What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[robvalue]

Imagine what fundamentalists were like back then...

Or maybe there wasn't any other kind.

[Drich]

Drich has already taken care of this little bit of your propaganda.

GC

And what an autority on history Drich is. He only comes second to Mel Gibson.

Drich's Authority comes in the way of the reference material he quotes. This is in contrast to your basless dismissals.

[watchamadoodle]

Imagine what fundamentalists were like back then...

Or maybe there wasn't any other kind.

Sometimes I wonder if Christianity started as an esoteric, gnostic Jewish religion, but gradually more and more people took the stories literally instead of symbolically. The people that misunderstood the gospels to be literal became the proto-orthodox, and they declared the original esoteric understanding of Christianity to be a heresy.

This idea goes well with the mythicist claim that Jesus was entirely fiction. Unfortunately, there seems to be a good argument for a historical Jesus.

So I don't know.

[abaris]

Drich's Authority comes in the way of the reference material he quotes. This is in contrast to your basless dismissals.

Yeah, sorry for not posting my library and my university degree in history.

Wikipedia and the bible are far more reliable, I'm sure.

[Mudhammam]

Sometimes I wonder if Christianity started as an esoteric, gnostic Jewish religion, but gradually more and more people took the stories literally instead of symbolically. The people that misunderstood the gospels to be literal became the proto-orthodox, and they declared the original esoteric understanding of Christianity to be a heresy.

This idea goes well with the mythicist claim that Jesus was entirely fiction. Unfortunately, there seems to be a good argument for a historical Jesus.

So I don't know.

I feel the same way. The earliest Christian works seem to paint a celestial Christ who in recent history appeared as the Logos incarnate and triumphed over bodily death, though with only a few scattered references to an earthly existence and a great deal of emphasis on past and future apocalyptic events in the heavenly realms. Then comes the biographical narrative adapting a list of earlier composed wisdom sayings and oral teachings that some have suggested were only branded by Christians in Jesus' name. Then comes Matthew and Luke-Acts, written probably 15-25 years later, putting Jesus' life story in the contexts of Judaism and Rome, respectively, with many more mythological additions. Near the end of the century we have the Johannine community responsible for John's Gospel, his namesake's epistles, and Revelation, all clearly influenced by Gnosticism, though expanding on the concepts that both the earlier epistles and biographies elucidated separately.

Where's James and Jude generally placed on the timeline? Pseudo-Paul, 1 Peter? I think 2 Peter and the Pastorals are late first century, early second century.

We also have to consider that there were thousands and thousands of books in the ancient world that we don't have anymore.

[Crossless2.0]

I feel the same way. The earliest Christian works seem to paint a celestial Christ who in recent history appeared as the Logos incarnate and triumphed over bodily death, though with only a few scattered references to an earthly existence and a great deal of emphasis on past and future apocalyptic events in the heavenly realms. Then comes the biographical narrative adapting a list of earlier composed wisdom sayings and oral teachings that some have suggested were only branded by Christians in Jesus' name. Then comes Matthew and Luke-Acts, written probably 15-25 years later, putting Jesus' life story in the contexts of Judaism and Rome, respectively, with many more mythological additions. Near the end of the century we have the Johannine community responsible for John's Gospel, his namesake's epistles, and Revelation, all clearly influenced by Gnosticism, though expanding on the concepts that both the earlier epistles and biographies elucidated separately.

If we start with a Celestial Christ that only later becomes grounded in a historical context by way of an oral tradition and, later still, the Synoptic Gospels, would you say that 'John's' Jesus -- pre-existing Logos and earthly ministry -- represents a sort of compromise meant perhaps to resolve the tensions between those earlier traditions? Or do you think the Johannine view is another strand entirely in this tangled braid?

[dyresand]

Imagine what fundamentalists were like back then...

Or maybe there wasn't any other kind.

Sometimes I wonder if Christianity started as an esoteric, gnostic Jewish religion, but gradually more and more people took the stories literally instead of symbolically. The people that misunderstood the gospels to be literal became the proto-orthodox, and they declared the original esoteric understanding of Christianity to be a heresy.

This idea goes well with the mythicist claim that Jesus was entirely fiction. Unfortunately, there seems to be a good argument for a historical Jesus.

So I don't know.

Pretty sure the original authors didn't want people to take the bible literally in the first place. So i guess you can blame ignorance on the fact that people follow it literally like the flood myth. I am also pretty sure they didn't want people taking that part literally either because you know common sense.

[FatAndFaithless]

Pretty sure the original authors didn't want people to take the bible literally in the first place.

Where did you get that idea?

[dyresand]

Pretty sure the original authors didn't want people to take the bible literally in the first place.

Where did you get that idea?

The fact being the bible is too contradictory and the only way to make it comprehend able is to cherry pick it to hell. The original writers and the people who wrote in the bible contradicted one another's stories. Even still one would think not to take it literal in the first place. Because really 2 of every animal on a boat for a year with no explanation of how they would eat same goes with the people. Also the animals willing getting on the ark and also crap loads of crap they would need to clean out every pen the animals had. Then the other part with the firmament okay the water came from the sky flooded everything they are on a boat i am no scientist when i say its complete bullshit for all that water to evaporate in a year. And the boat is physically impossible to build because Bill said it best and even ship wrights the boat would have broken apart because of its massive size. So the water, food, shit, boat and the only answer is magic...

[FatAndFaithless]

Where did you get that idea?

The fact being the bible is too contradictory and the only way to make it comprehend able is to cherry pick it to hell. The original writers and the people who wrote in the bible contradicted one another's stories. Even still one would think not to take it literal in the first place. Because really 2 of every animal on a boat for a year with no explanation of how they would eat same goes with the people. Also the animals willing getting on the ark and also crap loads of crap they would need to clean out every pen the animals had. Then the other part with the firmament okay the water came from the sky flooded everything they are on a boat i am no scientist when i say its complete bullshit for all that water to evaporate in a year. And the boat is physically impossible to build because Bill said it best and even ship wrights the boat would have broken apart because of its massive size. So the water, food, shit, boat and the only answer is magic...

I am aware of the absurdities of biblical claims. I'm asking how you know that the creators of the bible didn't intend for their words to be read literally, when in the bible it claims that it is the inspired word of God.