
1.) I don’t really see the difference here. Firstly, the line between the two dissappears if Jesus is God- He is to be followed in the sense that He lived as an earthly example of how to be a perfect human being, He is to be worshipped in relation to the revelation that he was also devine. Jesus clearly never demanded worship while He was alive because to be worshipped as a God on Earth would have been completely contrary to His point in being on Earth.
2.) Well, yes, someone had to. After Jesus died, things could not persist (or persist very long) as a ‘bunch of guys who thought Jesus was neato’. It had to become an organized, codified religion at some point or we simply never would have heard of it today.
3.) Unless Clement and Augustine re-wrote the New Testament, their infusions were just suggestions. If you disagree with something they said, it’s possible to be a Christian and disregard it. Also, any book is of a finite length- as history proceded, people were bound to find difficulties, problem areas, and controversies within the New Testament. Relying on secular philosophy (the best of which available at the time happened to be Greek) seems like a perfect solution. If I argue against the Problem of Evil, by providing the free-will defense, and use a libertarian definition of free-will, am I thusly “Infusing the religion with Western Philosophy”?
4.) So, when someone uses philosophy to shore up and resolve philosophical difficulties in a religion, they are ‘infusing it’ and thus corrupting the original message. But when someone uses philosophy to expose a religions flaws, Q.E.D.?
Uccisore,
Good ideas here. Maybe others will follow.
Problem with 1) it took him 30 years to become a perfect human being. He is god. How can we expect to become perfect in 80?
Problem with 2)it couldn’t have become organized that largely or that quickly. Paul wrote his epistles to churches all over the Diasporia…
-
never mentions the life and times of christ which happened 10 years earlier.
-
never mentions the disciples of christ.
There’s not mere contraversies… there are contradictions.
what’s intriguing is that “the problem of evil” only has to be explained in christianity. YHWH, commands satan to harrass job, so we know that he is behind “evil”.
The real issue with evil from a secular standpoint is that it’s subjective.
well, if you change the original message by using philosophy, you’ve merely created an additional branch of christianity. Luther used the philosophy of the time to shore up catholocism, and it created his branch of the church named after him.
If one uses philosophy to expose religious flaws, it’s not Q.E.D., it still requires proper debate and discussion.
Where do you get that idea?
Just curious,
Connections
I really don't know what you're driving at here Scythe, except to say that I don't think he was imperfect for the first 30 years of his life. I see no indication of that.
How large? How quickly? Was Paul writing to imaginary friends? I’ve never heard this accusation before.
So you say. And what would it matter if there were? Jesus didn't die and rise from the dead on the third day and so on, because there's some trivial discrepencies between Matthew and Mark? Again, these discrepencies, perhaps contradictions needed answers because lots of people were thinking about them. Since the Bible isn't adding new passages to itself over time, we have no choice but to use secular philosophy to come to some conclusion.
The Problem of Evil actually has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here, but yeah, those things are interesting.
Luther is a completely different case- his changes are well documented, and the group he changed from still exists itself- we're talking about the kind of change that would divorce Christianity- all Christianity- from the message of Christ. I don't think this happened, and I don't think the evidence that it has outweighs the evidence for a traditional understanding. That errant sects have sprung up over time it's inevitable, I suppose.
"If there are gods, how could I not hope to be one?'–Nietzsche.
What is the precedent set by an absolute? That it’s a carrot in front of the horse? That we can be that? For us bumbling humans an absolute seems to be some unreachable pinnacle that shames our attempts to reach it. Thus we must be corrupt, so absolutism believes. Our struggles for self-realization are seen as sins. The two-edged sword of religion is that it would deny our created goodness in order to humble us for receiving some plan of salvation. Milton’s “fortunate fall”! See Matthew Fox’s “Original Blessings”. Absolutes contradict what we are with what we “should” be. How morality sullies ideas, Nietzche notes; but he wrote of a morality of abstraction from the human condition, of the death of the God of absolute certainties, of the reification and deification of human desires.