What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[watchamadoodle]

Growing up as a Christian, I was taught that Jesus, the early Christians, and their early theology were the gold standard that modern Christians should follow.

Lately I've been wondering if they were all just a bunch of loony tunes, and anything positive in Christianity was added later after the religion became more respectable.

Any thoughts?

[Minimalist]

Read Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities for an eye opening account of how batshit crazy early xtians were.

[Simon Moon]

If Deist Paladin were posting here more regularly, he could chime in with some useful info.


One of the best books written on the subject is Bart Ehrman's, "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew".

Not an easy read, but worth the effort.


*Crap! Minimalist beat me by 3 minutes.*

[Minimalist]

<snicker>

[abaris]

Read Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities for an eye opening account of how batshit crazy early xtians were.

Well, at least - as opposed to our Xtians - many of them opposed military service, war and capital punishment. That only became fashionable when the buttloving sessions with Constantine started.

[watchamadoodle]

I read "Lost Christianities" a few years ago, but I think I will read it again to refresh my memory. Ehrman is an excellent writer IMO. I especially liked the story about the weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Q: "Rabbi, what if they have no teeth?" A:"If they have no teeth, then teeth will be supplied.")

As an indoctrinated Christian-turned-atheist, it is hard for me to have an unbiased view of Jesus, the early Christians, the teachings of Jesus, etc. Sometimes I wonder if those characters are really so wise and saintly as I have been brainwashed to believe. Even as an atheist, I tend to imagine that Christianity started out good in some way.

[Anomalocaris]

Growing up as a Christian, I was taught that Jesus, the early Christians, and their early theology were the gold standard that modern Christians should follow.

Lately I've been wondering if they were all just a bunch of loony tunes, and anything positive in Christianity was added later after the religion became more respectable.

Any thoughts?

Indeed, a maglomaniac who never did productive work, who think he is God, who is straight up nuts and treats his own mother badly may not be much to imitate, but it is still better than gold compare to what those who would be christians thinks they are actually following.

[vorlon13]

And on a personal level:

unbelievably staggeringly bad BO
horrifying dentition
parasites: lice, worms, probably other nasties I don't know about
ghastly bathroom habits


had Christ been spared any of the above, He would have been noted for it since it would have made him unique

[Mudhammam]

On the one hand, we must take into the account the vast cultural differences that exist between modern society and the ancients. Then we must try as amateur sociologists to understand what it's like to be inside a cult, and many of us have the advantage of belonging to former churches whether by indoctrination or naivety.

I think when looked at it from that way, while the Christians thought of some really weird shit, they weren't exactly unique, and probably didn't stand out from the others except in the way that it was new and foreign, and to some tastes quite vulgar in its inversion of long standing notions about virtue and vice, justice and nobility.

[vorlon13]

Or Paul made it all up (or somebody later on made up Paul too) and there weren't any real early christers doing any weird shit at all.

The Mormons think they have put everything back EXACTLY the way Christ set it up in the early days, BTW, so if they are right (ROTFLMFAO !!) we know how and what the early Christians were doing.


(I don't think there would be any Mormons that could spout that all off while connected to a polygraph and pass the test, and that would include Joe Smith especially)