Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 02-09-2009, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The gospels in their original form were created at a time when the Holy Spirit was still the primary authority in the congregations. The writers would put themselves in a trance and write what the spirit "told" them. They were "one with the gospel" the way a Zen archer was "one with the target". They did not need to convince themselves of their theology. Their beliefs went with them into the trance. Or so it looks.

Mark seems the original narrative whose basic thematic elements were copied by the later canon. Luke and Matthew kept the basic narrative structure, John the spiritualist idiom, which he freely adapted to his own purposes. I noted some of the minute operations Matthew and Luke made to the Markan allegorical ciphers for what appears descriptions of the psi phenomena.

Ben corrected me here when I placed the (first) Markan feeding of the multitude into the evening, in a pronounced pattern of the nature miracles happening between sunset and morning. Ben looked at 6:45 and 6:47 and concluded that the feeding had to take place during the day. That would be the conventional reading. But Matthew, reading the passage with the aid of the spirit, saw that the feeding happened the evening previous (14:15) to the one when Jesus notices the boat with the disciples was stuck in the lake. Similarly, Matthew, on his own. concludes that the incident with the fig tree occured in the morning (21:18), and expunges the Markan precis that it was not the season of the figs. And, he is so confident in his grasp of the jeering in Mk 14:65 to prophesy (i.e. to predict what has already happened in the past) that he removes the mention of the men covering Jesus' eyes while insulting him. One example from Luke would be the added description of Peter and the other two as being "heavy with sleep" when Jesus transfigures before them (9:32).

This is not fiction writing: these are sustained and co-ordinated efforts to justify and describe allegorically what happens inside the heads of people with special challenges, when they experience (themselves as) God and then they are left on their own alone, among jeers, insults and physical nastiness from the uncomprehending outsiders, and tortured by self-doubt.

This I believe was the original purpose of the scripts. The collection came to be very quickly "soaked" in church politics, as the spiritual brotherhood of Jesus knowers and believers led by the spirit came to be replaced by church hierarchy relying on apostolic authority for guidance, and dismissive of any new manifestations of the supernatural and direct links to Christ through the spirit. Paul Tillich called the process the "ecclesiastical fixation of Christianity". In this process, the Acts of the Apostles was the bridging document.

The changeover put emphasis on the literalist reading of the gospels and epistles which became relics. The redaction and "fixing" the texts does not in any way reflect a spiritual need but dogmatic speculation. Tillich commented on the process of the later protestant sects that followed the pattern of development of primitive Christianity: '..in the second generation they become rational, moralistic, and legalistic; the ecstatic element disappears; not much remains that is creative...'. (in Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, Simon & Schuster, 1968, p.40)

Absolutely masterful summation, this is almost exactly how I view the situation.

I think it's of capital importance to get some idea of what these peoples' lives were actually like, and what religion is about in general in this world, before you can say what they did and wrote and said. We have a clear indication from Paul (presuming him genuine - but if not, why were these passages included?) that the religion was essentially charismatic, involving prophecy, tongues, etc.

And actually this is the same sort of thing you see the world over, in almost every religion: it starts off a genuine expression of mystics, visionaries and the mentally troubled, and eventually becomes a merely formal "social glue" with a bit of philosophy attached, with nobody really knowing what they are doing, but going through some sort of "religious" motions.

mountainman · 02-09-2009, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

If one read some of the stories in the epistles aloud in front of a group of believer and if there is a tradition that has "primed" them or teached them to behave as when we modern folks goes to a movie.

...[trimmed]...

But it is as if kind of ritual play. They do it again and again and again. the whole text is more like a ritual it is not supposed to be as we atheist read it.

It is something you live in faith.

Dear wordy,

You mean something like a grand production of holywood in antiquity, with the front row stalls being one group of participants, another group around the emperor's booths way up in the high parts of the amphitheatre? The music playing loudly "On with the Show!", sporadic cheering, jeering or clapping from the audience.

A small man, carrying large bags of popcorn and fresh grapes meanders amidst the crowd. The lighting crew manage their rows and banks of torches, throwing brilliant light and/or shadows at dramatic moments onto the stage. Ticket inspectors at the doors make sure that people pay to see the production. Religion was never meant to be free.

A number of the higher stalls, reserved for members of the new testament scriptorium, are bristling with scribes and their writing implements, noting any inconsistencies in the theme and plot of the production. Ultimately, they revise the script according to the pleasure of the audience. The emperor's feedback is especially sought out. It's simply wonderful that the common people and the imperial aristocracy can mingle together in a universal expression of religious plays. It binds the empire together. One big audience. One big play. The universal religion, opens at dinner time, with the show starting after desert. A message for everyone. Direct from the stage.

No wonder they built basilicas with stained glass windows and impressive frescoes on the roof and walls. Advertising jesus was the greatest public relations exercise in antiquity. How many reruns have there been? The question is of course, as usual, whether jesus was ever marketed before he got on such a stage in front of the entire empire. Where did the original play script come from? And in which century was the production first cast, and enacted?

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 02-09-2009, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delusional

There is no great mystery about why the New Testament texts were written.

Dear delusional,

The great mystery is in which century this obvious fiction was fabricated and by whom. It certainly was not the first century.

Quote:

The epistles were written to deal with issues which were arising in the church of the day, and you can find out what those issues were by the simple expedient of reading them.

The fourteen epistles of Paul are late forgeries. And you can find out all about these issues of forged epistles by the simple expedient of reading the Dutch radicals.

Best wishes,

Pete

wordy · 02-09-2009, 05:14 AM

Pete, it is one suggestion among many. I heard it on radio from a Christian Theologian, I found it interesting as a scenario.

don't you thing it reminds of the ritual plays they did to Mithra but them in secret and we don't even have saved scripts what they said to each other do we?

There could be lay groups doing similar plays in less spectacular settings. Street preachers doing healing and preaching on how to live to please god.

mountainman · 02-09-2009, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

I heard it on radio from a Christian Theologian, I found it interesting as a scenario.

Dear wordy,

It must be winter now in Scandinavia. Christian conjecture is boundless. Somewhere out there in the real world the true history of christian origins is waiting to be discovered. But I dont think it is going to be anything like what the mainstream christians and all their hangers-on have conjectured.

Quote:

Street preachers doing healing and preaching on how to live to please god.

Yes, I will go along with that. But then god got badged as the Sherrif of Dodge City, and the rise of the one monotheistic state religion saw to it that the street preaching was taxed, and restricted. The preaching became centralised to conform with the adoption of the religion by the centralised state. The state religion and the religion before the state religion (if it existed at all) need to be sorted out. When christianity became the state religion it took the state downhill, and the political intrigues of the bishops clearly overshadowed any religion these bishops touted.

Best wishes,

Pete

show_no_mercy · 02-09-2009, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delusional

Part of the problem atheists have is that they can't think themselves into the Christian position. Christian's believe that the Bible is the word of God. Given that belief (which for them is not just a debating point), how free do you think they would have felt to play fast and loose with it?

This assumes that Christians at the turn of the 2nd century thought that the writings that are in the NT now considered them the "word of god". Gospels and epistles were just that - good news and letters. Not the word of god.

There was no "New Testament" circa 100 CE. There was no "word of god" other than the Torah. There was only things like "Memoirs of the Apostles" and such. The idea of canonization didn't come around until Marcion threw together his "New" testament circa 140 and the proto-orthodoxy needed an official "canon" to have as evidence against Marcion.

andrewcriddle · 02-09-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

This assumes that Christians at the turn of the 2nd century thought that the writings that are in the NT now considered them the "word of god". Gospels and epistles were just that - good news and letters. Not the word of god.

There was no "New Testament" circa 100 CE. There was no "word of god" other than the Torah. There was only things like "Memoirs of the Apostles" and such. The idea of canonization didn't come around until Marcion threw together his "New" testament circa 140 and the proto-orthodoxy needed an official "canon" to have as evidence against Marcion.

I think that a work can be regarded as inspired of God without it being part of a rigidly defined canon.

I agree that there was no clearly defined canon c 100 CE but many of the works that became the NT were already very highly valued.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-09-2009, 05:14 AM	#34
wordy Contributor Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden, Europe Posts: 12,091	Pete, it is one suggestion among many. I heard it on radio from a Christian Theologian, I found it interesting as a scenario. don't you thing it reminds of the ritual plays they did to Mithra but them in secret and we don't even have saved scripts what they said to each other do we? There could be lay groups doing similar plays in less spectacular settings. Street preachers doing healing and preaching on how to live to please god.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.