stephan huller

I know this is going to sound like a crazy story but I was watching Jim Carrey playing Andy Kaufmann in Man on the Moon last night on HBO and actually had a flash of insight. It came during the closing scene of the movie where the movie reenacts the Kaufmann's funeral song:



I started to wonder if being spiritually tied to another man (or later woman) is the lasting legacy of Christianity to the world of ideas. Sort of a development of the Aristotelian notion of the value of friendship only taken as a divine commandment.

As many of you may be aware, the Marcionites had a gospel with Johannine elements mixed with synoptic elements. We see this with respect to their interest in the Paraclete as well as Casey's study of the references to the Marcionite gospel in Eznik to name only a few. Yet the Philosophumena's claim that the Marcionite longer gospel of Mark developed from Empedoclean notions of 'love' seems to be another witness to this idea. This is because Jesus's commandment to love each other, one another, love God as oneself (and the various references in Clement to lost gospel material) seems to fit the idea of Jesus as a love god.

In any event I didn't mean to get too distracted with ancient witnesses. My idea was simply that while watching this song in Man on the Moon that the idea of Christian love/friendship is revolutionary. It is different that the traditional notion of Jewish love in the Pentateuch. Moses may well instruct Israel to love God with all one's heart. This may well be the starting point for the Christian doctrine of love but when Jesus says that two men should turn around and focus this love on each other (women and children aren't as clearly referenced) this is something of revolutionary concept.

Jesus said, “When you have seen your brother, you have seen the Lord/your God.” (Tertullian, On Prayer 26, Clement of Alexandria) this is an incredible concept - in keeping with Kaufmann's funeral song - but one which we can see develops as something of a 'cure' for the running narrative in the Pentateuch - i.e. the "conspiracies of the brothers" (Origen Against Celsus 4:43).

Indeed I have long argued that the gospel has to in some way to have developed from a core insight into the traditional religion of Israel. There is a running theme of brothers fighting with one another throughout Genesis. Exodus presents of course the sudden introduction of two reconciled brothers which serves as the model for the reconciliation of all families. But I think the gospel takes that one step further. I think that is the essence of Christianity, why it was so successful, why it was such a revolution.

It isn't just that 'we are all brothers' but that salvation is attained by being bound (through adelphopoiia or 'marriage' if you will) to another human being (originally a man but later a woman too) as a spiritual means for perfecting one's self - "when you have seen your brother you have also seen your God."

That's Christianity

Also here is Eric Osborne's take on this:

[http://books.google.com/books?id=TxU...se%22&f=false]

The point again is that - regardless of what Nietzsche may have said on the subject - this idea does not exist in Judaism. Christianity marks a further 'humanization' of the Jewish religion.

sotto voce

The essence of Christianity is found in just seven words:

'We love, because he first loved us.' 1 Jn 4:19

The word 'first' is important. Christianity is not for everyone. It is for people who are concerned about their own bad conscience more than they are concerned about anything else. The love of God is considered to be shown by atonement via Jesus, who, according to pre-existing as well as his own evidence, saves from the consequences of a bad conscience after death of the body. So Jesus, 'while we were still sinners,' took the blame due to the sinner, and made him/her an 'heir' with him, not merely wiping out the consequence of wickedness, but rewarding with benefits beyond imagination. It is that motivation that is the 'engine room' of the Christian, what makes him/her 'tick'.

stephan huller

Right but when you really think about it the question of a mythical or historical Jesus - even the reality of his ministry and indeed all things that he may or may not have done in that period - have little bearing on how salvation 'works.' The act of loving another is the inner sanctum. All questions of 'belief' (= the Nicene Creed) in a certain kind of Jesus is extraneous. They represent the curtains which surround the truth. The truth is that all of Christianity is summed up in the marriage of two men - one viewing the other as God and 'loving him' in the manner of Moses on mount Sinai (= 'friend with friend'). The factionalism that emerged with respect to this or that doctrine is an unfortunate distraction. The whole religion was originally summed up in the private drama of two yoked individuals. That's incredible. No one ever says that but it's there in full view in the circle at Mar Saba from the sixth century onwards (or at least from the time of John the Almsgiver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Merciful) but surely it goes back to Clement and earliest Alexandrianism. After all, as I said - it is the essence of the religion.

sotto voce

I quite agree. What matters is salved conscience, which produces changed minds and improved personalities, and that it the primary cause of Christianity, not the Bible text, as one is liable to suppose. In a sense it does not matter whether Jesus was historical or not, because the ordinary person is not concerned about it. It is the transformation of a drunken spouse or a wayward teenage son or daughter than convinces. Not dry scholarship, interesting and indeed essential though it is.

Agreed, again. The egregiously wicked have recited creeds.

Not a marriage in the modern sense of a partnership of equals. Not even an ancient marriage had one party owing everything to the other. Though there is a measure of equality in the believer's relationship with Christ, because it cannot be supposed that Jesus condescendingly looks down on the people he died for, or that he forces anyone to do anything. A man, women or child of Christian faith is like a slave 'bought out of the market', set free; and then serves, willingly, not out of sense of duty. Jesus is a brother, and friend; but also a saviour, therefore lord. So, because it is what his/her lord wants, everyone becomes loved by the Christian, who does for all as they would be done by.

That's the biblical version of Christianity, anyway. Clement, Justin, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and all later authors for a millennium are actually light years away from that version, notwithstanding their copying of apostolic ideas as well as style. What is missing is that reciprocal love that John wrote of, because they all teach that one contributes to one's own salvation; so there is neither need for, nor motivation to love; to love Jesus, or anyone else. This is amply shown by those who have followed their teaching.

stephan huller

and again if you think of it, it would require the authority of god to change the focus of the jewish religion to this new "your brother is god" myth

sotto voce

That's a matter of opinion. It's the opinion of some that almost everything of significance about Jesus is pre-figured in the OT. The messiah was to be descended of one of several brothers (Judah). However, pre-figurement applied also to another of his brothers, Joseph; as a person, to whom the other brothers were to bow, who had many personal parallels with Jesus.

The king of Israel was not to 'consider himself better than his brothers' (Dt 17:20 NIV). The high priest, also a type of the messiah, was 'the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head' (Lev 21:10 NIV).

Then there is:

'I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him' (Dt 18:18 NIV).

'They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing... I will declare your name to my brothers; in the congregation I will praise you' (Ps 22:18... 22 NIV).

Juststeve

In essence Christianity is a marketing program invented probably by Paul who had a dead guy he wanted to sell as a savior. Everyone needs a savior.

Step one, create the need. We are all fallen and destined to Hell, a very nasty place indeed.

Step two, deal with objections. You are so fallen that nothing you can do for yourself will keep you out of Hell. Your best deeds are like filthy rags. You need a savior.

Step three, introduce the product. Boy do I have a savior for you. Dead guy Jesus is the savior.

Step four, close the deal. Just believe what I believe about the dead guy and you get pie in the sky bye and bye. No surgery required and you can still eat pork chops. What a deal.

The essence of Christianity.

Steve

aa5874

Your statement is erroneous. The Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith, that there were people in Christ before him and that there were Churches in Christ in Judea so he could NOT have started Christianity.

Please, we cannot go through this again. The HJ argument has failed.

Another grand AD HOC fairy tale. Please, your imagination stories won't work anymore. We have Ehrman's book so we can see RIGHT through you. You have nothing but AD HOC inventions, logical fallacies and admitted unreliable sources.

I will expose your logical fallacies, ad hoc inventions and your unreliable sources.

MrMacSon

Yes, there was a need of the Gentiles for a uniform belief system. That had been met by numerous stories, the most popular of which were based on old testament prophecies.

The writings attributed to the alleged Paul are but one stepping stone in the development of Christianity.

What the early believers had morphed over many generations. What people today have is different to what they had.

aa5874

We have NO evidence whatsoever that Paul developed Christianity in the Gentile world.

It was the author of the short-ending gMark that had Massive INFLUENCE on the Gentile world.

Not one of the non-Pauline epistles, Hebrews and Revelation show that they were influenced by Paul.

If the authors of the Epistles were Gentiles like Peter, James, John, Jude, then they were supposedly influenced by Jesus or some non-Pauline character.

If the authors of the Gospels were Gentiles then they were influenced by the author of gMark.

Only the Interpolators and Manipulators of the Pauline letters were influenced by the same writer.

This is Most revealing. No author of the Canon was influenced by the Pauline letters EXCEPT those who FORGED them.

The Pauline Gospel of Salvation through the resurrection is NOT seen in any Canonised Book except the Pauline writings.