What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[watchamadoodle]

Do you recommend that book? I would also suggest How On Earth Did Jesus Become a God by Larry Hurtado. I think he is a Christian but he is a damn fine historian. I actually read his book thinking that it gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for the birth of Christianity without appealing to any funny business.

Thanks, I added that to my wish list. The only book I have by Ehrman is "Lost Christianities", but his writing style is very lively and readable. I don't know if Ehrman's knowledge in the field matches his popularity with readers. I like him.

[watchamadoodle]

I keep wondering about Mandaeism (the John the Baptist Gnostics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism ).
I'll include an image of the Mandaean cross. Daily baptism is a part of Mandaean beliefs (I think), and it was also part of Essene beliefs. I wonder if there were cross-like racks where the Essenes hung their robes during their daily baptism ritual. This is what the Mandaean cross appears to represent - a robe hanging on a rack while somebody is baptized.

Now, one of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas symbolizes the material body as a robe. If the crucifixion represented Jesus' spiritual body returning to heaven, then his physical body would be an empty robe. If Jesus was an Essene, then his body would be depicted hanging on a cross - just like the robes of the Essenes might have hung on crosses while they purified themselves through baptism.

[Mudhammam]

John actually glosses over the whole baptism. Notice how JtB never baptizes Jesus at all in John.

Nice catch there, DP. I don't think I ever noticed that.

[Minimalist]

Easily done - here you are: The Q Material.

Excuse me but that is the same shit. I assume that you have nothing which constitutes any sort of Quelle material. This does not surprise me.

It remains a 19th century hypothesis by a bunch of (mainly) German protestants. When you can produce actual evidence be sure to drop me a line. Until then, I have to tell you that I don't care how many bible-thumpers swear to it. They have an agenda to push. I want to see facts.

---

BTW, I watched the second CNN jesus special last night. Dreadful. So bad it made the first one on the shroud of turin look scholarly and that takes some doing.

They never did answer the question: "How many heads did John the Baptist have?"

[Mudhammam]

BTW, I watched the second CNN jesus special last night. Dreadful. So bad it made the first one on the shroud of turin look scholarly and that takes some doing.

They never did answer the question: "How many heads did John the Baptist have?"

Man, I recorded it and planned on watching it this evening after work. My expectations weren't high, given it is CNN, but you just ruined whatever small amount of anticipation I had.

[TimOneill]

I was reading the chapter about the Gospel of Thomas last night in Ehrman's "Lost Christianities". The Gnostic theology explains so much about Christian texts and practices.

It explains a lot about later Gnostic texts and practices.

I keep wondering if the earliest Christians (including Jesus) were Gnostics.

No, gnosticism seems to have been a later, second century development.

The modern day followers of John the Baptist are Gnostics.

Any modern day followers of John the Baptist who call themselves Gnostics are modern New Age types.

The Gnostic Christians worshiped alongside proto-orthodox Christians in the same churches.

They did?

It's like proto-orthodox beliefs and gospels are censored and watered-down versions of the Gnostic beliefs and gospels.

Ummm, no. There is no evidence to support that. On the contrary, all the evidence indicates that the gnostic ideas developed out of the earlier gospel material and then grew up alongside the proto-orthodox stuff. Ehrman makes this pretty clear in his book.

[DeistPaladin]

No, gnosticism seems to have been a later, second century development.

Not according to the Bible.

1st John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2nd John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Apparently the Docetics were such a problem as to warrant not one but two condemnations in what became canonized in scripture.

It makes more sense that the various gnostic sects came first. I can see why a vague notion of Jesus was later talked about in urban legends. It makes no sense that devoted followers of Jesus, who had lived within recent history, decided to make up a fantasy that he only existed in a spiritual realm.

[TimOneill]

No, gnosticism seems to have been a later, second century development.

Not according to the Bible.

1st John 4:1-3

2nd John 1:7

Yes, I'm well aware of those passages. Those epistles are pseudepigraphical and most scholars date them to the early second century.

Apparently the Docetics were such a problem as to warrant not one but two condemnations in what became canonized in scripture.

Docetism and Gnostism overlap, but are not the same thing. And see above about the dates of 1&2John

It makes more sense that the various gnostic sects came first.

Why? There is nothing to indicate this in any of the Pauline material or in any of the earliest gospels. The only hint we get of it is in the anti-Docetist passages you quote above from the early second century.

It makes no sense that devoted followers of Jesus, who had lived within recent history, decided to make up a fantasy that he only existed in a spiritual realm.

Docetism doesn't say he "only existed in a spiritual realm". Nor does any form of Gnosticism. Both have a purely spiritual Jesus visiting the material realm in historical time. So I'm not sure what you're saying here.

[watchamadoodle]

Here is a quote from Ephesians which dates 80 CE to 100 CE and is Paulian. Notice how gnostic this sounds. I don't have time to find them now, but the parables of Jesus sound very gnostic to me - even the idea that the meaning is hidden from most listeners.

EDIT: My take on gnostic theology: eternal spiritual beings fall from heaven and are entrapped in material human bodies. Salvation comes from waking up and remembering that we are not physical beings and don't belong here. Christ descended deliberately into human form to wake us up, so that we can go follow him home to heaven where we belong.

So doesn't this sound gnostic?

Ephesians 5:14

Wherefore he saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...s-asv.html

[DeistPaladin]

Yes, I'm well aware of those passages. Those epistles are pseudepigraphical and most scholars date them to the early second century.

On a related note, is there a way that scholars determine what is pseudo-epigraphical and what isn't with any degree of certainty? I mean this as a sincere question.

Docetism and Gnostism overlap, but are not the same thing.

I was under the impression that Doceticism was one of the brands of Gnosticism, like Christianity is to Theism. One is a subset of the other.

There is nothing to indicate this in any of the Pauline material or in any of the earliest gospels.

Paul doesn't get very specific on the life of Jesus and what we do have, I'm rather confused by and let me explain why.

Paul was originally the poster prophet for Marcionite Christianity. Ehrman's book on Lost Christianities mentions that Marcion's scriptures used Paul's letters. Marcionite Christianity, I probably don't need to explain to you but for the benefit of others, preached that the OT god Yahweh was a lesser god to Jesus. He wanted to ditch the OT completely and all things Jewish to create a whole new religion, centered around the superior god Jesus who offered us salvation. Jesus would never have been a baby, so ditch the whole Mary and Joseph drama along with any linage to King David. Jesus came down to earth as all gods do, appearing fully formed as an adult.

Yet when Paul does mention Jesus, he writes of the "seed of David", came to us "by woman", that "the head of Christ is (Yahweh)", and that he sits "at the right hand of (Yahweh)". etc.

So I'm confused. Did Marcion not read the letters of Paul? Or did he promote the letters of Paul hoping no one else would read them? Or do we have the letters of Paul as they existed at that time?