four phases of a trinity
In response to a recent comment from a cheeky young scamp, I clarified that I am a complex person: a mother, a daughter and wholly spirited. Something about my comment sounded familiar and awoke in me the need to express my feelings on fellow beings who have evolved three aspects in one charming package.
Phase One – inventing a deity
I think it’s safe to say that the historical figure of Moses* invented the Jewish god God. A well-educated man with a gift for compassion, he grew up believing the Egyptian gods of his palace were the ‘correct’ religion. However, on taking an interest in the slaves of his day, and discovering his true heritage, he undoubtedly questioned how all the gods could actually co-exist. His humanitarian crusade eventually led to the release of his people and he had the unenviable task of leading hundreds of thousands of people across daunting landscapes in search of a land they could settle in. Hundreds of thousands of hungry, tired, superstitious and uneducated people. What to do?
The obvious control mechanism in this situation was to create a figurehead that everyone would respect and no-one could question. After weeks of dispute-filled wandering and cranky bickering, Moses took the opportunity to retreat from the crowds and take a few days to gather his thoughts in an inspiring place. Mount Sinai provided just the perfect setting for peaceful contemplation. As he returned to the mayhem he’d left behind, he sighed and thanked his lucky stars he’d written down his plan. A handful of rules to keep the masses in order – stop the fighting over possessions and sexual partners, have a day now and then to relax and unwind, ensure respect of authority, and unite the disparate superstitious people under one frighteningly jealous and possessive, yet protective and all-powerful deity.
And that’s how the monotheistic deity of the Jews was born. A little backwards projection with an inventive creation story and lead-in was dreamt up further along the line to give the whole thing an air of consistency.
Phase Two – concocting a spirit
Moses forget to tell anyone that he had made it all up, and he did such a good job of creating the single controlling deity, that the people continued building on his stories and rules. As the invented god God obviously never personally made any physical appearances on earth, there was a danger that people would feel distanced from the notion of his power and authority. After all, statues and images were banned, so there was nothing to demonstrate the potential presence of the deity. But what if this judgemental deity could roam the earth and influence people in the form of an invisible spirit or ghost? Nice idea. Makes him even more frightening, unpredictable and liable to be obeyed.
Phase Three – birth of a son
As with all religions, the promise of important events and people yet to come is a key part of the religious narrative. This future-telling strategy is useful in giving people something to look forward to: a reason to feel optimistic and motivated to continue following the deity. The trick is to leave the prophetic visions sufficiently vague enough so that many events and people have the potential to fulfill the prophetic bill. The Jews like to think that a special person is coming to make everything right. Several possibilities have come and gone, and the Jesus character did a quite convincing job (although not for them specifically).
He called the god God, ‘Father’ – a common Jewish name for their god. He was the son of the god God, as any created beings could claim to be. He came with a message direct from the god God and built up a substantial little following. But, after his death, it became clear that for people to take him extra seriously, it would be a good idea to give the Jesus character the same authority level as the god God. The actual son of a deity is a great plan, but it starts to look like there might be more than one boss – room for a power struggle and splinter groups. But not if they’re part of the same package!
Phase 4 – avoiding pantheism
The idea of a trinity wasn’t aired until almost 200 years after the death of Jesus, and it was another hundred years before official churches started an attempt at defining this ‘key’ understanding of their deity, in order to avoid embarrassing misunderstandings that might undermine their authority… sorry, their god’s authority.
This far down the line, there was no opportunity to re-write the gospels and omit the parts where Jesus clearly doesn’t say ‘me’ but says ‘my god’, and refers to the god God as a separate being. Oops. Nevertheless, the theologians had a trick up their sleeves, the ultimate card they play when pushed into any corner: their god is a supernatural being and, as such, a mystery to the puny human brain. Phew, close one!
Each Christian believer can now take their pick of interpretations in this area: trinitarianism, social trinitarianism, modalism, binitarianism and all the subdivisions within these. Because, like everything else in religion, it’s completely open to interpretation. Just remember though, there’s only one god in Christianity. Three distinct persons/aspects saying totally different things in one coherent supernatural being. It’s no pick’n’mix, pantheistic, pagan jumble of random gods – okay?
What’s that? It doesn’t make sense? Well, of course it doesn’t make sense – it’s a cobbled together set of ideas used to control people as and when the occasion arose, that are ‘rationalised’ as an after-thought by endless streams of people desperate to make sense of their one, true religion. It wouldn’t be a religion if it made sense, it would be scientific fact.
* Well, if Moses wasn’t actually real, then someone else with similar motives.
Bingo!
LikeLike
You may collect your prize at the door. 🙂
LikeLike
This was an entertaining read.
Kind of fell flat with the whole “no mention of the Trinity until 200-300 years after the fact” myth, though. That sort of entertainment is firmly Dan Brown’s territory. Careful; he’ll sue ya. 😉
LikeLike
Ouch! I’ve been compared to Dan Brown. I even linked to my sources on that one. What’s wrong with it?
LikeLike
Now, now, I’m not comparing you to Dan Brown. Just saying that particular myth is Brownesque in its infamy.
Tertullian was certainly the first known individual to use the term “Trinity”, but he was using it to describe an idea that was already well-attested in the writings of the early Church Fathers and in the NT itself. At the first council of Nicaea, church leaders gathered from around the Roman Empire, not to define the Trinity, but to confirm publicly that Arianism was contrary to what the church already taught. Of the 300+ leaders who gathered there, all but 2 unanimously agreed that the doctrine of the Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed accurately represented Christianity as they knew it. No other interpretation was ever in widespread consideration.
The Trinity gets a reputation for being mysterious and esoteric, mostly due to overly-imaginative Evangelical preachers too lazy or too uneducated to accurately explain it. It’s not THAT complicated. For all intents and purposes, Christians believe in three gods. But since the three gods lack the rivalry, disparity, and other distinctives of polytheism a la Roman Pantheon, it’s more like worshiping one god in practice. That’s really all.
LikeLike
Haha! Yes, I think you’ll find that’s *your* interpretation. And it doesn’t seem complicated or mysterious to you … because that’s the interpretation you’ve chosen or been taught. It actually makes no sense, and it’s not clearly accounted for in the Bible so lots of other Christians have lots of other interpretations (and have had so since the whole religion evolved). Come on, most of this post was inspired by your rigid understanding of the ‘correct’ trinity definition – do you really not get it? 🙂 I have never heard anyone say: “For all intents and purposes, Christians believe in three gods.” – so that’s a new one for me. What brand do you come from?
And if I say things that have been said before, it’s because they’re logical. I’ve been a disinterested self-evolved atheist for almost 20 years, and have never read any atheist writings. I started blogging three or four months ago out of boredom and concern for the deterioration of my native English skills. I thought I was going to write about vegetarianism, being a mother, or living abroad, but instead got distracted and irritated by posts which made discriminatory statements and promoted untrue or unhelpful messages, which inevitably led me to concentrate on criticising religion.
LikeLike
This whole idea that the Trinity was some controversial, hotly argued, not-really-settled-until-Nicaea “interpretation” simply doesn’t have any historical backing. It’s a fiction. You say “lots of other Christians have lots of other interpetations” — who? Classic Trinitarianism has always been held by the overwhelming majority of Christians (by head count) throughout the known history of the church. That’s a positive claim. Ask any mainstream historian if there has ever been a point in time where a majority of Christians worldwide were in sects that held to different interpretations. Trinitarianism wasn’t “one of many” interpretations that “just happened” to win out.
I’m sure you’ve never heard the explanation I gave; that’s because I made it up. It’s a good way to describe the classic Trinitarian view to a modern audience, even if it seems a little odd at first glance.
Trinitarianism has always been “distinct, eternal, divine individuals”. That’s the way Jesus presents it (“myself, my Father, and the comforter I will send you”), that’s the way Paul presents it, and that’s the way the other apostles present it. Now, harmonizing this with the Jewish concept of God might be potentially problematic, and not all parts of the NT go into equal levels of detail, but there’s no controversy within the New Testament. Even Arianism, the heresy that prompted the Council of Nicaea, didn’t question the notion of three distinct divine individuals existing with one essence; it simply suggested that God the Son and God the Spirit were created deities rather than eternally coexistent with God the Father.
LikeLike
Sorry ,when it comes to Physics I got stumped on the Leclanche Cell.
Although I got 8/10 from my physics teacher for a nice piece of homework. I think it was the coloured drawing to be honest.
If you are are getting your history from historians then pray(sic) do tell which historian did you read that divulged the history of the Trinity?
I am all ears……
LikeLike
The documentation we have from the first few centuries AD is pretty unambiguous.
LikeLike
. Can you provide the names of at least two historians- preferably secular, but not crucial – that would back your assertion, please?
LikeLike
Gladly. But…which claim exactly are you wanting me to back up? Sorry; I just don’t want to provide something that isn’t what you’re looking for.
LikeLike
Hello physicsandwiskey, I am Christian & I do not believe in 3 gods, I believe there is one God, God the Father, & I believe that Yeshua the Messiah is God’s Son, Yeshua came out from God, Yeshua is not God, & I believe that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit is not God. God, the Son, & the Holy Spirit are in agreement, therefore they are “one”, the New Testament does not support the teaching that says, Yeshua the Messiah & the Holy Spirit are God, I have been a Christian for 20 years, & for 18 of those years I was deceived by false teaching, after God removed me from false teaching, God, by the Holy Spirit that dwells in me started showing me the truth & that’s when I realized that the majority of people that claim to be Christian speak false, the counsel of Nicea definitely did not speak the truth, God used the counsel of Nice a to deceive many people, I reject the Nicean Creed that says Christ is God, & the Holy Spirit is God.
LikeLike
Can’t see anything wrong with this. The Church made it up. Spot on.
Crispyuns will swear that the Trinity is alluded to in the bible, but then they are all dickheads, so we don’t have to worry what they think.
Although, had I writted, it I would have mentioned that Mo Sez saw God’s backside and from that inglorious moment, Jews, Christians and Muslims have been seeing their arse ever since.
LikeLike
Thank you. What a shame I missed that line about Mo Sez! PhysicsandWhiskey thinks I stole my historical facts about the trinity from … Dan Brown!
LikeLike
Did it not cross your mind that there may be more to the blog name, Physics and Whiskey? Surely not a good combination, especially if one may be handling weapons grade plutonium for instance.
Also I believe he/she? may be a recovering Christian and still only a Maybeatheist and if one is getting one’s history from the bible then one is still in a sorry sate. Fragile – Handle With Care is probably written somewhere on his/her backside.
No, what non biblical history we have certainly puts your little tale way ahead of anything between the covers of the KJV or its derivatives.
LikeLike
Did you see the picture? One of my favourites, think that one will definitely be going on our wall.
LikeLike
Yes. Looks smashing blown up but these teeny weeny pics do them no justice.
LikeLike
Physics and whiskey is a GREAT combination. Seriously. Haven’t you ever tried to calculate confinement and electron correlation effects in photoionization of atoms in endohedral anions while sipping a good single-malt scotch? Makes all the difference in the world.
I’m a he, btw. Not that my gender makes any difference for most of this stuff.
Recovering apologist, yes; recovering Christian…eh, I dunno. Not really sure what I believe. But I certainly don’t get my history from the Bible; I’m getting my history from historians. I like history. Minored in it while I was getting my physics degree, just for fun.
And KJV? EWWWW.
LikeLike
Oh how i wish Constantine chose Mithraism, and not Christianity….
LikeLike
They were the next bunch waiting in line with their ‘god-pitch’, but they got fed waiting for that farking windbag, Eusebius to wrap up his speech that they all went out for a bag of Wolf nipple chips and by the time they got back it was a done deal.
LikeLike
I love that imagery…. Applicants waiting quietly in the corridor, CV’s in hand, nervous, fidgety. Brilliant 🙂
LikeLike
I think the added detail of the tasty snack clinches it – wolf nipple chips! Excellent! Is that from a Terry Pratt-chump book or is it off the cuff?
LikeLike
Sigh….Not a Life of Brian fan, then? Where have you been? Living under a Cephas
LikeLike
Yeah, I should really watch that. I didn’t watch it when I should have done because I was a you-know-what and it was bad (like Benny Hill but worse, I understood). And since then, it’s always looked really old. But I think I’ll make the effort because I’m sure there are a few laughs in there.
LikeLike
(by the way you didn’t comment on “Terry Pratt-chump” – I spat my coffee out when I thought of that, one of my rare comedy gold moments, surely??
LikeLike
Sorry, I forget that I am also playing to the cheap seats, and not merely those who jangle their jewelry in the balcony ( thank you Lennon)
I thought you clicked it was from Life of Brian and I wasn’t going to get into a fisticuffs over the brilliance of Sir Terry.
LikeLike
@P & W
”And KJV? EWWWW”.
The KJV is brilliant. Proper bible language, all those, Thou cometh and thou goeth. And the Lord sayeth, “Slayeth mine enemas, for mine enemas are your ememas,” So sayeth the Lord. Amen Corner.
Ooooh, real pooping your pants stuff.
That was a time when bible writing meant something before the dickhead evangelicals came along and did a Billy Graham number on it.
No siree,
It’s the KJV,
The only bible for you and me…..y’all.
LikeLike
Heh.
Correction: “Þe onlye Bible for thee and me…ye.”
Of all the fundies I’ve had the misfortunate of crossing paths with, I think the KJV-onlyers have got to be the most unyieldingly dissonant.
LikeLike
Violetwisp, I think your post was great. Physicsandwhiskey has a good point, but it does not render your post in any way invalid. And that was not his intention, as far as I understood him correctly.
As Ark pointed out the priests either invented the idea of trinity, or at least refined it. To me it seems, that the idea of trinity is linked to the comment of Aristoteles, who said only an atemporal god can be a god. Jesus effectively being a god to the Christians needed to be included into that. Jesus hardly knew about Aristoteles, nor did his fishermen friends, but someone among the next generation followers surely did. The joke is that the atemporalism as Aristoteles presented it, is not actually resolved by the idea of trinity. Since the devil is a temporal entity, but by all other elements this is the rival god in the Christian pantheon. At least if we start to compare Christianity to polytheistic religions.
Many things in the Bible are contradicting, wich shows us that a lot of that stuff was actually written by dudes who did not know about each other, or misrepresented each other, but it does not mean that the entire story is a document from a direct source. Rather the opposite. If a Gospel writer (any of them) claims Jesus said this, or that, it only goes as evidence, that someone wrote something that this Jesus character alledgedly said. It could be a person who just remembers selectively what his buddy Jesus said, or it could be a person who writes stuff as told him what this Jesus character said and so forth. The bottom line is that trinity is an interresting way to stretch the idea of monotheism.
LikeLike
Yes, but I’m sure there are loads of different interpretations of the trinity all down history.
Physicsandwhiskey said, “It’s not THAT complicated. For all intents and purposes, Christians believe in three gods. But since the three gods lack the rivalry, disparity, and other distinctives of polytheism a la Roman Pantheon, it’s more like worshiping one god in practice. ”
He thinks there is one *correct* way of viewing the trinity, it’s always been this way and almost all Christians believe the same thing. He’s wrong. 🙂 I just can’t be bothered digging it all out …
LikeLike
Yes, well perhaps he meant, that it is not percieved as so complicated by people who actually believe in these things, what ever their personal, or doctrinal interpretation of this idea is.
But I do agree with you. The idea, that there should not be no other gods than just the one, and three separate forms of it are a clear logical contradiction. And if that is a contradiction, then what a contradiction it is to have pictures of Jesus all around churches when the Old Testament specifically says, one should not have “craven images”? However, logic is not a requirement for faith. Actually, if you have logical reasons for your beliefs it no longer is actual faith. Because having faith literally means believing something despite the lack of evidence.
The thing is, all religions are ecclestic. Even the most strict literal fundamentalists go cherry picking from their holy scriptures the stuff that pleases them, or fits their personal version of morality. And since no god interferes in personal interpretation of the scriptures, miracles, sermons, or doctrines, that god seems to be fine with the entire variety. If someone claims “god hates fags”, then it seems to be just as fine to this god, as “god loves everybody”. If someone says god hates infidells and wants you to kill them, it also seems just as fine with this god as “turn the other cheek”.
People believe in most obscure and strange stuff about their god(s), and it all seems to make sense to them on some level. What people believe about their own god(s) seems to be completely irrelevant to any god. What is more important to all gods is, that people believe. And not even that is so very important, since gods are not actively promoting belief, rather playing hide and seek. For some reason it is only humans who are promoting belief in any god(s). A game where most often people find them selves as “winners”, or “losers” based on their cultural heritage.
LikeLike
Oh Raut, thank you, I think you’re in the running for my April Comment of the Month post. You covered a lot of ground in few words there. It’s a shame no Christians follow my posts, I need to get more evangelical! 🙂
(You’re neck and neck with Ark’s observation, “Crispyuns will swear that the Trinity is alluded to in the bible, but then they are all dickheads, so we don’t have to worry what they think.”)
LikeLike
I have never been a Christian, or a member of any other religion, so I do not know, but I think, that since faith requires no logic, most of your exellent posts would be “pearls to the swine” on Christians.
On the other hand, there are Christians and other religious people to whom the truth matters and therefore are on the way to the realization, that the idea of supernatural is a figment of human imagination. They may never reach it and your texts might help them to come to terms with reality. But I think those kinds of people need to seek out your blog on their own. Any true believers, who want to have faith, regardless if there is proper evidence to back it up, will propably not change their mind what ever you tell them. Of course, there is allways the chance and hope, that you made them actually stop and think about something and if that leads them on a journey to find out about stuff, it is healthy and beneficial, regardless what their final conclusion on that particular matter is. Because finding out about stuff is the only way, that can take anyone of us any closer to any objective truth. As you allready know. 🙂
I think Ark is much better commentator, than I am for the obvious reason, that he can dynamically put much more thought in a short sentece. I tend to go on and on and be distracted from the actual topic.
LikeLike
Tsk tsk, Ark is not a better commentator! He’s loud and rude and funny – but you have a knack of sensibly getting to the kernel of the issues. (Don’t tell Ark I said that because he’s incredibly sensitive and will go in huff and not visit my blog for weeks.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on violetwisp and commented:
First time I’ve reblogged one of my own posts, but I think it’s important to be clear about how the Trinity doctrine was invented.
LikeLike
1) Besides being perfectly arbitrary, your interpretation of Moses anachronistic. You are reading goofy 20th century “dances with wolves” idealism back into the bronze age.
2) While the terminology for Trinitarian theology developed over time, the basic notion that Jesus of Nazareth is God, and the Father is God, is attested to in St. Paul and the Gospels, that is in the first century. The Baptismal Formula (In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is older than either Paul or the Gospels, so it is safe to say Trinitarian belief and practice predates the terminology by a few hundred years.
3) The idea that having a “Father” and a “Son” creates a power struggle in the early church is also an arbitrary interpretation.
4) Your assertion that the NT authors did not notice that that when they exalted Jesus to divine status, they somehow forgot to notice that they depict him as always praying to his ‘father’ (thus inadvertently creating two gods, leaving it to fourth and fifth century theologians to patch over the problems with the trinity) is so mind-numbingly stupid that I doubt you believe it.
LikeLike
What is so mind numbingly stupid is to think that the disciples thought for one second that JC was a god.
LikeLike
All available documentation, from the letters of Paul to the sub-apostolic fathers, says that that is what they thought. Whether they were correct or not is a different question.
A related, equally interesting question would be “how is it that the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth came to the conclusion that he was divine?”
But I suppose you’ve got a conspiracy theory about Constantine up your sleeve.
LikeLike
Nonsense. They were Jews. They may have thought he was a Messiah, or even Yahweh’s kid, but they didn’t think he was Yahweh.
Such a though would have been anathema to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, they do report that the Sanhedrin wanted him executed for blasphemy.
The title Son of God implies equality of nature… like begets like.
A mid-first century Pharisee writing about Jesus: “though he was in the form of God he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at”… probably quoting a hymn that predates the text.
Another first century Jew, writing in the Rabbinical tradition of the midrash, has Jesus say “before Abraham was, I am”, a clear allusion to Yahweh.
I’m not an expert on the theme, but it seems the followers of Jesus understood his divinity in such a way that it would not upset their commitment to monotheism. Something like, oh, I don’t know, the Trinity.
LikeLike
Son of god implies no sich thing and the title ws used on numerpus occasions throughout the bible.
Source for your Pharisee quote, if you please.
Odd this is never quoted ( that I am aware of)
The rest of post is just so much tripe.Your too much f a farking idiot to be taken seriously, except by yourself, of course.
LikeLike
The quote is Paul’s letter to the Philippians (chapter two?) I thought you would have recognized it. The other is John’s gospel which explicitly equates Jesus with God three times that I can think of.
OT uses ‘son of god’ for angels and the king in one of the Psalms. NT uses it as ‘The Son’, applied in a special way to Jesus. The whole Gospel of Mark is structured around the application of ‘Son of God’ to Jesus, so 1st century Christians obviously thought it signified an exclusive relationship, I doubt anybody besides you and a few internet cranks question this.
I like how you pretend that my comments are so far beneath your lofty intellect that you refuse to deal with them, and then you say that I’m the one taking himself too seriously. Its cute, in a bitchy way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought it looked familiar and I Googled it straight after. It has been a while since I read the bible.
Anyway, I hosed myself laughing. Didn’t seem any point in replying.
I am not going to have an online debate with an idiot like you over hermeneutics.
Oh, and there is no pretense. Your comments are below everyone’s intellect, even a colossal arse-hat like Strobel can do a better job that you.
LikeLike
Just to recap my stupidity:
Ark: Early disciples did not believe in Jesus’ divinity.
Me: Philippians chapter 2 , considered by scholars to be an early Christian hymn predating the composition of the letter, is about the divinity of Christ.
Ark: I hosed myself.
Me: Yes. Yes you did.
LikeLike
Yes, just to recap your stupidity.
The disciples did not ever consider Yeshua Ben Josef was Yahweh.
LikeLike
That verse in Philippians chapter 2 is translated wrong, Paul definitely did not believe Christ was God. Philippians 1:2 confirms that truth. Philippians 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah.
LikeLike
The Apostles definitely did not believe the Messiah was God, they believed Yeshua is the Son of God. John 20:31 these have been written that you may believe that Yeshua is the Christ (the Messiah), the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in his name.
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us [the church] there is {but} one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we {exist} for Him; and one Lord, Yeshua the Messiah by whom are all things, and we {exist} through him.
Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
4:6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
Philippians 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah.
John 16:27 For the Father Himself loves you [the disciples] because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father.
16:28 “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”
1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Yeshua is the Messiah is born of God
1 John 3:9 No one born of God practices sin.
The teaching that says Christ is God is absolutely false.
The disciples definitely did not believe Yeshua was God, Matt 16:16 confirms that truth.
Matt 16:15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
16:17 And Yeshua said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal {this} to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
LikeLike
1) What is understood by the phrase “Son of God” in your personal theology? It has no clear meaning, elucidate?
2) How do you understand John 1:1; 8:58; 20: 28?
3) How is Phil 2:6 a bad translation? enai isa to theo means what in English? How should it be understood?
LikeLike
First off, I go by what the New Testament says, therefore it is not my theology, John 20:31 clearly states that the term “Son of God” means “Christ”, ” Christ” means “Messiah”, the Son of God is the Messiah, the Messiah is not God.
Now since John 20:31 makes it very clear that Christ is not God, no verse in the Bible can be saying Christ is God, the Apostles believed on one God, God the Father that’s it.
The answer to what John 1:1 is saying is found in 2 Corinthians 5:19, ” God was in Christ”, now since 2 Corinthians 5:19 says God was in Christ, then clearly John 1:1 isn’t saying Christ is God.
John 20:28 is simply confirming what Christ said when he said, he who sees me, sees Him who sent me, Thomas was confirming that Yeshua was his Lord, by saying that he saw God in Yeshua, those who believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, believe in God.
Phil 2:6 clearly is not saying Christ is God because Phil 1:2 makes it very clear that Christ is not God, therefore the English translation of Phil 2:6 is wrong, unless of course, you believe the Bible contradicts itself, I’m Christian, I definitely do not believe the Bible contradicts itself.
John 8:58 can’t contradict what John 20:31 says, therefore John 8:58 is not saying Christ is God, Christ was sent by God to deliver a message to God’s chosen people, anyone that is sent by God is God’s representative, the gospel of Christ is the gospel of God, the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, Christ came out from God, therefore they are “one”, anyone who is sent by God is one with God.
LikeLike
I was born from above (born of the Spirit) 20 years ago, but for 18 of those years, I was deceived by false teaching, I used to believe Christ is God because that is what the majority of people who claim to be Christian say, but after God removed me from false teaching, God by the Holy Spirit that dwells in me, started showing me the truth, now I no longer believe Christ is God, because the New Testament does not say that, in fact, the New Testament makes it very clear that Christ is not God
LikeLike
https://bornfromabove7.wordpress.com/2014/11/13/christs-words-prove-he-isnt-god-2/
LikeLike
https://bornfromabove7.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/john-11/
LikeLike
I am not affiliated in any way with whomever wrote this, but I do agree with what the person says about Phil 2:6
After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (NIV). This phrase is a powerful argument against the Trinity. If Yeshua were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not “grasp” at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. It only makes sense to compliment someone for not seeking equality when he is not equal. Some Trinitarians say, “Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father.” That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/philippians-2-6-8
LikeLike
Paul believed that God was in Christ, Paul did not believe Christ was God. God was in Christ by the Holy Spirit that dwelled in Christ, the Holy Spirit in Christ is what made Christ & God “one”, to be ” one” with God is to be in agreement with God.
2 Corinthians 5:18 Now all {these} things are from God, who reconciled us [the church] to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
2 Corinthians 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the [chosen] world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
LikeLike
The Apostles definitely did not believe Christ is God.
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not {sent} from men nor through the agency of man, but through Yeshua the Messiah and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.
Galatians 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah
Ephesians 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah.
1:3 Blessed {be} the God and Father of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly {places} in Christ,
Colossians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Yeshua the Messiah by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ {who are} at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.
1:3 We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, praying always for you,
1 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah: Grace to you and peace.
2 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah
1:2 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah
Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Yeshua the Messiah, which God gave him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated {it} by His angel to His bond-servant John,
Revelation 1:4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him [God the Father] who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne,
1:5 and from Yeshua the Messiah, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by his blood–
LikeLike
“All available documentation, from the letters of Paul to the sub-apostolic fathers, says that that is what they thought.” – Yeah, they were so convinced they were in the presence of a deity, that they couldn’t even stay awake on the last night of his life. And when he was arrested, they scattered lime quail (thought you’d appreciate the hunting analogy), hardly the behavior of those who believed they were under the protection of a god.
DP, you never fail to disappoint —
LikeLike
The apostles’ development from “zeros to heroes” is a major theme of the NT. Go read it again.
LikeLike
Thanks for stopping by DP. I do so love giving you the opportunity to spend some quality chat time with your old pal Ark.
“1) Besides being perfectly arbitrary, your interpretation of Moses anachronistic. You are reading goofy 20th century “dances with wolves” idealism back into the bronze age.”
Thank you! But doesn’t it have an odd, and perhaps uncomfortable, ring of potential truth for you?
“2) While the terminology for Trinitarian theology developed over time, the basic notion that Jesus of Nazareth is God, and the Father is God, is attested to in St. Paul and the Gospels, that is in the first century. The Baptismal Formula (In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is older than either Paul or the Gospels, so it is safe to say Trinitarian belief and practice predates the terminology by a few hundred years.”
I’ve asked this of Christians before. Can you point me to the verse in the Bible where the Trinity is mentioned, explained or even hinted at? I can point you to several verses in the Bible where the notion of such a heresy is clearly negated.
” If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” John 14:28
“I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” Isaiah 45:5
Look at all the different interpretations of Deut 32:39
http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/32-39.htm
If you’re going to take the Bible seriously, there is no room for manoeuvre on this. The concept of the Trinity was clearly invented for a reason. I would say the most obvious reason is one of authority within the religion – it’s too confusing to have this big bad god and his nice son saying very different things.
As for the Baptismal Formula, it’s in the names of the three gods – so what?
“3) The idea that having a “Father” and a “Son” creates a power struggle in the early church is also an arbitrary interpretation.”
Indeed. But based on a logical analysis of the situation. Look at the facts, look at the actions, guess the motive based on most probable cause.
“4) Your assertion that the NT authors did not notice that that when they exalted Jesus to divine status, they somehow forgot to notice that they depict him as always praying to his ‘father’ (thus inadvertently creating two gods, leaving it to fourth and fifth century theologians to patch over the problems with the trinity) is so mind-numbingly stupid that I doubt you believe it.”
Again, I can only guess. Maybe this Jesus character did exist and truly believed he was the son of the great Jewish god, placed on Earth. Maybe his followers did write down what he said as faithfully as they could remember (with the odd embellishment). In that case they couldn’t possibly have known what problems it would cause in the first few centuries of the church, trying to reconcile all the messages with the older Jewish writings. I do know my stab in the dark makes a lot more sense than the mind-numblingly stupid creation of the ‘Trinity’ that people seem to accept so blindly.
LikeLike
Well, I’m relieved that you recognize your wild speculations for being wild speculations.
The historical origin of the dogma of the Trinity is not complicated at all, it is right in pages of the gospels, that Jesus prays to God and yet claims divine prerogatives.
John’s gospel is the most striking: Jesus’ attitude towards God is filial – humble, dependent and obedient, yet he claims divine prerogatives, and is referred to as divine in the prologue, in the discourse on Abraham, and the apparition to Thomas.
Your response: “poor John, he is just some kind of drooling idiot who was not aware of what he was writing” is so shallow that it is practically anti-intellectual. Putting aside the question of the veracity of the Gospels, if your explanation for their theology is “LOL! Stupid!” you are just a bad reader.
LikeLike
“Well, I’m relieved that you recognize your wild speculations for being wild speculations.!
Measured speculation based on sound logic, rather than blind acceptance of wildly improbable ancient myths mashed up with 2000 year old texts of dubious origin.
“The historical origin of the dogma of the Trinity is not complicated at all” I know, that’s what I’ve been saying. It’s not complicated, it’s just fabricated.
“John’s gospel is the most striking”
Indeed. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Odd that it’s not stated, “For God so loved the world that he came down in the form of his Son” instead of clearly mentioning a separate entity.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Odd that it’s not stated “no man cometh unto Father, but by me (part of the Father)”
And yes, I’m shallow, anti-intellectual and a bad reader. But at least I use logic 😉
LikeLike
You need brushing up on traditional Christian doctrine: one being, three persons. Any Catholic, Orthodox or Lutheran catechism will do.
Nicea calls Jesus consubstantial, or homousios with the father. There was a trendy English translation “one in being”, which I thought was pretty good.
God is simple: no parts. His attributes and his being are the same. He IS wisdom, mercy, goodness, knowledge, etc.
There are no divisions in God.
But the only Aristotelian category which does not imply division or distinction is relation. A thing can be related to another, related to itself, and not undergo any changes.
So the divine person is a relationship.
LikeLike
You need brushing up on reality, on logic and on rational thinking. You’ve clearly sucked up a whole pile of theological nonsense and can no longer see the wood for the trees. I give you clear quotes from the Bible demonstrating and Jesus and the god God were envisaged as separate beings, and you just come back with trite basics from the people who created the trinity …
LikeLiked by 2 people
If I had a dollar for every time an atheist told me that I’m reading the Bible wrong…
LikeLike
If I had a dollar for every Christian I’ve heard telling all the other Christians they’re reading the bible wrong…
LikeLike
Difference: Christians are usually arguing in good faith.
You see nothing ridiculous about an atheist complaining that a Christian is unmoved by the former’s personal interpretation of the text?
LikeLike
Check out the ‘Obvious Falsehoods’ post. It’s an appeal to Christians to acknowledge that every detail of their belief can be interpreted, and is interpreted, a hundred ways. The trinity is obviously an afterthought because it’s not mentioned in the bible, yet most Christians actually try to believe it. Jesus told believers to give up their possessions, yet hardly any Christians do. These things are easy to interpret. Jesus didn’t mention homosexual marriage or working mothers or contraception, and yet a huge proportion of practising Christians seem to think they can interpret correctly, without doubt, what Jesus would have wanted.
There’s nothing ridiculous about me attempting to point out how ridiculous the Christians who think they know the definitive truth are.
LikeLike
OK, I’ll see it when I get a chance. Thanks for putting up with me, I know I can be a real snot sometimes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Em, wow, that’s an unexpected reply. In fact, I’m so surprised I can’t help thinking I’m missing the sarcasm somehow. Here’s the link to that post. https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/obvious-falsehoods-an-appeal-to-christians/
LikeLike
No sarcasm. I can be snotty when I argue a point.
Reading the above comment and the post, I’d think the main issue is you don’t distinguish practice from doctrine (or substance and accident). Eg: with what language a Catholic priest celebrates sacraments, or whether the priest is a married man or not, is as accidental as the color of his robe.
Your comments on poverty are strange: Jesus never told all of his followers to give up every possession. He recommended it to some, but for the rest he left it at praising detachment and warning that riches are dangerous. You might argue that many Christians don’t act as if they are detached from possessions, but most Christians would agree.
As for the good ol’ 40,000 denominations thing, that really breaks down into very few trends: the catholic-orthodox-middle-eastern churches probably represent the main trunk; then you have the Anglicans and Lutherans; then the myriad “free churches” and descendants of Calvinism. Within these three groups beliefs are fairly homogeneous, and there is agreement about the Nicean formula though all of them. You seem to focus too much on fringe movements to score points.
LikeLike
Luke 14:33 “In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.”
Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
Matthew 19:21 “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Hebrews 13:5 “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.””
Have you ever read the New Testament?
LikeLike
Do you read it in its entirety or do you cherry pick verses like a fundamentalist?
Jesus did not require Zaccheus to give up all of his money. He assured the Rich Young Man that he was on the road to salvation before inviting him to a life of “perfection”. Joseph of Arimathea was a rich man, and considered a disciple.
The only quote that would seem to contradict that would be the first, but taken in context (parable of the warring kings: measure the cost of discipleship, are you willing to lose everything?) it should be taken in the same vein as “hate your mother and father” or “take up your cross and follow me”: following Jesus means putting him at the top of the hierarchy of values, and all other values, even family relationships, are to be determined accordingly.
The other quotes all self-evidently speak to detachment, particularly Hebrews: “be content with what you have”, not “don’t anybody ever have anything.”
Now, you are going to answer that by saying “well of course the NT contradicts itself!” And I will say: you are not reading it with any sense of context and general themes but are playing “gotcha” with random quotes.
LikeLike
Here we go again with the interpretation issue. These verses are clear enough. Zaccheus gave up half his possessions on the spot and swore to throw back four times the worth of money he had cheated people out of. Are Christians not to aim for perfection? That’s the whole point of trying not to sin. The rich, young man is clearly sinning by having money if he can’t be perfect with it. All of these verses, the model of life the character Jesus showed, the way his followers lived as described in Acts, all show that the message of Jesus was to live without possessions or attachment to money. Again, it’s clear that Christians willfully ignore this – or like you, waffle up slightly embarrassing alternative explanations to try and make sense of it without affecting their lives. Have you tried threading a camel through a needle recently?
LikeLike
My interpretive principle is to make a harmonious whole that makes sense of the available evidence. Your interpretive principle is whatever wins you a ‘gotcha’ argument.
My point with Zaccheus was that he did not give up all of his money, one assumes reading the story that he continued as a private citizen with an income. No one obliged him to do what he did, justice would have demanded he repaid what he had stole. He went beyond that, but there is no indication he became a desert hermit.
The RYM is not “clearly sinning”. He asked what he had to do to be saved, Jesus told him to follow the commandments. When the RYM wanted more, Jesus added an extra invitation.
The eye of the needle metaphor which follows after says the rich have a hard time entering the kingdom of heaven: he does not say that only people with no possessions enter the kingdom of heaven.
According to Acts, the early community of Jerusalem lived in a commune for a few years. There are other Christians in Acts who do not live in a commune, and nobody holds that against them.
The call to utter poverty strikes me as being in exactly the same vein as Jesus’ insistence on the superiority of virginity: it is not for everyone. All Christians are called to be chaste, not all are called to be celibate, Jesus makes that clear. All Christians are called to be detached from possessions, that is clear from the beatitudes, not are all called to a life of total poverty.
Stop forcing your weird prejudices on the text, stop reading it like a fundamentalist, and start reading each document as a whole, not as a mine for isolated quotes to win arguments.
LikeLike
I seriously worry about you. Read this again. It tells us:
1. Rich people don’t go to heaven.
2. There is no Trinity – Jesus is not good, only God is good.
For all I sometimes play games with the Bible to annoy Christians, because it’s fun and open and zillions of interpretations, these are seriously the easy and only interpretations from the passages below.
And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” 21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is[a] to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
LikeLike
You forgot “but nothing is impossible with God” two lines later.
Jesus never lays down a law that all his followers must live without possessions, that is always intended for individuals. His mass preaching only speaks of detachment. “Blessed are the poor in spirit”, etc.
Yes, it is very hard for people who are attached to possessions to “enter the kingdom”, I am in full agreement.
As for ‘Good master’, since Jesus does not consider himself a bad person, (otherwise, why does he say the RYM should ‘follow’ i.e., imitate him?) I’ve always read it with the emphasis on the word “why”. WHY do you say I’m good, what are you here really looking for? Goodness comes from God, who do you say I am?”
I don’t know if that is the correct way of reading it, but looking at context, since the Gospel of Mark revolves around the concept of the Son of God it should probably be seen as something like that.
LikeLike
The existing Christian churches are homogenous with each other about the Nicaean council because the early traditions of competition were snuffed out by violence. For by far most of Christendoms history herecy has been a capital offence resulting in torture and death by the most imaginably agonizing methods. Most crusades were not against Muslims, but against other Christians either homogenous about the Nicaean council or not. And ultimately, if some group of people self identifying as Christians – like say the Mormons – is not homogenous about some core tenet of major Christian sects, then naturally it is not even recognized as fellow Christians.
As to the demand for powerty and giving all your posessions for the poor in order to await for the apocalypse by Jesus, I think it is obvious when you read the text, that the demand was for all of the followers of Jesus, and not just for some. I am not alone with my view for a great many different Christian movements have reached the same conclusion throughout the course of history, though not the majority of Christians ever, exept perhaps the first generation, but people have been adept to invent excuses, not to include themselves to this demand, for understandable reasons of the demand being totally impractical. By now, at least, it seems rather obvious, that the apocalypse has not occurred during the life span of thousands of generations of Christians.
LikeLike
In the Imperial age of the councils, ‘heresy’ was generally dealt with by exiling the Bishops who supported it. Violence sometimes took the form of partisan rioting, especially in Alexandria and Constantinople, but that was not the determining factor in the outcomes. Political pressure was applied by the Emperors, but the Bishops often resisted.
Other forms of violent suppression are more proper to the Medieval period, notably the Albigensian crusade, but that is well after trinitarian questions were settled.
Where exactly did Jesus command all of his followers to eschew all possessions? He had wealthy disciples. He also praised virginity as superior to marriage, but had married disciples, and never said all of his followers had to embrace celibacy.
The records we have of Jesus preaching an immanent eschatology are spotty. St Paul certainly seems to have thought the end was near. Jesus may have preached it, but ‘the coming Kingdom’ and the time of judgement is a multi-layered symbol in his preaching. It refers sometimes to the end of times, sometimes to the destruction of Jerusalem, sometimes to his own mission. I’m not an expert in the theme and don’t want to go out on any limbs, but the record is not really clear on when Jesus thought the end was coming. The safest bet on reading a passage is usually to say that he saw the messianic age as beginning with his own mission, ie, he saw himself as the messiah.
LikeLike
The safest bet in hindsight. But the problem with the Bible is exactly what you portray here. If it indeed was supposed to be a “revelation” from a creator god to all of mankind, it failed miserably. It is an incoherent collection of cultural superstitious assumptions, obvious fairy tales, ignorant inferences and as such it can be interpreted just about any way. And it has been in good faith, been interpreted to mean just about anything. The unifying theme is that there is this god character, that alledgedly created everything and on occasion at least is behaving somewhat benevolently towards some people either according to their tribal ethnicity, or according to them being willing to accept fancifull superstitions about unnatural things on flimsy evidence. It actually “reveals” nothing, but simply makes wild claims about something being revealed.
Yes, I know, not much has been written about the violence in early Christendom, as much of recorded history was disturbed by the fall of the western Roman empire. But once again, where did the Ebionites disappear and from whence did they appear from, if the question about the trinity was settled within Christianity from the get go, and why is there no mentioning of the trinity in the Bible? If the Bible was actually inspired by the trinity, then one would expect that this central concept would be at very least even mentioned in the “revelation” of the existance of this trinity. Right? Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
There are actual historical sources telling of people being boiled alive for being the wrong sort of Christians already in the early forming of the two catholical churches. People do not give up their core beliefs just because a council demands that, but a bishop might have done so in public under political pressure. However, you must remember that in those days “political pressure” meant violence and more than often military might.
The Albigense crusades are the earliest actual crusades against other Christians, but the mindset in wich such violence against “heretics” was set forth, was only a form of older tradition within Christendom. That mind set continued far beyond the Albigence crusades, just to name a few, there were the crusades against the Hussites, the burning of all sorts of heretics, some of wich have ironically later on declared as saints, the crusades against the “schismatic” Orthodox, the conquest of most of the globe by Christians, systematic elimination of many original native religions, cultures and even nations, and finally culminating into the many horrible and total religious wars during the reformation, that resulted in the peace of Westphalen in wich freedom of religion was first declared and later on to the rise of the secularism, science as the ultmate source for objective knowledge, secular humanism, and even the secular state, in wich the justice system does not accept supernatural evidence. And for a good reason.
I do not even dare to attempt to assume what the Jesus character in the Bible really might have meant by anything he said. It is by far too blurry for me to interprete exactly as such myths do tend to be, but If I go along the most likely explanation, simply by reading the texts, as interpreted by some Christians in good faith, it seems to me then, that the demand for giving up your earhly possessions is obviously meant for everyone following him. And same goes for the end of times as this appears as some sort of an incentive for people to make this drastically impractical choise.
Alledgedly Jesus said, that it is far more difficult for the rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven, than for a camel to pass a needles eye. Any literal interpretation of that results the rich man not entering heavens at all. Who then is rich? Well, ultimately we can say some people are poor, and they certainly then are not rich. A person who has given all their possessions away, surely, fits perfectly to this description and is not a rich man by any sane standards, and Jesus does ask people to do exactly that. Does he not? Saphira and his hubbie are alledgedly killed by your god for not giving up every last coin to the Apostoles after selling their earthly property. Or perhaps for lying that they did not give everything, but still the key was that they were supposed to give it all away after selling their property and they merely portrayed in the story as stooges to warn other new Christians not to give it all.
In all honesty, who are the people among the followers of Jesus, that from whom he does not require this? The fact that even some of his own Apostoles later do not follow this commandment does not logically lead us to assume there were people who had some special admission from this requirement, as such is not mentioned in the Bible, but rather that some of them were not convinced by this demand to be practical. As it is not. Much like in the OT some Jews who alledgedly have wittnessed all sorts of miracles from their god firsthand, still do not take this god for real, when it comes to things like sharing the loot from the conquered nations. The interresting question here is, why were some of the Apostoles (or the OT Hebrews) second guessing and having doubts about the alledged demands by their god, that supposedly had provided ample evidence of it’s existance to them personally?
Now, if Jesus was not referring to the end of the world, but to the destruction of some specific temple, or such, then why on earht did he not simply say so? Was it somehow purposefull to make up these idiotic riddles that seem to be misinterpreted by his most devout followers all the time? I do realize, that the ambiguity of the so called Biblical prophesies is a different question, but it all adds up to the book not really serving as any sort of revelation about anything.
Paul may be the originator of much of Christian beliefs, but he never even met the dude and was all too eager to make up his own rules. Was he not? Or did Jesus have a long hair, or not?
LikeLike
1) I don’t presume to tell God how to reveal himself. He chooses events, people and culture which are recorded by limited human beings? If personal God who chooses to reveal himself in human history things are going to be sloppy.
2) So if there isn’t records of mass brutality committed by Christians in Roman days, it still must have happened? What the hell kind of argument is that?
3) It wasn’t “settled” until the Council of Constantinople, but the formulas which came out were, I think, pretty good interpretations of the texts and church traditions.
4) Yes Christians are more inherently violent than commies and frickin Nazis… because Crusades. Look, wars get fought for all kinds of reasons, usually a conflux of several at a time. The Wars of Religion you mention were mostly about who was going to have European hegemony, which is why CATHOLIC France was supporting the German and Swedish PROTESTANTS. Westphalia was not about freedom of religion: the formula was ‘cuios regio, eius religio” which is as far from freedom of religion as you can possibly get. Anyway, your grasp of history seems dominated by caricature.
5) What is with the obsession on Jesus insisting on total poverty? He recommended it for some, for the rest he wanted detachment. You are ignoring the general meaning of the texts in question.
Of whom does Jesus not require living in utter destitution? MAYBE EVERY DISCIPLE WHO POPS UP IN THE NT TO WHOM HE DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY RECOMMEND IT. The general recommendation is detachment.
5) Who is rich or poor? Good question because your average poor person in contemporary US is filthy rich compared to Herod the Great. And poor people can still be greedy. That’s why the insistence on poverty mostly refers to what the Beatitudes call poverty “in spirit”. Attitudes of the heart.
6) Yes, because they were liars.
7) “Kingdom of Heaven” is a many layered phrase, does not always mean the same thing. The best general definition is “where God is King” i.e. where he is obeyed. So where does God rule? In heaven, in the hearts of believers, at the second coming… it is sort of a-temporal and it is often hard to pin down.
Why should God use a difficult concept to communicate? Why should we presume that every idea God cares to communicate is easy to grasp?
9) There is no reason to assume Paul is the originator of Christianity, other than a refusal to think it could have originated with Jesus. Again, it is a biased speculation into the blackness of alternate history, it is inserting a conspiracy theory because you dislike the obvious interpretation, that Jesus and his 1st and 2nd gen disciples were more or less teaching the same thing.
LikeLike
@ Dpmonahan, I have to say it is a good idea to number your points, as it makes the conversation in this form rahter much easier.
1. So, there is ultimately no way of evaluating this god of yours? One is simply take it at face value?
2. It depends on what you would call “mass brutality”. If a dude from the ISIS told you to turn into Islam at gun point, and assuming you would not want to waste your life to become a martyr, would that not be brutal? If you were only exiled for your beliefs would that not be violent? How did the masses of Arian Christians Ebionites and all the others give up their core beliefs? What would make you give up yours? There are things about history that can justifiably be inferred, and inferences traditionally made, that make none what so ever sense.
3. Yes, yes, we have been trhough that path already, but as Violet pointed out the concept of trinity is not in the alledgedly revealed texts, so it is not really a part of that revelation. Now, is it?
4. Well, communism, nazism and Christianinty are human efforts. All have resulted in violence. There may be many differences between these, but one that connects nazism and Christianity, is that at the core of those two there is an alledged divine revelation while communism has no claim for a supernatural agent behind it. This is relevant to the topic because human mistakes, and misinterpretation of ideals are natural to human conduct and ideas. Such as starting to talk about a dude as if he was a flesh and blood son of a god, before realizing, that though it is natural for gods to have sons in the majority culture, the father of the alledgedly divine son was supposed to be a sole entity. It is also very human, that such mistakes are then excused by claims, that the singular god is actually at the same time three separate entitites. As this claim does not appear in the alledged revelation, then regarless how soon, or late after the alledged divine son is no more influencing the discussion, the claim is presented, it is at the same time revealed to be most likely just an excuse, for a silly mistake.
How can you expect to have any idea how caricature is my understanding of history from mere blog comments? Are you inclined to jump into conclusions? I am very much aware of the nature of the treaty of Westphalia, otherwise I would not have even brought it up. Did you deliberately decide to miss my point, or did I really express myself so poorly? Before the treaty, there was none what so ever liberty or freedom for different sort of Christians to worship in their own manner, if it at all differed from the chosen sect of the government. In the treaty it was declared, that they had a right to worship in their own way regardless of wich country they lived in. It was a culmination point of the horrid wars, but also an obvious and recognized historical turning point, from zealotry towards free and open society, not a total and absolute change all the way to freedom of religion. Can you see the relevance, or do I have to spell it out for you?
5. a) Why are you writing this one entire sentence with capitals? That makes you seem agitated, nutty and in trouble. If Jesus only meant the demand for powerty for one individual disciple, then why on earth did Ananias and Saphira sell their property and even more alarmingly why were they killed for not giving every last coin of the money to the poor (Apostoles)?
5. b) Your claim that: “average poor person in contemporary US is filthy rich compared to Herod the Great” is both nonsensical and an expression of a caricature understanding of history, but I expect it is not the sum of your understanding as such. Is it? What has selling all your possessions and giving it to the poor got to do with the “powerty of the spirit”? Does this not sound even to you at least a little bit like an evasion of duty given directly by Jesus to his followers?
6. Who were liars? You are not making any sense here.
7. A vile god might not be interrested in how well do we grasp what such a god wants to convey to us, but a caring and benevolent would. If we do not understand this god trying to communicate to us, then there are only three options, this god does not really care wether we understand, the said god is unable to convey the message to us, or that there exists no such gods. Now, given that there is no evidence, let alone proof of this god to exist, then the last one seems by far most likeliest. Or what is your option?
8. Who ever said Paul was the originator of Christianity? Though, there might be a good case to argue such, this is not the topic for it, is it? However, he is the person to whom a lot of Christian tenets and dogmas are attributed to. Is he not? As to what Jesus said Paul is a very poor wittness, since he was only evaluating Jesus by hearsay stories. Was he not?
LikeLike
LikeLike
1) Good question. I don’t have an answer, except to say there is something wrong with setting up a priori terms under which a divinity is allowed to reveal himself.
2) In Imperial days, it would be bishops who would be exiled and replaced, not average people. Again, different times had different practices, I’m not excusing coersion in matters of religion, just challenging your caricature of universal violence.
3) Words used to describe a reality can change, the reality described does not.
4) I find the caricature of Christianity as inherently violent to be annoying, and was greeting it with the hyperbole it deserves. You seem to have taken the idea and run with it.
5) I find this discussion even more absurd, deeply annoying, hence the CAPS.
a) Jesus recommendation to “sell all you have” was always directed to individuals, not a general audience. He had wealthy disciples. His universal command is to be detached from material possessions. I don’t get why this is still being argued.
b) By any objective standard, your average “poor” American has access to better education, better healthcare, cleaner water, better plumbing, warmer housing, and better transportation than Herod the Great. Which makes me think “poor” is a relative term, true poverty is of the heart. But you are right, it is a side argument I should not have introduced.
6) Ananias and his wife.
7) Again, it is God’s business how he chooses to reveal himself, not ours. If you ever take the time to reread the NT, you will find a great many discussions on what sort of person finds it easy to accept the NT, and what sort does not.
8) Why, lots of people argue that Paul originated Christianity. I was pointing out why they I think they are idiots. Sorry if I mistakenly attributed the thesis to you.
LikeLike
1) Still expecting for any gods to reveal themselves to me. Old books obviosly written by ignorant people, do not qualify as revelations from superbeings, not even if they do happen to have humane ideas in them, as all of them seem to have, even though they mutually contradict each others visions about the supernatural and other unnatural stuff.
2) Well, the threat of violence was universal, even when only singluar people got directed by it. Oppression is violence, though of course not as much as a massacre. But did I claim there were massacres? If the concept of trinity was so insignificant to the common Christians, that they could either accept it or abandon it by the mere authority of their bishops, then it was not a very well established concept within Christianity at the date of the Nicaean councill, now was it? So, ultimately, it was only an excuse of a concept, just like Violetwisp here claimed?
3) So, are you suggesting that the concept of trinity is only hidden somewhere between the lines in the Bible, but that it is there? That is a nonsensical revelation and a very poor method of communication from the alledged all-creator, whom one could expect to do better, if it could, or would. Hence, this god either chose to hide the concept, or it could not really reveal it? Wich option do you prefer and why?
4) Well, it is very difficult to point out all aspects of Christianity in a blog post comment. Right? But as it is often excused as being true because of the beneficial effects of it, I like to point out that the effects have not been uniformally beneficial, often rather the opposite, even though if they were all good, that would not yet tell us the supernatural assumptions by it as a social movement are any more true than those of any other religion. I give you, that religion is most often only an excuse for war and violence, but the trouble of it lies in authoritarianism, that is inherent to religions, as they place their moral values on authority rather than reasoning. And oppression of other people is often enough not only an excuse, but a result of some direct belief in the supernatural, though the secularist is as capable for oppression as the religious person. Religions also too often serve as reasons for segregation and dehumanization of other people to ignore the fact that no gods seem to be either interrested enough, or capable of to help even their own adherents to understand why such segragation and even oppression is wrong. Have you noticed this ever?
5) I see now why you resorted to the caps. But believe me, they do not give any strenght, credibility, or even dignity your words might deserve, rather the opposite.
a) The fact that not all Disciples were very poor, tells us nothing about what Jesus might have meant by his words. My interpretation is that they were meant for all and I am not alone with this, as many sincere Christians have come to the same conclusion over the centuries. You, of course might be wrong, and I am not here to tell you how to interprete your holy book. I am merely telling you what I get from the book. But this is one of the main problems with the Bible, is it not? That it is interpretable in so many different ways and in all sincerity. That is one of the reasons why I do not see it as a very fablous revelation of anything. Thousands of Christian sects are a good example of that, and even if they have some ideas as common ground, those are still mainly just stuff they all agree a person should accept at face value and without question. Wich is not only anti-intellectual, it is a downright harmfull idea, as it introduces faith as a virtue, wich it definately is not to an honest man.
b)This is a rather caricature way to present the differences in powerty. “Access to” does not seem like to be working for the average American poor, even though antibiotics are certainly more awailable to them, than to Herod, but Herod was most likely a fully literate man, while the American poor populous hardly even that. We do not know for sure how bad water he had, but I bet it was just as clean as that sold in plastic bottles in the supermarkets. The Romans had invented the water toilet and as Herod was eager to build new palaces, he might have caught on this, so better blumbing than someone living in a trailer park is at the most an exaggeration. If we try to compare them by non-relative measures, Herod certainly had more gold, than the average poor person in the US and if we compare them by relative measures, Herod no doubt had a far bigger ability to buy stuff that was luxorious in his own era. He certainly owned a lot of real estate. No, he was not poor in comparrison to the average poor person of any time and age we know of.
Powerty of the “heart” is a meaningless term unless you refer to an ability for compassion and that of course is manifested most eagerly by selling all your property and giving the money to the needy. Is it not? But it still is an impractical suggestion, no matter to whom are you telling to do so to. Is it not?
6) Killed for lying? That is a bit extreme, even from the OT god, now is it not? What about Jesus, would he have killed them for lying? It is also quite unfair, is it not? Nor does it make any sense. Does it? Funny, that the death penalty for lying appears when the focus is on the money. But before they were killed for lying, they were told by someone to sell all their property and give the money to the poor (Apostoles), were they not? Were they specifically given this order by Jesus, or was it an expectation placed on them by becoming Christians and good followers of Jesus?
7) If I tell you, that only a reasonable man would take my word for what is true, does that make my words any more reasonable? What is wrong with the alledged revelation by the assumed creator entity, that it did not convince me when I first read it? It really did not impress me enough, that I would read it again. Too many books in the world for me to re-read one of the most booring books I have ever read. Besides, to me it seems, it is most convincing to people who either have never even read it, or ridiculously enough, to people who were convinced by it even before they read it. Were you one of the latter ones, or have you even read it?
8) Poor old Paul, did contribute greatly, did he not? And never even met Jesus really.
LikeLike
Well, I am glad you are coming around to agreement with me on various points: that religion is generally an excuse, not a cause for violence, that your interpretation of Jesus’ teachings on poverty are your own personal ones and a minority position (and coming from somebody without much interest in the texts), that poverty is a relative thing.
So I am pleased to say there is hope for you. You may be pleased to note that I have always agreed there is no room for coercion in matters of faith, I only object to your caricature of the universality of coercion.
Again, you are correct that word trinity, which implies an entire translation of the biblical data into greek speculative thought, does not appear in the NT. But the divinity of Christ, something of his relationship with the Father, and the insistence on monotheism does. I think triniatrian theology is an adequate interpretation of the text. The idea that the NT authors were just too dumb to notice they had inadvertently made to gods is preposterous.
The question of ‘just how would a god reveal himself if he were to write a book’ is misplaced because God never wrote a book, not directly: God acted in history, and historical men wrote about it.
LikeLike
@ Dpmonahan, I have never argued, that any religions are merely harmfull cultural phenomenons, or even that they were in general the causes for harmfull human behaviour, for that they are not powerfull enough. But as excuses they are far too often terribly effective. They are also not only excuses but actual direct causes for all sorts of harmfull human behaviour. Heretics may be burned at the stake for those in power to get rid of people who question their authority, or the authority of the alledged god on whom such authority is based upon. But, before people agree to this, there is quite often a religious concept of a god giving authorization to such behaviour. Religions inform people to do the most horrid acts. Secular ideas may do the same, but the difference is, that no gods ever appear to stop the horrid acts wether they were made by dishonest, or honest intent, for secular or religious reasons.
I find it curious, that you would expect me to have been arguing such. Why is this? Do you have a tendecy to jump into conclusions? Or is this actually based on your experience of the atheists, because I, having grown up in an atheist family and having a lot of atheist friends around the globe, have not got such experiences about atheists?
Atheism does not require one to percieve religion as a harmfull thing at all. However, the benefits of any religion do not prove the unnatural claims made in them true. Do they? And in general we could say, that there are good reasons why any of us should value truth over false beliefs. Do we agree at least on this?
Of course my position is in the minority. When did I ever said the opposite? I am an atheist, remember? But the truth about history is not dependant on counting noses. Is it? That would be a logical fallacy, right?
When did I ever agree to your position, that powerty is a relative thing? How did you jump into that conclusion? There is such a thing as absolute powerty, you know. You can achieve it, if you do as Jesus suggested and sell all your posessions away and give the money to the poor. After that, no matter in wich country you are, you are poor, even by the standards of Jesus. Correct? At that stage it is possible for you, according to Jesus, to enter the heavens a lot more easily than the rich man. Infact, the metaphor he gives on the issue, makes it impossible for the rich man. Have you read the Bible ever, or do you have some clever excuse why you should not become very poor? Saying that some of the Apostoles were rich, just sounds like a playground excuse, that the bigger kids did the naughty thing first. You do realize that much?
I am pleased to note, that you do not accept coercion in matters of faith. That means there is hope for you too. 😉 It is not a caricature of the universality of coercion, if for over a thousad years anywhere in Christendom, I would have surely been burned alive for saying aloud what I have expressed to you in this little conversation of ours. Is there? And not only that, good willing and sincere Christians would have also tortured me first to get me to confess, that I was wrong, before burning me alive, just so that the imaginary thing called a soul would have been saved from eternal torment alledgedly orchestrated in the after life by your god. Sounds crazy and evil. Does it not? It is precisely because of that why I am in the minority even today. But things change. Sometimes slowly, sometimes faster…
It is a natural assumption, that the concept of trinity is an adequate explantion of the obvious contradiction in terminology of there being a divine flesh and blood son to an allegedly monotheistic god, if you have faith, that Christianity must be true. Me, I do not see faith as a virtue, as it is not likely to bring anybody closer to any objective analysis of really anything. I can’t help it, but to look at this issue from outside perspective. When I put the story to context (that I reckon I know rather well, not because of my interrest in religisioisity, but in the history of the Roman empire), I find it a mere excuse by some learned men who saw the contradiction obvious to them, but not necessarily as obvious to the main body of cultists, to make up an explanation to what people (themsleves included) in the new social movement had started to believe about the character of Jesus.
There is nothing “preposterous” about the very high likelyhood, that at the core of this movement were fishermen and such, whose teacher (most likely a Nazarite, as his name seems to suggest) talked about himself in the Jewish religious terminology as the “son of god” and meant it to mean he was obidient to this particular monotheistic god and that some of the followers, or later additions to the crowd interpreted it according to the cultural influence most obvious to the era, as he was an actual flesh and blood son, wich was not at all “preposterous” to most common people living in the Roman empire, wether if their heritage was Jewish, or of some other culture, unless they were the Pharisees, or other Jewish conservatives.
LikeLike
Sorry, I’m losing track of the various threads of this conversation, so I’m just going to have to try my best to keep up.
Regarding the idea that the the NT authors were just too stupid to know what the words coming out of their pens meant, and did not realize they were creating a polytheistic cult: it is preposterous. Whatever the NT authors may have been, stupid is not one of them. An idiot does not write the gospel of John. Stupid people don’t make conscious use of allusion, chiasm, literary and rhetorical forms, and elaborate narrative structures. Even Mark, who is obviously not comfortable writing in Greek, arranges his work in a huge A-B-C-D-C-A pattern. This accidental polytheism stuff is silly.
I’ve used two terms to talk about subsequent trinitarian theology: interpretation and translation, neither of which captures all the meaning. I think the process of developing the doctrine of the trinity was a matter of getting the NT tradition translated into greek metaphysical language without damaging the contents, not a process of making sense out of a supposedly accidental polytheism cooked up by drooling morons who should never have put pen to paper.
As for the question of what Jesus meant when he called himself “the son”… All we have is the NT. We don’t have any notion of Jesus other than what his first generation followers taught about him.
Your theory is that polytheistic influence is behind the NT theology of “the son”. I reiterate: if you want to know where the NT authors were getting their ideas, read the OT, the book we know for a fact they were actually reading.
LikeLike
Regarding Jesus’ teachings of poverty: your argument seems derived from 1) the state of absolute poverty that Jesus lived and recommended to some of his followers 2) the early apostolic commune, 3) Jesus’ warnings about the dangers of wealth.
My argument is this: Jesus never commands all of his followers to live that way. It is an invitation he makes to some, very similar to the recommendation he makes to some to live a life of celibacy. In neither case is it mandatory. When speaking to a general audience however, he speaks of detachment from material possessions and the dangers of wealth.
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were rich men and counted among Jesus’ disciples, it is not held against them. Jesus seems to have had wealthy friends who supported his ministry, which would not be possible if they had given up everything. Paul does collections for the Jerusalem commune, which would have made no sense if Christians were expected to give up everything.
The early apostolic community in Jerusalem seems to have been a continuation of what the apostles had lived while Jesus was still alive. There is no indication that it is considered normative for all Christians, if it was, why even mention it in Acts as if it were something out of the ordinary?
As for contemporary Christian attitudes towards wealth, I am sure there are plenty of hypocrites out there. I should probably be annoyed that you insinuate I might be one of them, but I’m not: anyone who knows me would know how wide of the mark the insinuation is.
LikeLike
” It is an invitation he makes to some, very similar to the recommendation he makes to some to live a life of celibacy.”
I’m still confused about this. I checked out what Jesus said on celibacy and can only find Matthew 19. Are you seriously comparing the this one little section saying basically there are different types of celibate people and they’re all fine (but clearly not the norm), to all the clear teachings about giving up possessions and money? You’re deluded, seeing parallels where it suits your lifestyle. Apart from all the explict statements by Jesus, you have Acts:
“All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.” That’s ALL of them, not some of them.
” All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.”
So we have these clear examples after the CLEAR teachings of Jesus about money. And you think this comparable with two sentences on celibacy saying it’s not for everyone …
LikeLike
How you know so much about my lifestyle?
Jesus’ teaching about money is clear: it is dangerous, and communal poverty is preferable, though not mandatory. I fail to see what counting verses has to do with it.
LikeLike
Most atheists I know are not creeps, but every atheistic English-speaking corner of the internet I can recall likes to make bombastic claims about the universal evils of religion which show no grasp of history or sociology.
Your concern about being burned alive for your opinions might have made sense in certain times and places: if I were an atheist in the 16th century, I would not publish any books about it in Spain, Rome, England, Protestant Switzerland or Germany. Maybe in other times and places it might have been equally dangerous. At no time would it have been dangerous to chat about atheism with friends, unless you had Jewish blood in Spain or were over-friendly with Cathairs in the south of France.
So I think you are exaggerating the hells of living in medieval Europe: your main problems would have been plague and vikings.
The idea of a secular state is a very new one, and just how “secular” the state should be is still up for debate. Without Christianity, there never would have been the concept of distinction between church and state, which is something that goes back to Jesus himself. The state, in the pagan world, was sacred.
In the Christian Empire and medieval Europe, the relationship becomes very problematic: the church is always trying to avoid becoming an office of the state, but no one can imagine a world in which the state does not have religious duties, among which is the punishment of heretics. The idea of a multi-religious state just does not exist in political theory. Westphalia actually reinforces this: “cuius regio, eius religio” was the working political theory on religion until the 18th century.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Dpmonahan, it is indeed getting a bit hard to follow the flow of the conversation is it not? And it seems to me we have already said what we really have to add to the topic over and over again, but I’ll try to formulate my thouhts once more, since it seems you are not getting anything I mean and I suppose I can only blame my bad English skills. After all, it is my second language, though to me it seems also odd, that it is as if you did not get what Violet – a native English speaker, according to my understanding – said in her post.
Regarding stupidity of people, it is a stupid idea to think that people are either stupid or clever. I can see how this sort of black and white thinking might lead you to assume, that the NT writers, the early Christians, or just about anybody in the world, even might be following one singular cultural tradition when forming new cultural ideas such as religions. It is stupid to think cultural phenomena like religions might be islands oblivious of each other and not influenced by each other while having constant contact. A gospel writer, or just about anybody can be stupid about one thing and be very clever about the other. In my experience, it is critical thinking skills, that are the minimum requirement for setting people apart from each other in such matters as over all stupidity. Faith is an anathema to critical thinking, so do not let it be your guide on any matter, if you do not want to make stupid conclusions about that particular matter.
Critical thinking requires historical sources to be set in context. In the forming of the new cult called Christianity in the times of the Imperial Rome, the people who mostly turned to this new cult held several different cultural heritages, that is the context. We do know, they chose Judaism for well known reasons as their prime and direct cultural influence and source for their superstitious assumptions, but it would be silly to argue, they were not also affected by various different cultural heritages of their own and those prevalent in the time and place they lived in. We do not know who the writers of the Gospels even were, but what we do know, is that the oldest versions of these books are in Greek. Language affects what is said and even thought. I know this as I have learned a few different languages. There is no question wether Hellenistic culture had an influence on the newly formed religion, that is not Judaism, now is it? There were reasons why conservative Jews rejected the Jesus character as their expected Messiah, are there not? Infact most Jews, rejected the idea while it was widely accepted by various cultists from the various different Hellenistic backrounds. Funny coincidence, with the fact that the idea of a flesh and blood son had been in circulation in both the Egyptian and Hellenic culture spheres long before the Jesus incident. Is it not?
The Jesus character was more than often refferred to as the “son of man”, wich man might that be?
The meaning of what Jesus taught, or in hindsight evaluating the OT in that light was and is a process still going on. Is it significant and in what way? It has it’s onw significance to history and cultural heritage, as it has various different and even mutually contradicting meanings to the adherents of Christianity, but also to some other people. The trinitarian “explanation”, is an excuse to what was formed in the early days as a foundation of beliefs, that obviously needed some afterthought to “interprete” or even excuse them later on as the matter was more deeply considered.
It would be ultimately just stupid to look at a legendary character such as Jesus only through the religion and myth formed long after his death. If we really are interrested in him as a character and what such a character might have taught, we need to put him into the historical and cultural context in wich he was alledgedly living and then put the writings written long after his death to the cultural context in wich they were most likely written. In the cultural context of a Jewish rabbi, teaching fishermen to turn their other cheek while those fishermen lived in a country occupied by far too mighty foreign power to be resisted by some fishermen and sheep herders. In the context, that this empire had been precided by many other cultural influences, the effects of wich can easily be traced from the OT, expet perhaps for the most influental and overt and latest cultural effect of Hellenism all around the eastern Mediterranean and further. But the shepherds had an identity crisis, that had occurred to their ancestors before them, wich was that they were taught an illusion of superiority (not so uncommon in human history) based on tribal moralism, that their specific god was the only real god, or at least the mightiest god, and they were the chosen people, who now once again were under occupation of mightier nations. A situation in wich prophets have a habit to appear and make seemingly necessary alterations to the belief system of the people. The people most of whom are illiterate and not that well educated in the finesse of the religion they adhere to. And what does it mean to be educated to a particular religion? I have met even priests with theological training who could not agree wether the Christians enter heaven right after their deaths or only when finally the day of judgement comes. Theology is at best only a very obscure guessing game.
The religious reference to “son of god” in the OT is most often only a reference to a man obdidient to this particular god. It is used on several occasions starting from Abraham. Read about it. It may put your vision of Jesus into a totally different light. But altough we do not know wether the NT writers were aware of this, we do know they did not acknowledge the simple truth that it leads us to. Did they? They chose to ignore it. Why? Was it incredibly dishonest, or just stupid of them to do so? Or if they were as clever as you would argue, was it only because they were ignorant about it? Do you ignore it? What would you gain by ignoring it? To hold the part of your identity that says Jesus was a flesh and blood son of a god intact? But what if the Ebionites, were right after all?
Regarding Jesus’ teachings of poverty, I really do not care what they were. But I am only trying to open up the subject to you, as it seems they are important to you. To me, you see, what Jesus alledgedly said, bears no importance at all. I can fully appriciate the things he said that have an obvious meaning in the real world. As much as I can appriciate the thoughts of anybody making a good point. I see no reason to believe this Jesus character was any more divine, than anybody else, if he is even based on an actual person.
You may argue what Jesus meant all you want, I am only calling the shots on what I think he meant according to the book and historical context.The New Testament has many mutually disagreeing views of what happened even during the most critical hours of the Jesus story and a lot of embellishments with a strong superstitious taste. If one compares it to the contemporary Greek tragedies the ending is what already the contemporary critics used to call “deus ex machina”. All this makes it a bit less than believable and sets it steadily among myths.
The fact that Jesus had wealthy friends or that some of the Apostoles chose not to give up all their property, tells us nothing about what Jesus meant. It only tells us, that if you are bum not actively engaged in working to make your living and only wandering around countryside to talk people about religion, not giving up everything and a mesenate might be a more practical solution to your basic needs to be fulfilled, than a) a god providing for you magically or by some otherwise unnatural means, or b) people joining your movement selling all their propety and giving all the money to you eg. “the poor”. Ultimately the Christian church organized to what is and had been known for thousands of years before it, as the best money collection method to support ritual experts to talk about gods, by collecting a constant flow of sacrificial money. No, real surprice there.
My argument is derived from, Jesus giving this advice and not clearly restricting it to any spesific individuals, individuals like Ananias and Saphira not having had this advice directly from Jesus being engaged in such and the simple reality that, if Jesus said it was almost, if not totally impossible for the rich man to get to heaven, did he not mean it?
Or are you making excuses for the rich man to enter heaven after all? Why? Because you feel like a relatively rich man, because you believe poor people in your country are rich in comparrison to actual powerty, or only because you recognize how bad an advice it was for anyone, let alone all christians to sell all their powerty and giving the money to the poor?
Paul is in no way relevant as to what Jesus might have meant, as he never even met the dude. And his interpretation of what Jesus might have meant seems quite corrupt, as we can read Paul agruing in his defence to some other Christians about stuff like the selibacy you referred to, by childish arguments, like the other Apostoles are going about with loose women, so why should he restrain himself from such. Have you not read the Bible?
Wich is the worse hypocrisy, the sort that one engages willingly and knowingly, like attempting to decieve their gods and themselves at the same time, or the kind in wich people engage all the time never even realizing, that they do support duoble standards?
LikeLike
“you are not getting anything I mean and I suppose I can only blame my bad English skills” – Rautakyy, not jumping into the conversation between you and DP, except to say that whatever English skills you may feel you lack, and they are few, you more than compensate for by your depth of thought and reasoning skills – if I ever had a debating team, you would be my first choice!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Archaeopteryx1, hahaha. We would make a brilliant team, you would point out the obvious, and if our opponents would ignore it, I would bore them to death by endless ramblings.
@Dpmonahan, religions have very loud proponents to declare their own virtues, and a number of very effective indoctrination methods, to make people believe something in the interrest of the religious movement is virtuous. For example, attitudes about contraception. But for some reason religious people get very irritated, when any atheist (creep or not, oh yes, there are creepy atheists, it would be absurd if there were none, as there are creeps in every group of people) points to the negative effects of religions. As if there were none, or as such were “subjecta non grata”. Have you not noticed this? And there are religious zealots out there who are spreading the most revisionist alternative versions of history, like that the crusades were some sort of secularly justified defence of European culture against Islam. Do you understand what sort of political ambitions of hatred lie behind such claims? I do not expect you are one of those people, but I brought it up just to make a point.
For hundreds of years and most of it’s history Christendom has been ready to inflict the most horrid violence against any critique. You can not dimish the seriousness of that, by listing some countries and saying it was only in them and in a certain place and time. Yes of course it was certain place and time. It was all of Europe and beyond for most of Christendoms history.
Funny you should say Vikings. Because they were a threat to a part of the European medieval people for a short period of time. That is in comparrison to the threat of violence for disagreeing with Christianity and in comparrison to the masses of people under that threat. Same applies to plague, but as most people did not even ever get to the basics of critical thinking skills, I suppose by far most of them were not worried about this threat. The threat of violence saw to most people not even getting to know the possibility of other kind of thinking. To prevent people from a different perspective and cultural influence itself is a horrid thing. Is it not?
Vikings, by the way, presented my favourite medieval atheistic thought. Ansgarius, who has been called the apostole of the north, a bishop in northern Germany said, that the most difficult people to turn to Christianity were not the peasants in Nordic countries who have an existing religious life and are accustomed to rituals to ask for the gods to provide rain when they needed it and such, but the Vikings, who had travelled the world, seen different religions and the practical non-effects of prayer, and subsequently refused to turn into any religions, as they had no need for any gods in their lives and evidently had very little faith in any gods ever providing any actual help, though they as travellers and warriors must have had adversities in their lives. See, how the cultural influences even in this case, affect people otherwise than the intended messages?
It is just absurd to say, that without Christianity some other cultural phenomenon like the separation of church and state would never have emerged. Of course not. Whithout Christianity there would not have been any church. But we can not possibly know what the world would be, if there had not been Christianity. Such ideals as separation of political power and religious spiritualism are not dependant on the religion within wich they emerge. We do not know that. But as it seems it has been thus far the best achievement of Christianity for mankind in general, to bring about the secularity of the science, state and judical system. As those no longer need to be affected by superstitious beliefs. But I agree with you, that we are not over it yet. Religions and other superstitious beliefs, unsupported by scientific evidence, still form valuebases and thus strongly affect some scientific, political and even judical life. This is dangerous and ultimately also harmfull. Is it not?
Here in Finland the Lutheran church is an “office of the state”. It is harmfull, both to politics, public sense of justice and ultimately to the church itself. But it is also beneficial to the church, as they have the right to collect taxes, and as we are a highly educated nation it has resulted relgion and religious myths to play a very small part in our lives. The average Finnish Christian visits the church about a dozen times in his lifespan. The church itself reforms itself morally faster, than the more indipendent and conservative churches in other parts of the world. The Finnish archibishop was scorned by the very small minority of fundamental Christians because he made pro-marriage equality statements and the most religious have allready resigned from the church, because women priests were accepted as part of the church years ago.
Yes, yes, I know the contents of the treaty of Westphalia, but as with this Jesus story, you have to see it in the historical context where it happened and not just read the text and take it at face value, from your own vantage point.
The treaty of Westphalia was a necessary result of decades of terrible religiously motivated and excused wars of attrition. Europe was both exhausted by this war in comparrison to wich many modern wars including WWII look like minor skirmishes and totally militarized. The state did not exist much outside for providing for the military (this and the advent of modern capitalism also lead to colonialism, wich was equally eagerly excused by Christianity, and people did believed the excuse, in all sincerity). The main excuse for the war was religion, despite the fact that in practice Catholic France supported Protestant Sweden for actual reasons like politics and not as a result of imaginary reasons like what a particular god wants. It was a culmination point in history when religion had for entire generations been a widely accepted excuse for most horrible violence imaginable. The context is how was it possible to excuse such wars by this particular religion? And some people did started to question such. The context is also, that no gods ever appeared to stop this or the violence done during the hundreds of years before it by sincere people acting in good faith to kill the infidels, schismatics, heretics, pagans and what have you. What can be said about such a god? That it did not interfere because it could not – is it then not all-powerfull, or because it chose not – is it then not benevolent, or is it not more likely just simply because no such gods even exist? Regarding the fact, that no other evidence, than ancient myth, or silly logically flawed claims, exist to support the alledged existance of this god any more than there exists for any other gods, the issue is rather settled for now. But if some actual evidence ever appears, I would be curious to consider it. Do you have any? Is this even the place to present it?
LikeLike
“I would bore them to death by endless ramblings” – But you see, Rautakyy, I haven’t the patience with these idiots that you demonstrate regularly, to go point by point with them and destroy their arguments. I don’t consider it “endless rambling” at all.
LikeLike
Any society has metaphysical presuppositions that it enforces. In most societies those presuppositions are explicitly religious to the point that the state is sacred: burn incense to the Emperor and all that. In a society that is explicitly atheistic, the state takes the place of the divine. In our society we claim to be “rational” but the parameters of rationality change every 15 years or so (I remember a barbaric age when leading progressives were all against gay marriage: that age was 2009).
If a society is healthy and confident, it can tolerate a little more criticism, if fragile, it becomes violent.
Which is what you see in the middle ages: in the 13th century you can have a Frederick II, Peter Abelard or the Aristotelian schools of Paris and Padua; you can have someone like Thomas Aquinas reading Islamic scholars and taking them seriously. In the 14 and 15th you can have flourishing neopaganism in Italy, but you can’t have that sort of thing when the entire medieval social order is collapsing in the 16th or 17th centuries.
So God is not God because he does not miraculously intervene in human sinfulness? You have allot of arguments that go “If God were God he would do X…”
And the raping, thieving, murdering, slave-trading sociopaths known as Vikings were atheists, and hard to convert to Christianity? Amazing.
LikeLike
@Dpmonahan, I reject your notion of metaphysical presuppositions. Because metaphysical just equals to superstition. Superstitions are not rare at all, though. The societies we have seen within a couple of past hundred years where the separation of church and state have been advanced the furthest, like the US and the Soviet Union differ in so many other aspects (even though both of them could be counted among empires), that the comparrison of religion involving in politics is very hard to make directly. One can hardly say that in the US the government has taken any “metaphysical” role to provide presuppositions, nor can one really say that about the Soviet Union, though it is clear that it was very much an authoritatianistic society and in that resembled a theocracy.
I have no clue as to what you mean when you say that the parametres of rationality change every 15 years. What are you on about and how does that relate to our conversation? If it is true and some parametres change, is that not a good and worth to celebrate as a phenomenon, as long as what ever the new parametres you are referring to change for better as our understanding of reality grows with the quantity and quality of our information?
I have no Idea what you are talking about, when you refer to the year 2009. I too still have some vivid memories of that year, but cannot relate. What do you mean?
I totally agree with you about the fact that a confident position can tolerate more criticism. Toleration is a such a misused word these days, that I find it enlightening, that you used it in the right context. Thank you. Then again, if the religious truth position of Christianity was strong in medieval times why was the religion enforced with such vigour and the actual threat of violence? Same applies to the concept of hell. If the benefits of being Christian and believing in this particular myth are so confidently true, then why would a god need to threaten anybody with fire, brimstone and a lake of fire. Seems pretty “fragile”, like the Pascal’s ridiculous vager. Does it not?
I am a bit of a medievalist (as you may have guessed from my gravatar), and constantly defending the achievements of medieval people both in science and even just as human beings similar to us rather than dirty idiots, as they so often are inaccurately described. However, we also need to see their shortcomings. And to avoid such, it is good to try to understand what influenced people to come to poor conclusions. Right?
Yes, why should we not be expecting something from any particular god. Like fit the description made up about this god? In order to call any entity (wether alledgedly all powerfull, or not) benevolent, we can set some expectations for that entity to fullfill, otherwise calling such an entity benevolent has none what so ever meaning, exept as an expression of whisfull thinking. On the other hand, as no such all-powerfull entities, or to be more precise nothing supernatural have ever been presented, nor proven to even as much as exist, the whole sherade only resembles whisfull thinking. Does it not?
What would you require from a benevolent entity as a minimum to be called in all honesty – benevolent and on what grounds? The concept of sin is as imaginary as the concept of any gods as long as it can not be even demonstrated to exist. Can you? Or do you simply mean evil?
Did you not get what I said about the Vikings? Did I express myself once again somehow poorly, or is there some other reason why you did not get it? What might that reason be? Or did you choose to just ignore my points? Can you at least accept my point that the threat Vikings presented to the Christian Europe was a lot shorter lived, than the threat of terrible violence for herecy? Is your description of the Vikings just a caricature? Why am I not allowed to present caricatures of history, but you are? I will put this as simply as I possibly can: What Ansgarius was referring to was the lack of ritualistic superstitious thinking, that made the Vikings hard to convert. Not the fact that they were warriors up to the standards of their day. Silly.
LikeLike
“I am a bit of a medievalist (as you may have guessed from my gravatar)” – That’s a gravatar? I always assumed it was a selfie, taken on your commute to work —
LikeLike
All societies have metaphysical underpinnings: the Soviet Union’s was materialism and historical determinism, the U.S: “that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”, a metaphysical claim if I’ve ever seen one.
And this is necessary, because if people don’t have the same basic understanding of good and evil, they cannot form any meaningful society. Also, within a society, authority has to be seen as legitimate, that is, based on the metaphysical presuppositions.
“Metaphysics is superstition” is a metaphysical claim about the nature of the world.
When you try to set up a society eschewing metaphysics all you are doing is hiding your metaphysics (e.g: the Soviets claimed to be “scientific”) or setting up an unstable sort of ethics where something is evil one day and good the next, in which case you don’t know where you will stand in the social order tomorrow. That is not a society in any meaningful sense of the word. In this context I made the reference to gay marriage: in 2008 Barack Obama was against gay marriage and he won the Nobel Peace Prize; as of 2009 he was in favor of it, and by 2011 the US supreme court told us that only evil human beings are against gay marriage. Such an inversion of good and evil in three years seems a little odd.
OK, social change happens, but it is obvious that nowadays good and evil are decided as fads, which can’t be healthy. What if you are on the wrong side of the fad tomorrow?
“Facts” and “reason” and “common sense” are, to some extent, cultural constructs.
When I mentioned the Vikings originally I was speaking about the sort of political instability that marked large stretches of the middle ages: a medieval person would be more afraid of random violence than systematic oppression by the church.
In fact, he probably would not even think about the possibility of systematic oppression by the church: he would accept church doctrine as true, resent the clergy for being lazy or corrupt, and sin and worship however he pleased within the bounds set by his social imagination. Why? Because the church had (more or less) set the metaphysical presuppositions of medieval civilization. Those presuppositions eventually collapsed in the 30 Years War, and were replaced with the metaphysical presuppositions of the modern world set by the modern nation-state, which are currently collapsing and being replaced by who-knows-what.
I cannot for the life of me recall how we got on this topic.
Yes, I am making a caricature of the Vikings who did in fact add something to Western civilization (not least in mythology, but also commerce), and who were instrumental in forging the medieval order once they were converted to Christianity (chivalry was big among the Normans). But the Vikings, in their 10th century heyday, must be considered marauding sociopaths, and marauding sociopaths would not be big on the 10 Commandments or the Beatitudes, would they. But you know the source material better than I, so you are probably right about what Ansgard said.
LikeLike
“OK, social change happens, but it is obvious that nowadays good and evil are decided as fads, which can’t be healthy. ”
Sorry to jump in here, but you’re totally missing something. Our sense of good and bad is influenced by our knowledge, by the information available to us. Most people were in ignorance of what a gay marriage would look like, what a long term committed relationship was, or how gay people could be parents. The sudden change isn’t anything to do with a random faddy switch from feeling it’s right and wrong on a whim, but people having a whole lot information available to them to make informed decisions about their stance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey, your blog, jump in whenever you want.
In 2008 Obama, The Prince of Peace, is anti-gay marriage, then for it, and in 2011 the US Supreme court does not even say something like “well, we can understand there being disagreement on the issue” but instead says “if you are against gay marriage you are just a big ol’ mean hatey-hater.” (Anthony Kennedy’s real words were more along the lines of “no other reason other than to demean” but the level of thought behind the phrase is the same.)
In other words, the possibility of rational and civil disagreement is not even contemplated. “Don’t like gay marriage? Then you are filled with H8. Only possible motive, unless your name is Hillary or Obama and it is 2008, not 2009.”
This cannot be a case of people gravely and seriously changing their minds if they are incapable of imagining what possible motives they may have had before forming their new opinion. It is rather a case of shallow people believing whatever they are told to believe, which is alarming considering they run a country.
Here is what really happened: from the first time a man ever struck a deal for a wife, up until about 1950 when we invented the pill, marriage was a legal contract about producing children. Even gay-friendly societies knew that gays can’t marry, because they can’t produce children. Your wife is one thing, your boy concubine is something else.
But once you introduce a reliable form of contraceptives, suddenly fertile people could get married without any intention of having children, radically changing the nature and meaning of the contract without changing the form of it. On a cultural level, the presuppositions about the ends of marriage became different, and there was no longer any reason why gay people should not marry, because “marriage” now meant something different than before. Before it was about children, now, nobody knows why it exists, it is just a funny tradition with white dresses and tax benefits, so why not let gays do it too.
The fact that Anthony Kennedy, supreme court justice, is such a fool that he does not realize this, and can only ascribe the global tradition of human family law to a impulse to demean homosexuals is a sign of how supremely ignorant people have become. New information has nothing to do with it.
LikeLike
@Dpmonahan. You can call such “metaphysical” all you want, but the concept of “materialism” meant something completely else to the Soviets, than the world view there are no unnatural things in existance before any are actually established, other than in superstitious mythcal traditions. They thought it meant giving value over all things to material goods and money as virtuous in a capitalistic social system. Funny that.
The idea that men are “created” equal is just a poor choise of words. It actually does not hold true, in any sense we can observe in reality, now does it? First, we do not know if anybody is “created” in any sense of the word, exept perhaps parents having sex, but if it is to be seen in a metaphysically magical sense it is based on thin air, not facts or objective knowledge. If it should be seen to mean a value statement based on our present information of the reality, then it could just as well mean that all men should exist as equals, or that all men should have equal opportunity. Is the statement even remotely true in it’s present form? Some are born handicapped with all sorts of problems. What makes them equal members of a society is only our choise to treat them equally, not some magic or imaginary entities, that makes them such. In modern socieity we usually prefer to treat people fairly rather than “equally” because we see the benefits of this behaviour. But the choise of words in the declaration is as poor as it saying all “men”. Should that mean just the males, or females also? Would then not the better choise of words have been: All humans should be treated with equal fairness, for us to form a better and happier society? Is that not how the concept is mostly understood today? You see, all the metaphysical nonsense seems to vanish, from the concept, if it is worded better and more accurately to how modern people understand it.
It is not a metaphysical claim to note, that metaphysics is just superstition. It is refusing to acknowledge metaphysics as actual information, or anything, but a concept of human imagination. A bit like gods.
So, was burning heretics alive a good thing, or was it evil? Was it a good thing, that it took time for Christendom to abandon such practices, or should they have been abandoned right away when they were realized to be evil? Would it have been a good thing, if they had realized and acted upon their realization faster? In a democracy a critical mass of people coming to a realization changes the society wether it was caused by a “fad” or by logic. This happens sometimes faster, sometimes slower. A society moving faster, or slower towards a change is not a problem in itself. Moving faster for the better is especially not a problem, as in the case of equal marriage rights. Yes, the concept of marriage has changed over the course of history, but for the better it seems to me. Does it not seem like a change for the better to you?
Fast changes of the society present problems to some people who are affraid of the change itself, rather than the questions why the change might be for better, or for worse. This is called conservatism. To give value to things just because they are familiar, or because they are old. It is a fearfull and as such a very emotional mindset and hence, rarely very logical. Though I recognize it as an actual problem, I find it, that in concerning moral values, it is better to go according to the logic and fairness of any situation, rather than to satisfy the fearfull emotions of people who have no objectivity concerning the issues, but sometimes we need to recognize such irrational fears and at least try to help people come to terms with the existing reality. I am not very good at this, because my message often gets bogged by too many words. Have you noticed?
Regarding your story about Obama one must say, that he has been placed a guardian of too much for one man, and I expect it is for his other virtues than this particular question why the Nobel comittee decided to hand him the prize, but I can only give him my respect for changing his mind for the better. I do not see the virtue in holding on to evil traditions, or misconceptions that they represent something good. Can you? Intelligent people are able to change their minds, with better information about any given issue. Is that not so?
Can you see how your claim that the Vikings were “marauding sociopaths” is a representation of a caricature view of history? The peacefull peasants more eager to accept Christianity, than the Viking raiders, in the Nordic countries were just as equally unlikely to take on the ten commandments as the “marauding sociopaths”. Or how do you think the peacefull farmers saw the “no other gods or craven images” concept? I can tell you. It took hundreds of years (infact the entire medieval period) untill they were even close to giving up their ancestral gods, even though they visited the churches on sundays. In fact, the ten commandments present a nonsensical set of requirements, that would have made no sense to them and are mostly ignored by the most Christians in the world today. For example, the most seemingly obvious moral of the command “thou shalt not kill”, or if you please “murder”, is an impractical an nonsensical command. It may work better in a society with effective police and justice system, but for the ancient Norse, who had to keep the peace by a very real threat of personal revenge, as a duty of the closest family member, it made no sense at all. Also in the old Norse concept world “murder” only meant that you had killed somebody in secret and did not declare it openly. Is it good or bad that we have moved as societies from such? Would it have made the change somehow better if it had been even slower, like if we still needed to revenge our murdered relatives?
The point was, once more, that the Vikings as men of the world had a wider perspective and could not as easily be coerced to the rituals = bargaining with unnatural imaginary things, as easily as their contemporary farmers. There were of course a lot of Vikings who joined Christianity and it did not make them any less “marauding sociopaths”. For example there was this one Viking chieftain, who refused to take part in a group pabtism, because he had had it for eight times and the presents the priests were handing over for taking part, were getting too poor in quality for him to bother.
It feels a bit awkward to ask you to read my comments again, but perhaps I have to. See what I said about the threat of violence for disagreeing about Christianity. I already agreed, that the threat of violence from any marauders, including the Vikings was no doubt more imminent, than the violence from the church. That is not, nor really never was the question here. Is it? Why would you try to persist it is?
The fact that I am more likely killed in a car accident than by a terrorist attack, does not mean that terrorist attacks are fine and dandy, now does it? The fact that being killed by a terrorist is a rather unlikely event in my present life does not change the fact, that our societies have a recognized need to act against such. But what if our societies were to accept terrorism as a moral and good way to settle things? This is pretty much the same as Christianity oppressing people for their possibly different opinions about the divine or other unnatural concepts for most of it’s history by the threat of violence. First establishing the violence as a good thing, and then thwarting any indipendent thought of it by fear of being reveald a heretic or worse. An effective mind police system.
The coercion by the threat of violence has not stopped in Christendom, though the more imminent forms of burning heretics and crusades, has been outmoded by secularism, logic and humanism, the threat of violence in the alledged afterlife lingers. Many Christians seem to take the treat of hell very seriously. And they continuosly spout out totally absurd logical fallacies, like the Pascal’s vager. The concept of hell is a horrid and dispicable threat, that twists even the sense of justice of otherwise logical and good willing people, though there is absolutely no evidence to back it up, and it ultimately totally contradicts the idea of the allegedly benevolent creator entity. But as it is set in the minds of people at such a young and voulnerable age, they often even as adults can not helpthemselves, but to fear the empty threat. Do you fear it?
LikeLike
The claim that there is no spiritual world, only a material one, is a metaphysical claim whether you like it or not. It claims definitive knowledge of things that cannot be seen, only speculated, namely that they do not exist. It also makes a value judgement: that things which cannot be seen are are irrelevant. This in turn determines the ideology and behavior of the state or society.
My purpose in pointing out the declaration is not to argue its rightness or wrongness, but to point out that all societies have metaphysical presuppositions. To use your example: a society which believes all men are created equal will treat the severely disabled in one fashion, a society which does not accept the concept of creation, or of equality, will treat the severely disabled in another fashion.
Now, all societies can tolerate a certain amount of deviance from the metaphysical presuppositions, but all societies also have their lines which you may not cross. I think punishing heresy is evil, but in a medieval context I can understand why they did it, just like I can understand why Christians were executed for not worshiping the genius of the Emperor, or thrown into gulags: they were challenging core cultural standards. In the medieval mentality, if you don’t worship the same God, how can you be expected to keep an oath?
Your idea of medieval Europe being a prison of fear does not make sense because in a normal society, you never think about deviating from the unspoken norms. It is in times of cultural crisis that you start thinking that way, and it is in times of crisis that society gets defensive and violent.
So, my guess is you would have been perfectly happy for most of the middle ages, idiosyncratic beliefs and all, your main worries being disease, intermittent violence, and crop failure. Only if you were unlucky and caught up in a period like the 30 years war would you have to flee to Amsterdam to publish your ideas.
It is somewhat strange to see hell as a threat of violence, since belief in it is purely optional.
LikeLike
“In fact, the ten commandments present a nonsensical set of requirements, that would have made no sense to them and are mostly ignored by the most Christians in the world today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In a democracy a critical mass of people coming to a realization changes the society wether it was caused by a ‘fad’ or by logic. This happens sometimes faster, sometimes slower. – It took the US 250 years and a civil war to finally determine that keeping other human beings as slaves was not the right thing to do, yet still, these people were kept in economical, educational, political and social slavery for yet another hundred years by those who vehemently resisted the change.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Dpmonahan, no no no. There is absolutely nothing metaphysical to ask for actual evidence before accepting anything unnatural to exist. It is just logical.
Neither was it my point to argue wether the declaration is right or wrong. Rather my point was and is to argue, that even though it has been put up with superstitious and thus poor wording, there are humane truths in it by people who wrote it, who seem to have had humane approach, but were burdened by the supertitious thinking of their day and age. But those humane aspects are not really based on any metaphysical, or otherwise guessed grounds. A superstitious claim may come close to truth, when it is based on the experience and intuition of a humanely thinking person, but the truth value of it is not to be found in any guessing work. We are warranted a belief when we have established that it resonates with reality. The truth value of it is best established by best and most objective information awailable to us. Religions are not in the business to offer objective information. They are anathemas to objectivism as they require faith. It is a silly claim, that all societies have been built on some metaphysical assumptions, or guesses. Unless you are referring to the fact that most societies of today have been originated as a continuation to some superstitious past cultural influences. But I have no way to see how that would relate in any way to the topic post subject. That is just the world we live in.
Wether a society declares that all men are created equal or not seems to have very few instant effects, as some men in that particular society have been treated as slaves for over hundred years after the declaration. Even longer so, than in many countries, in wich no such declarations have ever been given. Sadly, the form of the declaration sounds just like magic talk, and ultimately seems to just baffle people who have very little or none at all understanding of the actual reasons of causation for forming a better society for all men – and women.
Yes, I also am able to understand why such practices as the burning of heretics were created in the medieval culture, but it does not mean I would have to accept them, nor should it mean a benevolent god would idly sit by and not interfere in such evil misconception of morality acted in the very name of this alledgedly benevolent god. This line of thought can lead to one of four options: that this god is not actually benevolent, but it has tried to convince mankind it is benevolent, exactly as an evil god would, or that it is impotent and unable to interfere, or that it is totally indifferet to what humans may percieve as moral, in wich case all statements about the morality of the god fall under whishfull thinking, or that this god does not exist any more than any other gods, as is most likely, given the lack of any even remotely objective data about such a god.
In a free society (wich the medieval culture was not in religious terms) people are all the time crossing the lines of social norms. Following our herd instincts are perfectly natural, but we call ourselves moral entities as we are engaged also in an actual evaluation process of what is good or bad regardless of how the herd behaves. That is why societies evolve and why it was OK for Obama to change his mind about marriage equality. What is good, or evil are not determined by what is in accordance to the norms of the society, but according to what harm, or benefit result from any given action, or inaction. It is the most natural process of being a human being to be part of that evaluation all the time wether it is a time of crisis or not. Or if I am wrong, then what particular crisis set the cultural change in western countries on the path of equal marriage rights? Is that not a concept totally crossing with some of the pre-existing social norms?
Yes, my main problems in the medieval times would have been crops, marauders and disease, if I were a regular numbskull indoctrinated by the church to believe in the justification of the social norms and benevolence of a god that requires heretics and all other sort of doubting Thomases to be burned alive after torturing a confession out of them. But we have moved past that, I hope. The reason we are still even discussing about this, is that the indoctrination to believe in unnatural things like gods and hell still continue, even though after centuries of a threat of violence upon any person making any public comment about the questionable truth value of social norms especially those like believing in religious dogma has been lifted a few generations ago.
And you can not possibly diminish the violence wreaked by this dogmatic righteousness upon people just for disagreeing about your particular god even slightly. The Vikings were a bane in some parts of Europe for a couple of hundred years, but if you want to compare that to the violence on the Crusades against Hussites, Albigence crusades, or the crusades against the Orthodox Christians, like the sacking of Constantinople and many others, you may find that the Viking raids were not at all so terrible and half of the time they were attacking other parts of Europe they were already led by Christians.
How is the belief in any supernatural claim such as hell, optional? Have you actually chosen to believe in it? How is this even supposed to work? By autosuggestion, that you just one day choose to believe in a claim, that has no actual evidence to back it up at all? I do not believe in hell, or any other such childish nonsense, simply because I have never been convinced, that a hell exists. There is no choise, none what so ever on my part, exept not to autosuggest myself to believe in anything unverifiable, or nonsensical, such as hell, or gods. But fears set in people as children sit tight, even in the face of evidence. Do they not? That is why it is called indoctrination.
LikeLike
“Yes, my main problems in the medieval times would have been crops, marauders and disease, if I were a regular numbskull indoctrinated by the church to believe in the justification of the social norms and benevolence of a god that requires heretics and all other sort of doubting Thomases to be burned alive after torturing a confession out of them.”
I think, Rautakyy, that Napoleon phrased it well:
LikeLike
Any claim about reality which goes beyond the empirical is metaphysical. The claim that there is no such thing as a god is metaphysical, physics having nothing to say on the subject. The claim that human beings “should” or “ought” to be treated in a certain way is likewise metaphysical, since there are no “oughts” in nature, only events.
What is the basis of argument in favor of gay marriage? That gays should enjoy the benefits of marriage as a matter of justice. Justice is a metaphysical concept, with no basis in empirical science.
You cherry pick metaphysical statements that make you feel nice, and then claim you are only being rational. Our very notions of rationality tend to be shot through with metaphysical presuppositions.
LikeLike
Rationalists always tend to identify their own metaphysical presuppositions with logic and common sense. What is logical and common sense however changes with startling rapidity, hence the gay marriage example. One day you are a good person, the next day evil, because common sense changed.
Cultural evolution is constant. Sometimes a culture can be based on self-contradictory premises, or it grows into its premises, or develops new ones. To use the US example: the metaphysical premise of “equality” never squared with the fact of slavery, precipitating a cultural crisis in which 600,000 soldiers died. Or the common sense of marriage being a contract for the production of children ceases to make sense after the introduction of new contraceptive technologies. Every generation participates in cultural re-evaluation to a greater or lesser degree.
A pagan who converts to Christianity is making a choice to re-arrange his mental furniture, change his presuppositions, and, to a degree, enter a new culture. A Christian who “loses his faith” does the exact same thing. But everybody, to some degree, goes through a process of critical appropriation. If a grown-up believes in hell, it is because he chooses to, at some level. So to throw around terms like “indoctrination” while pretending to judge from a position of absolute neutrality is somewhat sophomoric.
So your thesis is that religiously motivated violence was more pervasive than other forms of violence in the middle ages?
LikeLike
@Arheopteryx1, I saw that video clip at Holly’s blog and laughed my ass off. But it fitted this discussion just as well.
By the way, as you interact with religious people in the blogosphere, have you noticed this new “fab” they have to try to smuggle in supernatural concepts to the table of seemingly acceptable ideas by appealing to “metaphysics”? I have now run into this being brought up lately even though it in no way comes close to the topics being discussed and was just wondering, that am I imagining there being a religious anti-atheist meme about using this particular kind of unfalsifiable stuff, or is it just a coincidence. Coincidenced do happen…
It might just as well be the final hiding place for their gods and as such more often presented by the more intelligent religious people, that I just have happened to interact with lately, because I am totally bored with the batshit crazy types of religious. What do you think?
LikeLike
You’d almost think they have a Union, wouldn’t you? I think one of them sees it on some theist’s blog, then uses it himself – it becomes a Dawkinsinian “meme” that spreads on it’s own – like a virus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Dpmonahan, pffff… Any claim that goes beyond empirical is merely hypothetical at best and warrants no firm beliefs. Of course there are plenty of “shoulds” and “oughts” in nature. Humans are a part of nature, but the kind of natural beings that we are, we are also able to make predictions about the future based on our empirical experiences and observations of the material observable universe and reality. Should and ought are concepts products of our material brains. From that ability, as a natural process, that it is, results in our varying responsibilities and interpretations of both the results of our actions and subsequently those possible responsibilities.
A god is merely an unfalsifiable claim, but it is also a very extraordinary claim, given that we have absolutely none what so ever even remotely reliable nor objective evidence to make us believe any gods exist, and as such taking any gods at face value is a good example of superstition. Past generations based much of their understanding of the reality around us on old traditions, when they had no other means to find out about it. It is time humankind grew up and took the responsibility that falls upon us as a natural process. Old books, traditions, let alone gods do not tell us wether using nuclear power is a good or a bad thing, we have to figure this out on our own.
Justice as a concept is based on very empiric life experiences. It is a way to percieve the reality we observe. All social animals – including humans – have a concept of “justice” and fairness. It just so happens that with our little bit higher cognitive ability than most others we also have more complex sense of justice. Justice is best evaluated by the reality of the results of our actions and inactions. It does not require a metaphysical or otherwise unnatural assumptions or guesses behind it. If justice is based on metaphysical guesses, then it is likely to result in poor quality of justice. Gays having equal marriage rights is just a conclusion about a better society, such that we would choose, when we are better aware of the consequenses of our actions, than our forebears, who – sadly – only too often acted on superstitous guesses of the nature of reality. Why? Mainly, because they had poorer quality of information at their disposal. Or like some today, who still cling on to the seemingly absolute superstitious answers given by religions, that are actually just non-answers. Like for example, often a god is suggested as some sort of explanation to why everything exists, when it really does not answer to that question on any level. I suppose it is somewhat because of the safety, religious doctrines appear to give to people, against their natural fear of the unknown, though most often it is just pure ignorance.
What have I cherry picked? It is you who decided to bring to the conversation “metaphysical statements”, that I can only presume, “make you feel nice”. Not I. Rationality requires critical thinking and those are both in contrast to faith. Are they not? Why would anybody choose faith over rationality? If you think rationality is “shot through with metaphysical presuppositions” you are not being very rational. Do you wish to express faith, that this is as you would claim? You do realize, that faith offers none what so ever evidence to the truth value of any claim?
Who said anything about “common sense” and what does it ultimately even mean? I did not. Why would you argue as if I did?
You claim: “What is logical and common sense however changes with startling rapidity…” Listen to yourself! Are you now abandoning logic, as a method to evaluate reality, as unreliable, or what? Our perception of logic changes and differs according to the quality of the information we have. For the better I hope as I am entiteled to, since the quality of scientifically confirmed information gets more detailled and better and more rapidly than ever, I might add. Do you not agree, that the logical scientific method after all, is the one way we have to obtain even remotely objective data? Do you have an alternative to suggest?
I agree with you to up to a point about what you said about the cultural evolution being constant and the cultural crisis about the slavery and so forth. But I fail to see your point to this conversation. It is a sad fact, that the ethnic part of the US population who were first enslaved only started to get a hint of the equality when people slowly started to understand the practical side of the unfair and unhealthy social issues of racism and slavery. Not because of supernatural guidance within a metaphysical content in a statement. Right?
I also agree with you that a Christian converting to Islam is re-arranging “his mental furniture”, and a Hindu who loses his faith does the same, but people do not believe things because they choose to. Not unless they are actively engaged in some form of auto suggestion, rather people believe this or that thing to be on some level true, because they are at the very least somewhat convinced that this is so. What convinces people? Sometimes old traditions, indoctrination, life experiences, intuition based on the former and sometimes just better quality information and those precious rare critical thinking skills. Faith or rationality. Wich would you choose and why?
When I evaluate any religious claims about the supernatural, I can not help, but to do it from the outside perspective, since I have never had any religious affiliation, or feelings of my own. This is not my own achievement, I do not try to boast with it, or expect to deserve some imaginary reward, nor punishment, for it in any sort of alledged (but totally unverified) afterlife, rather a result of me having been born into a non-religious family. I can see when a culture is indoctrinating a child into believing stuff, that has absolutely no even remotely objective evidence to back it up. I can see how such indoctrination affects even adult people in various religious systems, like my example of the ridiculous Pascal’s wager. This is why I think, that with good reason I am justified in using the word in this context. Am I not? All societies make an imprint of values on the child growing up, but there is a difference between cultural information based on the scientific methodology, when one compares it to religiously motivated nonsense and traditional misconceptions of reality. Like in the absurd contest around the US schools wether to teach children a sound scientific theory confirmed by a multitude of different branches of science, or a particular religious fairy tale. I bet you can recognize indoctrination too, when you observe the process in some other religious, or otherwise superstitious culture, than your own. Can you not?
No, my thesis is not that “religiously motivated violence was more pervasive than other forms of violence in the middle ages”. Where did you get that? I am getting a bit bored to explain to you the same things over and over again. It is almost like you are fighting some demons of your own and not even having a conversation with me.
But the problem with religiously motivated violence is, that it shows us, that religion can not be the basis of morality, if we really want to have high moral standards. Religions are like warehouses full of stuff that can be used for any purpose to have a level of authority without any need for explanation as only faith is required. The older they are, the more stuff (good, ignorant, and even evil) there is in the warehouse and as a result the more often they have been used to justify just about anything. And still are. That also informs us about the lack of observable morals in any deity behind any specific religious movement. We are not warranted to say there is an omni-powerfull deity, that is benevolent towards human kind. Are we? In the light of even remotely objective information we have, that would be just silly guesswork contradicting reality and an obvious expression of wishfull thinking, now would it not?
The problem with gods in general is, that as we can easily observe from the lack of evidence for their existance other than myths, is that we are not really warranted in believing gods are anything but mere mythical characters of the stories. And as the topic post suggest, when observed with little bit of objectivism the constructs of the myths are typical human cultural inventions, explanations and excuses. Only faith in these gods makes people to argue for them. Silly.
LikeLike
“I suppose it is somewhat because of the safety, religious doctrines appear to give to people, against their natural fear of the unknown, though most often it is just pure ignorance.” – This video suggests that following a strong leader (real or imaginary) relieve anxiety. Best viewed full-screen —
LikeLike
Sorry if you are bored, I’ve been answering you on coffee breaks at work, not exactly profound engagement on my part.
Justice is empirical? Is it material? Let me put on my materialist hat and give an account of justice: a bunch of monkeys with the traits of jealously and social conformity happen to survive a difficult winter because they live near a hot spring, while bigger, stronger, braver, more individualistic monkeys die of the cold. The jealous, ignoble monkeys evolve into human beings with this concept of “justice”, (don’t you dare have more than me or I’ll get my jealous buddies to bully you out of the group) and as a matter of dumb luck we are stuck with it, but we could change it if we wanted to, because evolution is just about luck.
That is not how you think, because you are a sentimentalist and closet metaphysician who gets fuzzy feelings from the notion of “justice”, probably because of inferior ancestry. (I’m still talking like a materialist here.)
Isn’t it convenient that your every thought is in lock step conformity with the fads, just like Obama, you are pro marriage equality just in time to be considered one of the good guys. What is declared rational by the courts is rational in your book. Whatever the smart set thinks today, that is what you think! We did not know it was “rational” three years ago, but it is “rational” now. You are one lucky monkey, marching along with the inevitable pace of progress! Whatever is rational tomorrow, you will believe it, and look down on those silly irrational folks who don’t go along! (Close materialist voice.)
Sorry, you cannot have a materialist account of justice with any moral force. There is a reason why societies have metaphysical presuppositions: a moral norm that can’t appeal to something absolute is simply not a norm.
The reaction to slavery in US was not predated by new information about the evils of slavery, that was already known. What did change was the economics of the country and the Second Great Awaking got people’s Christian consciences bothered about it.
For the record, I think that human reason can know the truth, in a human way. Which means our understanding of truth is always conditioned by culture. This idea that you can be above it all, a paragon of pure rationality, is sophomoric. That doesn’t mean we can’t know truth, but when someone claims to speak from pure rationality, he is just blind to his cultural conditioning.
LikeLike
@Dpmonahan, now you have used your coffee break to build up a gigantic strawman. Read my comments and ask yourself how does your “materialist hat” relate to our conversation? Or is it only because you have read through with your sad “materialist hat” on all my comments, why you do not seem to grasp half of what I say? And I thought it was my poor English…
Of course justice is material. What else could it be? It is a concept in our material brains, that results from the materially transmitted information of the material reality around and within us. It is acted upon in material universe in expectation of material results. That is exactly why it should not be determined by silly metaphysical guesses of nonexistant, or even just unverified gods, or other superstitions about unverified unnatural fairy tales, that also are material within our material brains. Not even though it has been the custom of our ignorant forebears, nor though it has sometimes produced workable models of society by the guesses being very close to human intuitional and natural realities.
Slavery in the US was defended both by the alledged economic necessity of having slaves and by the Biblical accounts where the terms of slavery are directly determined by an alledgedly benevolent deity character. Yes, Christians have a conscience too. Who ever claimed otherwise? But as the age of enlightenment was upon the US society, so was the humanist approach and understanding of the actual harms of slavery. As long as people percieve a specific race as animals, the religious, or metaphysical concepts of them being equal as humans have no bearing on how they think those should be treated. And besides, as I said, to the believers the Bible is as it is interpreted. It has no moral backbone, rather it is a pick and choose shop. I have met in the net some religious people from the US who still, even in this time and age, argue for what they percieve as the good aspects of slavery, and who have simply not let go of the macabre idea of slavery having some positive sides to it. Mainly because of their fundamentalist approach towards the Biblical accounts.
Of course our understanding is always conditioned by culture, but there is a difference between our cultural biases and straight forward indoctrination. Is there not? I said I was outside any religious indoctrination, not that I was abowe it, you, or any body. How could you get that wrong? Or are you just grasping straws for your stawman?
The cultural backround conditioning was the exact point I was originally making about the flesh and blood son of god fitting very well in the Egyptian traditions and Romano-Hellenistic cultural reality of most people in the Roman empire, including many ethnic Jews, while to the fundamentalist and otherwise conservative Jews it was an abomination. And still is.
Absolute truths are impossible for anyone – even a god to achieve. Unless you think your god is able to overcome logically impossible tasks? Do you? The problem of absolute information is that we never know what we do not know. Even if we could verify a deity who honestly thinks it has always existed and has created the material, observable universe, does not know what it does not know. Thus the perspective on everything of even such an entity could dramatically change, if some information, that it did not previously hold, was revealed to it from outside the sphere of information it formerly held. Thruth is about the likelyhood of any particular issue to be close to truth on either an objective or subjective perspective. Personally, I would rather understand the reality around us as much in objective perspective as I possibly can. Would you not?
LikeLike
“The problem of absolute information is that we never know what we do not know.” – Sometimes, Rautakyy, that can lead to disastrous results:
LikeLiked by 1 person
I put on my materialist hat to show that the logic of materialism precludes a moral basis to society. You might say some data suggests homo sapiens works better under conditions of fairness, but my materialist alter-ego is under no obligation to cooperate. He can just shrug it off as an unfortunate accident of evolution, and forge his own preferred path, start a new branch of homo sapiens, and no one can tell him he “shouldn’t” they can just say, “don’t be different or we’ll kill you.” In which case all societies are of the authoritarian kind you hate so much.
Otherwise it seems we agree that absolute truth isn’t possible for human beings, but that we can come up with serviceable human analogies, within our limits.
Yet you insist that the only reality is material. Fine, but you have to flush your moral fixation on justice and fairness and the such. Stop bring metaphysical concepts in through the back door. Rocks and trees and micro-biology tell us nothing right and wrong. You don’t get an “ought” from an “is” unless nature itself is a sign of an absolute reality from it.
As for the kind of knowledge that is possible for god, lets define terms: if we are talking about Thor, you are correct. If we are talking about the non-contingent fullness of existence from which all other existence is derived, then all possible existence is known to it, if it knows itself.
LikeLike
@Dpmonahan, I do not see your point about the materialist hat even still. We are warranted to make knowledge claims about the reality only after we have verified information, not according to metaphysical guesses or superstitious traditions. Right? Our behaviour towards each other is about our choises, but with the best possible information we are better equipped to make choises than with poor information. Correct this far? Humans are a social species and it is natural to us to act in a social manner. We are also all individual members of ever evolving species as has been shown by the best and most objective information awailable to us through science. Right? There are thus necessarily variations of any view, like there are thousands of denominations of Christian churches. Are there not? As part of our social capabilities, we share with most other social species, is that we use our empathetic abilities and that we recognize they affect us. Yes? Logic dictates, that if we are to choose the best social models for our interaction (and we are biologically prone to choose the best we can get for ourselves, though not always equipped well in the descision making), then those are the grounds for best possible social conduct. Hence, social morals. In lack of good or accurate information we tend to also make up stuff, that could just as well be called “metaphysical”, supernatural, or just plain superstitious, that has a tendency to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. Sometimes such guesses are informed by our actual condition and selfish in a healthy way and are beneficial, sometimes they are distorted by nonsense about our condition and overly selfishly informed and as such end up being harmfull, but as guesses go, not necessarily very informative of the actual reality. In my opinion – call it materialist, if you must – our empiric objective experience has already shown us, that from recognizing our ignorance, rather than making up stuff to fill in for as knowledge, in our lack of knowledge we are better equipped to face reality. Are we not?
Rocks and trees and microbiology, tell us all sorts of things about right and wrong. They tell a tale about us and our wellbeing as dependant on our environment, how we in our ignorance have damaged our environment and how that affects us directly, or indirectly. It is a big puzzle, that seems to baffle us often though.They also tell us how to reach better wellbeing in a harmony with all existing things. It is our inability to listen what they tell us, that harms us ever still. I need no metaphysical guesses to conclude as much, this is what we have allready learned from them through science and we learn more each passing day. What are old obscure scriptures and other metaphysical guesses in comparrison to the hard data from the nature?
You said: “If we are talking about the non-contingent fullness of existence from which all other existence is derived, then all possible existence is known to it, if it knows itself.” But we do not know wether we are talking about such a god, nor could we possibly know. Could we? Add to injury, no god would know that much about itself, neither Thor, or Jesus, nor their fathers. If any existing intelligent entity was ever honest to itself, this should be what that entity should first admit to itself. Because it can not know what it does not know. That is logically impossible. Sorry. Even if this god of yours thought it had this information, it might just as well be then, that this entity we are talking about as a god, is not anything you listed abowe, but only deluded to think as much about itself by some forces outside itself that it does not know. It certainly has not made much of an effort to prove anything close to it, to any of us. Has it? Instead there is this demand for faith, wich is totally assbackwards, if anyone is to get to the truth of anything. Somebody sure is deluded, wether it is any of the gods as suggested by humans ever, or the adherents of these gods. But the question is totally academical, as long as we do not have any even remotely objective information about any gods, or even as much as anything at all supernatural. Eyewittnesses do not cut it, even bigfoot has eyewittnesses. Remember?
LikeLike
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
“the doctrine of predestination”
synonyms: creed, credo, dogma, belief, set of beliefs, code of belief, conviction, teaching; More
None of which means Jack, in context of truth.
And you need to brush up on your history, Dickhead.
LikeLike
@V
You forgot the epithet.
”….and you are simply a Dickhead.”
LikeLike
I’m so tired I can hardly focus. But even in my swirly, blurry world I must admit he doesn’t half talk nonsense. I’m laying pearls before swine … there’s just no helping these kind of people see what nonsense they believe, even when you quote clear chunks of their Divine Book at them.
LikeLike
Ah … Dear V, what you are witnessing is the power of indoctrination. The power to see what one wants to see
The people who genuinely recognise this are the deconverts. Good people like Nate Owens, Ruth, Victoria etc.
Maybe the likes of dp would react similarly should he ”step into the light”? Though I have my reservations, him being a lover of hunting and what have you.
But you never know …. miracles may happen, yes?
😉
LikeLike
Did someone say “Dickhead“?
LikeLike
1) The way Violetwisp explains the Moses myth is the best interpretation I have ever encountered of it. It is not about 20th century idealism, but of general humanism inherent to mankind and therefore relevant even to the contemporaries of the people who dreamt the Moses character up.
2) The age of the babtismal formula is irrelevant as it does not clearly dictate any trinity of a single god entity. It is just a fab way of including stuff into a cult ritual. But it is very likely that such ritualistic habits formed into an ideology as the new cult searched for it’s form.
3) The struggle between the son and the father in Christian doctirne is ever ongoing. It is a value struggle, between the humanist son and the authoritarian fascist father. The OT is not included into the Christian Bible only to give a history to what Jesus said, but also to provide nice loopholes for double standards in morality.
4) The Jews were very efficiently integrating to the general populous of the empire, even as much as losing their own native tongues, like so many other tribes and nations did. The writers of the Gospels were certainly not fundamentalist Jews (and they use the Jesus character to scorn fundamentalist Jews – the Pharisees on more than one occasion), or more likely they were not Jews at all. They were very aware of some particular Jewish cultural traditions, but seem totally oblivious of others (like for example what does a Nazarite mean). It seems more like they were just quote mining the Jewish cultural tradition to make their own point. It is quite possible, that if there ever were any actual disciples of an actual Jesus character, these were aware of the cultural heritage, but not of “finer” theological points of Judaism and could very well have been deeply influenced by the overt polytheistic culture of the empire. Their followers certainly were.
If we compare Christianity to the contemporary religious cultures of the times when it was first formed, it is clearly a mixture of the prevalent polytheistic culture and the Jewish monotheism. And even more so later on. It is from polytheism, that such notions like Jesus being the flesh and blood son of a god come from. It is clearly not a very Jewish idea. Is it? In this he resembles more of the kind like Alexander the Great, Heracles and even Osiris, than he does with the angels, or ancient patriarchs like Moses, or Abraham, who also are referred to as sons of god in the Torah, as in the sense that they were obdient to this god. It may just as well be, that Jesus referred to himself as a son of god in the orthodox Jewish mindset, that he was being obidient to the god of his conscience, rather than as a flesh and blood son, but that the disciples, or the unnamed people who wrote their stories up, viewed him as an actual son in the polytheistic sense.
Ultimately the date of the invention of the concept of trinity does not even matter, because it is merely a compromise between the monotheistic Jewish tradition and the polytheistic cultural heritage within the Roman empire. At wich point did this concept finally settle in with Christianity? When the Ebionites were wiped out by other Christians, only after the Nicaean council… Right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
1) It is a fanciful interpretation of Moses, based on nothing other than personal prejudices. She admits it is speculative, so I guess it is alright as such, but you can’t call it a “good interpretation” when it is pulled out of thin air.
2) So you imagine around 40 AD some Jews sitting around saying “Hey, lets Baptize people inte name of the father, son and holy spirit!” “Sure, what does ‘baptise’, ‘father’, ‘son’ and ‘holy spirit’ mean?” “Don’t know, we’ll figure it out!”
3) Again arbitrary. And the OT is included because it is about God’s revelation in Jewish history, which finds fulfillment in Jesus.
4) First core of believers were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Mark, Matthew and John were certainly Jews, the former likely trained scribes, the latter likely a trained rabbi, which we suspect based on their vocabulary, structure, and literary arrangements.
The formative period of Christianity, the 15 year gap between the death of Jesus and the writings of Paul, was not pagan, but almost exclusively Jewish, and it was these Jews who insisted on the divinity of Jesus. By 50 AD Paul is quoting hymns that equate Jesus with God. This is not a pagan interpolation.
The thesis that core doctrines of Christianity are Jewish-pagan synchronism is, like so much else on this post, an arbitrary assertion. There is no time for it to have happened. There is no figure we know of who could have done it. There is no evidence of it having been done.
The statement that “christian belief X has parallels in the pagan world” generally ignores the fact that closer parallels are always found in Judaism. Hercules was the biological son of Zeus. He is not a co-eternal presence with God. For that you would do better to look at Jewish Wisdom literature, where God’s wisdom is presented as his child, who is co-eternal with God. This is the type of idea Paul’s christological hymn is alluding to, not some Europa and the Bull story. Even the virgin birth has more obvious parallels in Judaism: the sterile woman bearing children because of a special blessing by God.
Your not paying attention to the texts, but your prejudices.
LikeLike
Who the hell were Mark Matthew and John?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Arkenaten, it seems he thinks these books were written by the dudes to wich they have been attributed to and even goes as far as to analyze their religious devotions before they became cult members. Funny that…
@dpmonahan, 1) It is perfectly intellectual interpretation of a fancifull story pulled out of thin air as far as we can possibly know at the moment. Do you have a better one? You are not one of those people who think it is all literally true, are you?
2) Well, basicly yes. That is pretty much what most likely did happen. That is how cults operate and function. They come up with rituals loosely based on some mystical stories and then later try to patch up a seemingly coherent story out of them, if they are ever challenged about their ideas on any level. Even if that challenge comes from within their own ranks.
3) Yet, if the OT is there only to provide a history for the Jesus character, why is it, that it is so often referred to as the source for morals by Christians, even overriding what Jesus said, if necessary?
4) You are now mixing the fundamentalist religious Jews with the cultural Jews, as if their ethnicity formed some sort of a uniform religious block. But the Jewish culture was already then fragmented in many social and cultural ways, even by languages. And it was a minority culture under pressure from all sorts of cultural loans and expectations. Paul was certainly a religious zealot for all his life even before his vision (or more likely an epileptic seizure), but what he gathered about Jesus was from others as he had never even met him. And he was certainly affected by the multicultural Hellenistic and Roman reality he lived in both before and after and by the people he was preaching to who – wether Jew or Gentile – were not pharisean or otherwise fundamentalist Jews.
For some reason there is no Aramaic or Hebrew NT surviving and I doubt none was ever written. The new cult was clearly not popular within the Jewish religious nor otherwise conservative Jewish community. At first it was a new cult of the rootless immigrated Jews around the empire and their fringe groups.
What do you mean by time? How long did it take after the 9/11 attacks before the “truthers” had appeared? How long did it take after Elvis had died, before some fan saw him alive somewhere? It certainly did not take 15 years. The final canonization of the four Gospels took several hundred years and it took some fifteenhundred years before the protestants decided to remove some of the Apocryphical texts from the Bible. And though I hate to repeat myself, the Ebionites were not snuffed out until after the Nicaean council, so the idea of the triune-god was not an established fact among Christians for several hundred years after the alledged Jesus incident.
To what Jewish wisdom literature are you referring to? The Kabbala, or some other stuff that are most often predated by the Jesus story? The fact that the Jewish culture was not totally set apart from the surrounding polytheistic cultures (despite the obvious attempt at total segragation in the OT) only tells us that these had affected each other even before the Jesus incident. Nothing more. Therefore there naturally are even older stories in wich the two different concepts were on collision courses, but also provided each others with superstitious beliefs. And indeed, even Judaism, holds many stories within it, that inform us clearly, that many of the stories absorbed into the Bible are from polytheistic cultural spheres. Even though monotheism is typical for nomadic cultures, they too have their roots in forms of animism and are affected by the polytheistic cultures with wich they are in constant contact. Most of the names in the Bible that refer to your god God are infact originally Cananite pantheon of gods, that tells us, that even Judaism has it’s roots in polytheism.
Was Jesus not the biological son of your god God? If he was only the biological son of Mary, then where did he get the Y-chromosomes from? Or was he not a man after all? Was Mary sterile? If not, how does that older story relate to her? I see no difference between the Jesus story and the many sons of Zeus in this respect and as I do not know stories of any other biological sons of your god by the Jewish tradition, what am I supposed to think about it, other than the storyline is more of a compromise between the prevalent polytheistic culture of the empire and typically nomadic monotheism of the Jews?
You are accusing me of prejudices? You are not happy with how I percieve these texts? I admit that it has been a while since I read the Bible (but at least I have read it, unlike by far most people who self identify as Christians), and that it did not impress me very much as a literary work, nor as a historical source. It is a fairy tale set in a real world, like so many others like it. But to me it seems, what you mean “paying attention” is just about not taking the texts at face value. Do you take the book at face value? Why would you? We all have biases, but at least I have no prejudices over wether Jesus or Heracles being flesh and blood sons of a god is the more plausible story. My personal bias in this matter is, that even though Alexander the Great is by far better established as a historical persona, than Yeshua of the Jesus story, I still do not take it at face value, that he was an actual son of an actual god. What is yours?
LikeLike
1) I make no speculations as to whether or not the Evangelists were in fact the characters mentioned in the Gospels. “Mark” is easier to say than “the author of the Gospel attributed to Mark”. Mark and Matthew were probably Jewish scribes because they are pretty adept at using traditional Jewish story structures, and knew theology and symbolism. For example, Mark builds his gospel in a chiastic pattern, a popular scribal style. Matthew structures his around 5 sermons of Jesus, reflecting the 5 books of the Pentateuch. John was probably a Rabbi who had lived in Jerusalem: he is intimately familiar with the layout of the city and the liturgical customs of pre-70 AD, and his favorite form of dialogue is the rabbinical midrash. He is aware of ancient rabbinical themes and styles of debate.
2) There is the traditional story, which may or may not be true, and that to unknown degrees, and then there is nothing. Speculations into the black whole of alternate history are of little value, and when they show no grasp of bronze age manners and history, they are of no value. It is more coherent to say “I don’t know what happened.”
3) The general principle for Christians reading the OT, across centuries and denominations, is that the OT and NT make one story, that the OT that it is progressive, leading to Christ, and finds its ultimate interpretation in him. I have never known anyone who appeals to the OT over and above the NT.
4) If you want to insert a vast conspiracy somewhere between the death of Jesus and the writings of Paul, be my guest. But it is logically simpler to assume general continuity between the message of Jesus in 30 AD and the message of his followers in 45-50 AD. Whether or not that message is true is another question.
5) And in 45-50 AD, the Christians were mostly centered in Jerusalem, Antioch and Samaria were mere satellites. Again, no time or place for pagan interpolation during the formative years.
6) “wisdom lit” generally refers to Jewish writings outside the historical-prophetic books. Most are deutero-canonical. The Wisdom of Quoleth or Wisdom of Ben Sirach are examples.
7) The question of Hellenistic, Babylonian or Canaanite influence on Judaism is interesting, but pointless here. Those are background influences, not direct ones. NT authors would have looked to what they would have recognized as their own tradition. Zeus kidnapping Europa was not in their own tradition.
If you want a parallel with the Virgin birth, look to the OT, not Leda and the Swan. OT has a pre existent Wisdom of God, which would be background for the theology of John’s logos and Paul’s hymn. OT has the mothers of Samuel and Samson which are the literary parallels for Luke’s account.
I once saw a wordpress blog claiming the 12 Apostles were based on the 12 zodiac signs. Sorry, try the 12 tribes of Israel. Jewish authors were looking to Jewish tradition. Supposed pagan sources are always a case of ignoring the texts which the early Christians and the NT authors were ACTUALLY reading.
Why ignore the most obvious source materials?
LikeLike
1) Easier, or just a way to smuggle in the idea that the writers were actually the dudes the books have been attributed to and thereby claiming these Gospels are some sort of eyewittness accounts, when clearly they are embellished hearsay stories with implanted references to the Jewish mythology? I am sorry, if that was not your intention, but that is my past experience with Christians.
2) Well, we have no way of verifying what is the actual truth about this entire traditional story, but as you said it is by far better to admit we do not know, than make any knowledge claims about it. However, if we are to speculate what even might be true, then supernatural agents are far, far behind any possible “conspiracy theories” in any likelyhood. Right? We are not talking about bronze age here, are we? And as far as we have any researched cultural parallels of cults, then those are at least as good for evaluating myths like this, than some individual mythical or magical explanation to the story.
3) Well, it seems you have then lived a very sheltered life. I have run into a number of self identifying Christians who do think, that some of the OT commandments clearly override the golden rule. I commend you for not thinking they are right. If you never have met any, you only need to look at the history of the Christendom to see how often this has been applied and how horrible the results have been. It is obvious, that Christianity has not come very close to the alledged mainline teachings of Jesus like the golden rule by anything else than the secularization of western society. And has hardly ever even touched the other most significant teaching of Jesus to give up all your posessions and wait for the end of the world, exept by some fanatical zealots, that to most people only seem like mental cases. Right?
4) Who said anything about a conspiracy? I was merely speaking of cultural influences. You do not deny such existed, do you? How could they have even awoided them? The letters of Paul are full of attempts to correct this, or that “misunderstanding” because of various cultural influences, to what he personally thought was the truth. But was he magically, or supernaturally free of any cultural influences? It may well be that his (or other Gospel writers) personal main influence came from some frorm of Judaism, and by any means I am not trying to deny that in any way, nor do I get it where did you get such a notion, that I did, but christianity was not simply Judaism newly interpreted, but also full of cultural loans from the overt polytheistic culture of the empire. Flesh and blood son of a god being one of the most obvious ones. Why did most of the Jews reject the newly forming cult? Because it was full of stuff they did not accept, nor recognize as representative of their cultural heritage, or religious vision. Right? Might the alledged divinity of the Jesus character not be one of those? I bet it was.
5) I am sorry, if you did not realize this, but even in Jerusalem the Pharisees and numerous other different sects of Judaism were existant allready before the alledged Jesus incident. Most of the Jews even in and around Jerusalem were not however, very religious or even very informed about religion. Like for example most likely some fishermen who started to follow around this unemployed carpenter turn rabbi. There are clear indications in the NT of influence from both the polytheistic main culture and even from neighbouring Zoroasterianism. It does not take any time for some newly forming cult to absorb ideas that the new adherents of the cult already bring in with them to the ideals. Naturally, if the common thing to the group is an ethnicity, the culture of that ethnic group is the dominant source for their superstitions, but when we are talking about such a multicultural empire and a transportative traffic knot such as the Iudea within the Roman empire, it would be to say the least odd, to think these people were not culturally influenced by others around them. Besides, all of them had some reason to abandon their former religious backround and join in to the new cult. Most of them did not have visions, like Paul, or did they? To expect their new view on religion was entirely formed by one culture is absurd. Besides where did the Ebionites appear from, if the trinity was such an established part of Christianity from the get go? Look, the Ku Klux Klan has cultural influences from African heritage, even though they would never admit it. Are you in a similar position with them here?
6) Thanks for that insight, but it still does not explain why Jesus being a separate flesh and blood son of the Jewish god is different from Achilleos, or any of the others being flesh and blood sons of Zeus. Besides, already in the NT the Apostoles alledgedly make the descision to include gentiles to the new cult. Hence, it was not plainly a Jewish enterprice from very early on. Do you really think the new recruits had nothing of their own to bring into the new and still rather undogmatic table?
7) On the contrary, they are more than relevant to the topic. Even if you can find some examples of something remotely similar to a son being born to the Jewish god in Jewish culture (wich you really have not yet demonstrated), the resemblance is obviously closer to the polytheistic divine system, than actual monotheism with really only one singular god. And even in the OT we have indications from a pantheon in wich the god El, as the Jewish god is referred to in the older texts, is a father god and others such as Baali and Sebaot are more like his sons, than some avatars, or incarnations of the El. The cultural concept of Alexander the Great , Achilleos and Heracles were more familiar to the majority of the new cult members, than some particular Jewish resemblances, at least to the ones to whom the Greek NT was written to, wether if they were ethnic Jews or Gentiles. All this also means, that even the Jews were not that far separated from polytheism and that some of them were obviously totally capable of assuming Jesus was a flesh and blood son of their god (who resurrected like Osiris and the Pharaos did), even if that goes against the very concept of monotheism, before they came up with this lame excuse, that Jesus is not a separate entity, but a part of some divine trinity, that as Violet pointed out now for several times, is not ONCE mentioned in the Bible. Not in the OT, nor even in the NT.
8) One thing that may cause problems to such a topic is that the concept of god is such an elusive one. And ad to injury, the concept of monotheism is at leas as elusive. If there is only one god, then what are the angels and what is the Devil? An adversary with divine power the god God has set loose on the world. You have Jesus, Holy Ghost, God the Father, Archangels, the Devil and all sorts of angels and demons. How exactly is this even remotely monotheistic? The Devil at least is described to be as mighty as many gods according to the majority of Polytheistic religions. Who even has the right to define a god, before one has been demonstrated to exist? As long as that question remains open, the entire conversation is on the level of how many legs does a dragon have?
LikeLike
You would have an argument if belief in the divinity of Christ dated from the 2nd century. The earliest record of the belief that the divine “Son” preexisted his birth is the hymn quoted in Paul’s letter to Philippians. Since the belief doubtlessly predates the letter, it also predates the gentile mission, which even in Paul’s time was secondary to the Jewish mission, and did not overtake it until well after Paul’s death. It is therefore a concept originating among Jews.
The most logical forerunners therefore are Jewish ideas in the books which we know those Jews were reading, not pagan ideas to which they may or may not have been paying attention.
The evidence suggests they were not paying attention. There is no sign of interest in paganism among NT authors. They only quote the OT, in fact they do so constantly. There is one quote in the NT that probably refers to a pagan author, from Paul’s speech in Athens (Acts). There is just no indication they were interested in the pagan world as such.
The theology of the Trinity tries to put the relationships found in the NT into abstract theoretical language. I believe it does so successfully, but I could be wrong.
But if I am wrong I can’t see the argument Violet puts forth, that the NT authors were just too dumb to notice they were making two gods, as having any validity.
What is God? Absolute being without which contingent being could not exist. The difference between an absolute, self-sufficient reality and all other reality is necessarily infinite. That is the difference between what Christians call ‘God’ and any other immaterial being which may or may not populate the cosmos.
The dogma of the Trinity, which is a development of the early Christian conviction that Jesus is divine, suggests that this God carries on an inner dialogue. All intelligent beings have some kind of relationship with themselves, they are self aware. God’s self awareness, his stance in relation to himself, would logically be on a completely different level.
It is this self-awareness that the NT, and Trinitarian theology, try to give a glimpse of.
LikeLike
@Dpmonahan, are you trying to argue, that the Jews around the Roman empire had a culture that was so bottled up, that it was in no ways affected by the overt polytheistic major culture? Even if the early Christians were deliberately seeking only Jewish religious texts for sources to confirm their own religious feelings, they still were culturally affected by other people with whom they lived in the multicultural empire. They had rejected the traditional Jewish theology and were trying to fit into their cultural heritage this new idea about a flesh and blood son of a god. Exept that it was not at all such a new idea in the polytheisitic culture surrounding them everywhere, was it? Why were these Jews turn Christian and other Christians in the first place even able to accept such a claim? Some of them claimed to have wittnessed this and that miracles, or visions – like Paul – but to most the idea of a flesh and blood son of a god was not at all as proposterous, as it was to the conservative Jews (and still is).
It is not a far fetched idea, or an alternative history (we are talking about the structure of a myth here), to notice that such flesh and blood sons of gods were part of the polytheistic main culture under wich influence lived Jews and all those other non-Jewish people who already during the wirting of the Deeds of the Apostoles were joining in to the cult. So, we are already talking about events predating the concept of trinity as it is not mentioned in the Deeds, or anywhere else in the Bible. Is it?
Honestly, do you think it was just an extremely weird coincidence, that the main culture of the polytheistic empire just happened to already have the idea of actual flesh and blood sons of gods, when finally one appeared within the Jewish monotheism? That there was no cultural influence none what so ever involved? What is more likelier?
I could be wrong too, but your god was not being very explicit, nor clear about how this is supposed to be interpreted, even though a lot of excuses have been presented sooner and later for the cock ups in the alledged revelation aka Bible. After it was finished. Or perhaps your god does not exist and it is, as it seems to me and Violet, just human imagination at work. Have you ever considered that option?
LikeLike
It is a question of simplicity: which is the more reasonable source material for a devout Jew’s religious ideas, the OT, which they were reading and constantly quoting in their writings, or pagan stories which they never reference.
Answer: the OT.
objection 1: but early Christians were not all Jews. Answer: in the formative years they were, and all indications are that the NT authors were all Jews as well.
Objection 2: but there was NO cultural influence? Isn’t that absurd? Answer: As far as the NT goes, pagan influence seems to be vanishingly small compared to OT influence. (I can think of one quote, while almost every NT line is an allusion to an OT text.)
3: But isn’t Herakles son of Zeus a parallel to Jesus? Both are sons of God!
Answer: it might parallel in some ways, it is possible to find parallels in completely unconnected religions. But we are talking about influence, where the idea came from. My guess, just reading the texts that the NT ACTUALLY quotes and alludes to, it would be to Jewish wisdom lit and the miraculous births of the OT.
And let’s look at the differences just to be honest: Herakles and other demi-gods did not preexist their birth, they are born from coitus, not “the power of the most high overshadowing you”, their careers consist of running about slaying monsters and getting laid, not “taking the form of a slave” doing their father’s will unto death on a cross.
The search for pagan inspirations for Christianity is an old one going back at least to Harnack, who thought John’s Gospel was a Gnostic text (which is considered laughable today). The reason for this is that we tend to be more familiar with classical culture than the OT, parallels more quickly come to mind. But they are “false cognates’.
LikeLike
@Dpmonahan, do not get too simplistic. You seem to be treating the question as if the source material and new religious concepts had to come from one or the other source. But in the multicultural environment of the Roman empire that is absurd.
1. If all the NT authors and writers and people who influenced the process of writing and forming of the new religion were totally Jewish, why then do we not have an Aramaic or Hebrew NT from their times surviving? The oldest versions are in Greek. This alone tells us that there must have been a mighty influence of the overt Hellenistic culture to the formation of the NT. As well as the fact that I mentioned earlierly, that already in the NT the Apostoles make the descision, to include non-Jewish members to their congregation.
2. Yes, we know that the early Christians percieved themselves as the continuation story to Judaism, and nobody is arguing against that, but that does not rule out cultural influence and as I already said, they hardly were very conservative or fundamentalist Jews. Now were they?
Cultural influence has many forms, one of wich is when people intentionally take loans from, or refer to a specific chosen culture, but then there is also the influence, that is non-intentional. That the cultural influences we are all constantly under affect us, even if we do not really think about it and especially then. This is why big companies pay tonnes of money to make advertisments, that are totally non-informative of their products, exept that the company “brand” is branded on the minds of people, to influece their commercial choises. On the part of the advertizer this is intentional, but from the perspective of the consumer, it is not even meant to be. The Arab Islamist extremist wearing blue jeans certainly does not think he is wearing a symbol of the “American way”, but is he? Skinheads listening to ska-music are not paying a homage to black Caribean culture, are they? The world is full of unintentional cultural influences, both taken and given, that may even mold whole generations and social movements, including newly forming religions for centuries to come.
Imaginary concepts, like a flesh and blood son of a god, that is that much closer to the human being in comparrison to actual gods, are just commodities on the market of ideas, and let’s face it, they were around long before Jesus story emerged, and as far as I know none of them was ever Jewish. Or was there ever one? Some people accept these intuitively, some people are directly indoctrinated to take such ideas at face value and some are not. Pre-existing superstitious, or magical thinking increases the chance for a person to be supseptible for any particular superstitious, or mythical story. People “choose” their religions according to their cultural heritage, wich often determines for them what their intuition is about any given subject, or what they find more plausible. If it was culturally introduced to the culturally Jewish people around Mediterranean, that a god might have actual flesh and blood sons, by the Greco-Roman polytheistic culture, all the more easier for them it was to even accept such a notion, not really inherent to the more traditional, conservative, or fundamentalistic Judaism.
3. Yes, well then show me the OT story from wich the idea of the flesh and blood son of a god came from, or how that is a more of a Jewish than polytheistic idea. Can you?
The fact that the Jesus story is different from the other flesh and blood sons of gods in eastern Mediterranean world says really nothing about wether it had been influenced by them or not, because like it or not, there are also those very obvious similarities with them.
It is just silly to pack all the other sons of gods up as one idea and Jesus being a completely different from them. The fact that Semic cultures have a strangly twisted and taboo idea about sexuality may set the Jesus story apart from some others, but it is not like the other sons of a god stories had not their own specialities each of wich sets them apart from all the others. Osiris and Alexander the Great differ from each other at least as much as stories, as Jesus and Achilleos. Ask yourself, if you are only rousing the content in your favourite story as exeptionally different from among the others, because you subjectively find those issues presented as important in the Jesus myth especially exeptional? What would be the objective view on this? If Christianity had not persecuted the belief into Zeus and Osiris out, there would still be people who would tell you with equal conviction to your own, that the Osiris story, or the Heracles story are so much more profound and meaningfull than the Jesus story. Just like you can actually meet with people who will tell the same about Krishna stories even today. To me, as I have no bias wether this or that superstition has more profound unnatural contence, the Jesus story resembles the Osiris story much more than it resembles the Heracles story, but then the Heracles story resembles more of the Achilleos story. On the other hand the Achilleos story resembles more of the Jesus story than it resembles the Osiris story.
4. Back to the topic. Do you accept the fact that the trinity is nowhere mentioned in the alledged revelation also known as the Bible? If you would finally recognize that, would you then also agree, that the concept of trinity is a later excuse (no matter how much later), or at least an attempt to explain something, that for some reason got left out of the alledged revelation? The main message of this revelation being from the OT, that the there is only one god, and that the NT making a claim, that this one god also had a divine son, whose part of the trinity is not once mentioned in either of these alledgedly revelationary books?
5. What happened to the Ebionites? Were they persecuted for their Christian beliefs into extinction, by other Christians, or were they logically convinced that they were wrong about the issue, just like you could logically convince Mormons, that they are wrong? Does the fact that their sect no longer exists mean, that they were wrong about Jesus? If not, how could we decide wether they were or not? By looking for the trinity from the Bible, perhaps, and if it is not found there, then what? People praying in the NT to the father, son and holy moley, are not exactly like a very good revelation of anything, nor a direct mentioning of the concept of the trinity, more like the trinity is an inference to the prayer customs, but then what in the Bible is a good revelation about anything really?
LikeLike
Foreign influence on the Jews was obvious, considering how many admonishments they received in the OT against worshipping the Caananite gods of their neighbors, and Asherah, considered by many to be the wife of Yahweh/Amurru. And consider that they went into the Babylonian captivity speaking Hebrew, and by the time they were released, a mere 75 years later, they were speaking and writing Aramaic and Hebrew was all but a dead language.
LikeLike
@ Archeopteryx, yes it is a very interresting, though not in any way unique cultural phenomenon, how in the OT alledgedly direct commands from a deity on morality, are so much about cultural segragation from the surrounding influences. For example the morality concerning masturbation inhereted to western culture through Christianity becomes mildly interresting subject, when one considers, that the ancient Egyptians had it at the core of their fertility ritual, especially as the Moses character seems horrified by all things Egyptian. A minor tribal culture trying to survive under the pressure of major cultural influences is undoubtedly the more likelier explanation than the creator entity of the universe choosing favourite nation through wich to manifest. Just like what is more likelier, that the unfalsifiable concept of a creator entity manifests as flesh and blood human son of this deity, than the monotheistic concept of Judaism once more transforming as a cultural phenomenon – that all religions effectively are – under the cultural pressure of the multiculturalism of the Roman empire? The answer seems obvious.
However, at the same time a bit schitzophrenically, the OT also has so many obvious cultural influences from the neighbours. All cultures are more or less, products of influences from others. The alledged revelation could have happened in a bottled up culture with no outside influece, if the creator god of the entire universe had manifested on some remote place, like Easter island for example, but then how would we possibly know it did not? Perhaps, there is benefit to not taking superstitious beliefs at face value…
LikeLike
Interestingly, Rautakyy, even the phrase that many Christians love to shout, “Amen,” is borrowed from Egypt. It is one of the three English spellings of the Egyptian god, “Amen/Amon/Amun,” and simply assures the listener that the god (Amen) himself, may judge the truth of a given statement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had this post open in my browser for over a week, waiting until I had the time to respond appropriately – I guess that’s now.
What I’m writing, Vi, is not intended to dispute your contentions, but to possibly add some new insight, of which you might not be aware. I’ve elaborated on this pet theory of mine on my own site, which as most know by now is temporarily non-existent, and on other’s blogs as well, so expect repetition.
The one thing I WILL disagree with is this: “I think it’s safe to say that the historical figure of Moses* invented the Jewish god God.”
There is no historical evidence that Moses ever existed – his “baby-in-a-basket” story was only one of many at the time – the great Akkadian ruler of Mesopotamia, Sargon, whose army he personally led to clear a trade route between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean, then conquered and fortified all of the Levant, nearly all of the way to Egypt – his origin story doubtless spread whereever he went, and could easily have been tacked onto the story of Moses. Further, the concept of Moses, as the lawgiver, was taken from another great Mesopotamian ruler – this time, an Amurrite ruler, whose people conquered and wrested Mesopotamia from the Akkadians – Hammurabi. But then, following your asterisk, I can see that you left room for doubt as to Moses’ historicity as well, so we’re not that far apart.
Much of the early Bible, particularly the stories of Genesis, were derived from Mesopotamian legends. Mesopotamia, often called the cradle of civilization (largely consisting of Iraq), was first settled by the Sumerians, a short, relatively hairless people (much like Native Americans and Orientals today), and thrived as a theocracy there for four thousand years. During the last part of their occupation, they allowed certain nomadic tribes, most especially the Akkadians, to drift into the less-inhabited northern part of Mesopotamia and put down roots, exchanging their nomadic existence for an agrarian society.
In time, however, two things happened – 1) the Akkadians grew in numbers and cohesion, and, 2) the Sumerian society, which had originated as a communistic, collective society in which all worked and contributed, became corrupted, allowing the wealthy to buy their way out of working, thus weakening the unity of the society as a whole. It was then that the Akkadians slowly – city-state by city-state – took over Mesopotamia, until finally, the Sumerian language was used only for religious ceremonies.
The Akkadians ruled Mesopotamia for over five hundred years, during which time, as mentioned, their greatest leader, Sargon, opened trade routes to the Mediterranean and fortified these to protect caravans from robbers. But during this time, another Semite tribe of nomads, the Amurrites – so called because they worshipped the god, Amurru – began settling in Northern Mesopotamia, just as the Akkadians had done centuries earlier, and before long, history had repeated itself and the Amurrites conquered all of Mesopotamia.
When the Amurrites first migrated into the Mesopotamian valley, they established their capitol at Aleppo, Syria, near the Syrian-Turkish border with Iraq. It would have been during the Amurrite occupation that Abraham, if he ever existed, lived. Genesis tells us that Abe came from “Ur of the Chaaldees,” which tells us that at least that part of Genesis wasn’t written until about 700 BCE, because prior to that time, the Chaldeans had not occupied a part of Mesopotamia. However, the word, “Ur” is Sumerian, and simply means “City,” and while there WAS a large city near the lower end of Mesopotamia, named Ur, there is a small hamlet near the Syrian-Turkish border, the name of which is “Ur-fa.” Ur-fa is located only twenty miles from another small town, “Haran,” and Genesis tells us that Abe left “Ur” and moved his entire family to Haran. How much more logical that he moved his people twenty miles, from Ur-fa, than that he made the 700-mile trip from “Ur”? To lend further credibility to the latter likelihood, each year, the residents of Ur-fa, to this day, celebrate their little town as “the birthplace of Abraham.” As a final consideration, nowhere in Genesis is Abe’s nephew, Laban, mentioned without the addition of the phrase, “the Syrian.” If my brother’s son were Syrian, what would that make me?
All of this is a preface to the explanation that Abraham (if he ever existed) was quite likely Amurrite, and as such, would have worshipped the god of the Amurrites, “Amurru.” Interestingly, Amurru had another name, he was known as “El Shaddai.”
Fast forward a thousand years to Exodus 6:3 (KJV), “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name, JEHOVA was I not known to them.”
As you doubtless know, the various translations of the Bible passed through a lot of hands on its way to becoming the King James Version, and a lot more has been “cleaned up” by helping hands along the way than we will ever know, but what we DO know, is that in the original Hebrew, the passage read, “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai, but by my name, YHWH was I not known to them.” – clearly, the authors of the KJV replaced “El Shaddai” with “God Almighty,” in an effort to replace the “pagan” influence from the passage.
Often, in biblical times, an entire people went by the name of a current or past leader, just as today, the Israeli people still call themselves after Jacob/Israel. Abraham could have existed and left no evidence of his existence, as could have Moses, or there could have been a leader at one past time or another, and an entire tribe of people named after him, long after he was gone.
Exodus tells us that Moses fled Egypt, encountered a tribe of Midianites and remained with them, marrying the daughter of their High Priest, Jethro (other chapters give him yet three other names). The Midianites worshipped an obscure desert god mentioned once in an Egyptian communication, who went by the name of YHWH.
It is my contention that a tribe of Amurru-worshipping Semitic nomads joined for a time – fifty years, a hundred, who knows? – with a group of other Semitic nomads, the Midianites, worshipping YHWH, and blended the two belief systems before moving on into the Levant.
It’s just a theory, but a plausible one, IMO.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh my, there are lots of facts and big words in there. Don’t you think my story has a nicer, more readable, and comfortably less intellectual ring to it? I hope DP pops down to discuss it with you. 🙂
LikeLike
“I hope DP pops down to discuss it with you.” – He’s probably out shooting some defenseless animal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Next time I tell it, I’ll try to dumb it down a little.
LikeLike
Or you could be smoking crack and dpmonahan is right on the money.
Phew! This is tough call, believe me.
LikeLiked by 1 person