This is a long post, so be forewarned...
1) I should point out right now that what fundamentalists (i.e., "born again Christians") do and do not believe is of little consequence to this discussion. Self-confirming biases based on circular reasoning (i.e., "the Bible proclaims itself to be the inerrant Word of God and, therefore, it can never be wrong about anything" or "our tradition states Rome was not a focal point in Christian history and, therefore, it is not") is not an adequate logical defense to the issues we are bringing up. The lack of willingness on the part of some sectors of the population to honestly and critically approach these moral, historical, and theological issues is not of concern to me.
2) My account of Paul's epistemology is not, strictly speaking, 'extra-Biblical'. He explicitly distinguishes between different levels --- 'sarkic', 'psychic', and 'pneumatic' --- of Christian in his non-Pastoral letters:
"The psychic does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are pneumatically discerned, but the pneumatic discerns all things." (1 Corinthians 2:14-15)
"And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as pneumatics, but as to sarkics --- as to those uninitiated in Christ. I fed you milk, not meat, for you were not yet ready for it. Nor are you now. You are still sarkic. For where there is strife and envy among you, are you not sarkic? Are you not acting like mere men?" (1 Corinthians 3:1-3)
"Therefore let us leave behind the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to another level of initiation (ten teleioteta), not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so.
For it is impossible for those who have been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of God's Word (Logos) and the powers of the coming age, to have fallen back to renew repentance again. They re-crucify for themselves the Son of God." (Hebrews 6:1-6)
... On a side note, does anyone else find it interesting that Paul refers to 'repentance', 'faith in God', 'instruction about baptisms', 'laying on of hands', 'resurrection of the dead, and 'eternal judgment' as 'elementary teachings' that are to be left behind?? And, furthermore, that those that do so he describes as 'enlightened'??
2) According to T. Freke and P. Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries, "All Paul's terms for mature or perfect Christians are variations on the Greek telete --- 'initiation'. 'Mature' is teleion, 'to the level of maturity' is ten teleioteta, 'the perfect man' is andra teleoin, 'the imperfect man' is ateles."
3) Regardless of what was or was not expounded in Hellenistic Judaism, it should be remembered that the terminology Paul uses in Point 1 is explicitly Platonic and Pythagorean in origin. Plato famously expounded on the 'three classes' of mankind in The Republic. Philo (circa 15 CE) adopted this schema for his philosophy, classifying three orders of men --- Earth-born, Heaven-born, and God-born: "But the men of God [...] have risen wholly above the sphere of sense-perception and have been translated into the world of the intelligible and dwell there registered as freemen of the commonwealth of Ideas (ideon politeia) which are imperishable and incorporeal" (On the Giants).
4) Once again, I do not subscribe to the theory that 'might makes right'. Ergo, the fact that the literalist school condemned and murdered their opponents is not, in my opinion, a solid ground for proclaiming who is or is not 'Christian'. This would be like saying that, at the next Republican National Convention, a faction of the Republicans arm themselves and murder everyone that disagrees with them --- and then go on to rewrite history 100 years later saying all those others were simply Republican 'heretics' or merely ‘Repulicanological’. It absolutely screams of self-confirming bias and historical revisionism.
Of course, you could attempt to demonstrate the literalists are the earliest 'Christian' school, but there are no clear-cut literalists before Justin Martyr. That puts him in the same time-frame as Marcion and Valentinus (roughly the middle of the 2nd century), both of which claimed predecessors outside of Rome (i.e., Theudas, a purported disciple of Paul).
Ergo, my position on the issue is quite simple: I refuse to take sides in the sectarian squabbling and dogmatic bickering. I'm not going to say the Catholics or Gnostics aren't 'Christian' any more than I'm going to say the Theravadins aren't 'Buddhist'. I look at it as a historical and cultural phenomenon, with a myriad of expressions and offshoots --- some, admittedly, more noble than others.
5) Regardless of what modern-day fundamentalists may like the believe about their transmitted history (a good deal of which is flat-out lies), Christian literalism (as represented by, say, Justin or Irenaeus) is virtually non-existent outside of Rome prior to the 3rd century. Various 'gnostic' or 'docetic' schools, by contrast, are extremely prevalent throughout the Mediterranean.
According to E. Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the Gnostic sects "covered Asia and Egypt, established themselves in Rome, and sometimes penetrated into the provinces of the West". In addition, "For the most part they [the Gnostics] arose in the second century, flourished during the third, and were suppressed in the fourth or fifth centuries by the prevalence of more fashionable controversies". R. Doran in The Birth of a Worldview, states we must understand "how flexible the appellation Christian was in Rome in the second century".
In Jesus and the Lost Goddess, T. Freke and P. Gandy put it like this: "Christian Literalism was initially a minor school of Christianity which developed in Rome towards the end of the second century. By this time Christian Gnosticism was an international movement which had spread throughout much of the Mediterranean, flourishing in cosmopolitan cities such as Alexandria, Edessa, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome".
They continue:
"In Egypt the first Christians we hear of are the Gnostics Valentinus, Basilides, Apelles, Carpocrates and his son Epiphanes. There is no sign of any form of Christianity which resembles Roman Catholicism in Egypt until Bishop Demetrius at the end of the third century. In Antioch the Gnostics Saturninus, Cerdo and Menander had established schools at the beginning of the second century. The Literalist Justin Martyr regrets that in Edessa, eastern Syria, to be a Christian means to be a follower of Marcion. The Chronicle of Edessa notes the birth of Marcion, Bardesanes and Mani before it mentions Roman Christianity. Even Rome itself was full of different schools of Christian Gnosticism, such as the Marcellites, Marcionites, Archonites, Valentinians, Sethians, Barbeloites, Montanists, and Ophites.
Literalists complained that in Persia all Christians were members of the Marcionite school of Christian Gnosticism. Tertullian [circa 200 CE] bemoaned the fact that Marcion's followers filled 'the whole universe'. At the beginning of the third century the Christian Gnostic sage Bardesanes initiated into his school a Syrian ruler who made Christian Gnosticism the official state cult. The forged Second Letter To Timothy has its phony Literalist Paul complain, 'All Asia has turned against me', which tells us that in the late second century 'all Asia' was dominated by Gnostic Christianity. The Epistle Of Polycarp laments that 'the great majority' of Christians embrace the idea of Jesus not existing in the flesh."
Occam's Razor tell us the simplest explanation is usually strongest one. So, which is more parsimonious here: that the original, true 'Christianity' was so distorted and modified on such a wide scale less than a generation after the deaths of its supposed founders --- or, that various forms of 'Christianity' existed almost from the beginning??
6) The origins of the term christiani are a bit more interesting than presupposed:
"We are told in the Book of Acts that the name of the Christiani was first given at Antioch; but so late as the year 200 A.D. no canonical New Testament was known at Antioch, the alleged birth-place of the Christian name. There was no special reason why 'the disciples' should have been named as Christians at Antioch, except that this was a great centre of the Gnostic Christians, who were previously identified with the teachings and works of the mage Simon of Samaria." (Gerald Massey, The Historical Jesus and the Mythic Christ)
7) Regardless of what modern-day Christian literalists may or may not wish to believe, whenever the 'Old Testament' is quoted by Jesus in the Gospels or Paul in his Letters, it is always the Greek Septuagint.
8) I find it interesting that when one is dealing with historically-verifiable 'facts' and empirical truths, one is being "pretty tight minded". But, when one subscribes to the circular ideology of a fundamentalist faction which itself rests almost exclusively on Appeals To Authority, then one apparently sees "the truth".
Sorry, but I ain't buyin' it.
9) As for Paul's position concerning a non-physical and non-historical 'resurrection', I think he makes his thoughts pretty clear:
"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable". (1 Corinthians 15:50)
"This is it: the duly appointed time! This is it: the day of salvation." (2 Corinthians 6:2)
"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions --- it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 2:4-7)
"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin --- because anyone who has died has been freed from sin." (Romans 6:3-7)
"I have become [the church's] servant by the commission God gave me to present to you God's Word (Logos) in its fullness --- the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Colossians 1:25-27)
"But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." (Romans 8:10-11)
"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead." (Philippians 3:10-11)
"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." (Galatians 2:20)
Interesting, no??
Mythologist Joseph Campbell interpreted such language this way: "It lies in the nature of the mystery cult that the mystae undergo the same experience as their god, that, as St. Paul says, they die with him, are buried with him, are reborn with him, and are resurrected with him" (Occidental Mythology).
10) As for the claim that there are no ‘internal contradictions’ in the Bible, in addition to the discrepancies Steve has already brought up, I always quite liked the glaring inconsistency of the ‘authentic’ Paul of Galatians compared to the ‘forged’ Paul of the Pastorals:
“Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them.” (Titus 2:9)
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing --- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”(1 Timothy 2:11-15)
Slaves and women are screwed, I guess, unless you read:
“You are all sons of God though your faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:26-29)
So, then, which is it?? Are we all ‘one in Christ’?? Or, are there special rules that women and slaves in Christian communities are supposed to submit to??
11) As for the whole ‘Logos’ thing, I’m gonna have to go with the scholar Max Muller on this one:
“Whoever uses such words as Logos, the Word, Monogones, the Only-Begotten, Protokos, the First-Born, Hyiostou theou, the Son of God, has borrowed the very germs of his religious thought from Greek philosophy.”
Besides, in all honesty, its pretty naive to think previous philosophical formulations didn’t have a profound influence on the author of the Gospel of John. Heraclitus (6th century BCE) wrote that, “Having hearkened not unto me, but unto the Logos, it is wise to confess that all things are One” (C. H. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus). Vitruvius (circa 25 BCE) wrote, “Let no one think I have erred if I believe in the Logos” (De Architectura). The Church father Clement of Alexandria commented that, “It may be freely granted that the Greeks received some glimmers of the divine Logos”. Clement supports this assertion by quoting the legendary Orpheus: “Behold the Logos divine. Tread well the narrow path of life and gaze on Him, the world’s great ruler, our immortal king”. Of course, the basic idea of the Logos is quite old, preceding Greek philosophy by centuries. In the Egyptian Pyramid Texts of Saqqara, the world is created by and through words. This is associated with the ancient Egyptian god Ptah, who is portrayed as creating existence through speaking (much like Elohim in Genesis).
The association of the Logos as the Son of God is very well-established in Hellenistic literature. Book 1.5 of The Hermetica states: “My calming Word is the Son of God.” Later, Book 1.6 continues: “The light-giving Word who comes from Mind is the Son of God.” Heraclitus, again, wrote that: “Father and the Son are the same.” The early Christian Hippolytus (circa 210 CE) said of Heraclitus, “Everyone knows he said that the Father and the Son are the same”, supposedly as a prefigurement to later Christian doctrine. Clement of Alexandria admitted that Euripides (5th century BCE) had, “divined as in a riddle that the Father and Son are one God”. Plutarch (circa 100 CE), in Isis and Osiris, wrote that Osiris is “the Logos itself, transcendent and impassible”.
Even the great literalist, Augustine of Hippo, wrote of pagan philosophy:
“I read there that God the Word was born not of flesh and blood, nor of the will of man, nor the will of the flesh, but of God” (Confessions).
And this isn’t even getting into Philo Judaeus (circa 15 CE), the Pythagorean Jew that probably had the most influence on the author of John’s Gospel. According to W. R. Inge’s Christian Mysticism, Philo describes the Logos as “the only and beloved Son of God” and himself writes: “And many names belong to the Logos, for he is called the Name of God, and the Man after his image”.
So, in summation, the view that the Johannine Logos is somehow separate from or magically independent of Hellenistic religious philosophy is nothing short of complete hogwash --- in all likelihood, another manifestation of the self-confirming Appeal To Authority that so much of orthodox Christian ‘history’ rests on. As such, an ignorance of such a historical, cultural, and philosophical context while reading and examining the Gospel of John lead to distortions and misperceptions of meaning.
12) An appeal to Trinitarian doctrine is cute when speaking about the Logos but, seriously, letÂ’s get real here. The first glimmer of anything even resembling the Trinity is the Gnostic leader Valentinus around 160 CE. The actual formulation of the Trinity doctrine as we have it now was a product of the Council of Niceaea in 330 CE. Most scholars date the Gospel of John to sometime between 100 to 120 CE. So, while its amusing to retroactively project later dogma into literature that in no way had it in mind, it reeks of historical revisionism and self-confirming bias. Again.
Yeah, I think that about settles things. Laterz. :asian:
