Anti-Creedance Front

I know this thread has probably been brought up before, but recently I've gained a favorable view of Jesus' ethics, myself being a spiritual skeptic (or agnostic) very opposed to organized religion. I've partnered with many Christians in the peace movement, even went to civil disobedience training in a church, which I thought I'd never end up in. They have such a radically different view of Jesus' teachings than fundies it's amazing. Their vision of Jesus is one who helped the poor, a compassionate, philosophical soul who was less concerned with "saving souls" and more concerned with saving life and livelihood.

And I thought of this: Peter's theology bears a strong Gnostic influence, or influenced Gnostic teachings, and Paul shot them down in lieu of his own. Paul is a very hard figure to be seen as truthful to me. He laughed at Jesus before he started following him. Openly mocked him. And even after that, his version of Jesus' story is obviously influenced by the occupying Persians' religion of Zoroastrianism (maybe Mithraism). I have since without a doubt come to believe Peter's manuscripts were the true story of Jesus, but what they emphasized is the question. So what if Jesus was a humanitarian Gnostic?

CX

Umm...how do you know what Peter's theology was? Also zoroastrian influence was on Judaism during the captivity long before Paul or Xianity. Roman Mithraism was the cult of soldiers in the Roman empire during the early Xian era, but it's only resemblence to the Perso-Iranian worship of Ahura-Mazda is the name Mithras. Jesus, if he existed, was a practicing Jew. It is unlikely in the extreme that he would have been a Humanist or a Gnostic.

Radcliffe Emerson

That's interesting, because I've read the most that Paul was the one that was gnostic.

And consider this. I know the original post says humanitarian, but perhaps it was the fact that Jesus (if he existed, which I doubt) WAS humanist, that alone would have made all the people around him realize he was very different.

Some of his stories (such as talking to the Samaritan woman at the well, when society treated women like 2nd class citizens), have humanist overtones, at least to me.

Toto

The characteristics of Jesus that you admire are more those of a Cynic philosopher-sage than a gnostic.

The idea that Jesus was a good wisdom teacher whose word was distorted by Paul has been very popular since the Enlightenment. You can find more at Atheists for Jesus. I have my doubts about how historically accurate that idea is. I do not see Paul as a villain, or anything more than an articulate missionary who thought that the world was going to end soon, so better get ready. AFAIK, the enlightenment figures who decided to glorify the presumably historical Jesus demonized the historic Paul because they figured, based on the Book of Acts, that he was the one who turned the church into an institution, and they could see how corrupt the church of their time had become, and how far it was from Jesus' words. But the church in Paul's time, whenever that was, was not the rigid institution that it later became.

I think the real bad guys in Christian history were the church fathers who made belief in a particular historic event crucial to Christianity, and the Roman emperors who made it a state religion.

But when you live in a society that is dominated by a particular religion, I can see the point of trying to make the best use you can of that religion's culture and values. If you are going to do this, you should probably not let historical facts get in the way.

Anti-Creedance Front

I am saying I don't know what Peter's theology was, I'm just saying I don't think we get the true story from Paul. We would either get it from multiple sources, or from Peter. I actually think the latter. You can't get the whole story about anything without multiple sources. But Peter is definitely one of those sources.

As far as your staunch belief that Jesus could have never been a humanist or Gnostic, I can't change it. If you want to believe that, it's your business. I'm less arguing this as a debate topic and more offering this in a skeptical, open-minded manner. I don't have a solid belief in anything, because there's always things you don't know about.

Anyway, Radcliffe makes a good reference. The Samaritan story, and other stories of Jesus' helping the poor. I can't say I've ever thouroughly read the Bible, but does it directly refer to Satan being tempted by Satan or the adversary when he's in the wilderness? Could it be he was tempted by ignorance and straying from his lifestyle?

The fundies really don't have a solid grounding in saying that ever time they refer to an adversary or one of the many-named "enemies" of God, it is Satan or the evil side of a dualistic godhead. The snake isn't referred to as Satan, the Morningstar isn't referred to as Satan, Nebuchadnezzar isn't referred to as Satan.... It would be so easy for them to say they all were referring to one evil deity, as they don't need grounding for a statement like that not based on logic.

Anyway, I have not seen much compassion from fundamentalist Christians lately. If they help the poor, it's to "win souls". Many have been solidly supporting war with Iraq (in contrast to so many churches opposing it), are staunch Republicans, and are virulent and defensive against opposing viewpoints. I'm not trying to push them all into one group, but there are very few that are exemplifying the traditional story of Jesus. The story I heard from my youthful pastor in Catholic school was of a Jesus who cared about kids, who helped the poor, and healed the weary. He wasn't a Jewish nationalist, he maintained a positive outlook on life, and he definitely didn't go around verbally smiting people for beign who they were. Heck, some guy on Free Republic who claimed himself a Christian told me, "Jesus wasn't a pacifist!" I beg to differ.

Marduk

Isn't the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas quite gnostic?

"The Kingdom of God is not something you wait for but is all around you" or something to that effect.
I remember the same Hippie peace lovin' Jesus from my Sunday school days as well. The Sermon on the Mount guy that the Eastern Orthodox Church likes so much they deep sixed Revelations because it had the grumpy Jesus in it.

CX

You might want to read St. Peter Versus St. Paul: A Tale of Two Missions by Michael Goulder. It deals precisely with the division between the early Jerusalem congregation of Jewish Xians and Pauls Gentile mission.

CX

Well GThom certainly is gnostic, but I'm not sure that demonstrates the HJ, if he existed, was gnostic anymore than the orthodox accounts accurately portray Jesus. Each text we examine has its own motives and theological intent. Trying to feather out an historical Jesus from those sources is quite daunting in my opinion.

Toto

Elaine Pagel's latest book is Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, reviewed here.

CX

Interestingly I just picked that one up. It'll probably be a week or so before I get to it though as I'm currently reading a few others things.