PaulS

100%.

Most Christians of one kind or another would probably like to believe they are practicing Christianity just how Jesus intended. Some might even be convinced that their beliefs are the only possibly correct understanding of Jesus. Now, I'm not sure a gap of some 2000 years actually helps the situation, but to add to the difficulty in understanding exactly what Jesus and early Christianity meant to followers, it seems that even early followers disagreed on major points about Jesus and his purpose. Here's an introductory chapter from legendary biblical scholar Bart Ehrman's book - 'Lost Christianities' which shines a light on just how diverse early Christianity actually was until one particular version eventually morphed into THE version. Personally, I think this book should be required reading so that we all might appreciate just how little we actually know about 'original' Christianity. Chapter One Recouping Our Losses It may be difficult to imagine a religious phenomenon more diverse than modern-day Christianity. There are Roman Catholic missionaries in developing countries, who devote themselves to voluntary poverty for the sake of others, and evangelical televangelists with twelve-step programs to assure financial success and prosperity. There are New England Presbyterians and Appalachian snake handlers. There are Greek orthodox priests committed to the liturgical service of God, replete with set prayers, incantations, and incense, and fundamentalist preachers who view high-church liturgy as a demonic invention. There are liberal Methodist political activists intent on transforming society, and Pentecostals who think that society will soon come to a crashing halt with the return of Jesus. And there are the followers of David Koresh — still today — who think the world has already started to end, beginning with the events at Waco, a fulfillment of prophecies from the book of Revelation. Many of these Christian groups, of course, refuse to consider other such groups Christian. All this diversity of belief and practice, and the intolerance that occasionally results, makes it difficult to know whether we should think of Christianity as one thing or lots of things, whether we should speak of Christianity or Christianities. What could be more diverse than this variegated phenomenon, Christianity in the modern world? In fact, there may be an answer: Christianity in the ancient world. As historians have come to realize, during the first three Christian centuries, the divergent practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian were so vast and fundamental that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh Day Adventists pale by comparison. Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today, since they eventually came to be reformed or stamped out. As a result, the sacred texts that some ancient Christians used to support their religious perspectives came to be proscribed, destroyed, or forgotten – in one way or another lost. Many of these texts claimed to be written by Jesus’ closest followers. Opponents of these texts claimed they had been forged. This book is about these texts, and about the lost forms of Christianity they tried to authorize. The Varieties of Ancient Christianity The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365. In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created by a subordinate, ignorant divinity (why else would the world be filled with such misery and hardship?). Yet other Christians thought it was worse than that, that this world was a cosmic mistake created by a malevolent divinity as a place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering. In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that the Jewish Scripture (the Christian “Old Testament”) was inspired by the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews who was not the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed it was not inspired. In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. But there were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine, and not human at all. (For them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son, but not himself divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles, but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath. In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus’ death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians who thought that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with the salvation of the world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died. How could some of these views even be considered Christian? Or to put the question differently: how could people who considered themselves Christian hold such views? Why did they not consult their Scriptures to see that there were not 365 gods, or that the true God had created the world, or that Jesus had died? Why didn’t they just read the New Testament? It is because there was no New Testament. To be sure, the books that were eventually collected into the New Testament had been written by the second century. But they had not yet been gathered into a widely recognized and authoritative “canon” of Scripture.[1] And there were other books written as well, with equally impressive pedigrees — other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses claiming to be written by the earthly apostles of Jesus.

That's how I used to introduce our two boys sometimes - "Hi, this is Chaos & Mayhem!"

And I'd go further to say that the earliest Christian context is likely nothing like what Christianity has morphed into in the early centuries following the death of Jesus. I doubt the earliest of Christians actually believed that Jesus' death was a sacrificial atonement in which one needed to 'believe in' to make it to Heaven. Being exposed to scholarship and understandings that threaten long-held beliefs and faith can be very uncomfortable for people who are so convinced with what they presently believe. They very much are, Nolose. That's why I am keen to keep it alive. It can be very quiet here at times but according to our stats there are lots of eyes watching here and accessing a range of material in the various threads and forums. I hope that helps people. I think it's even better when people generate discussion and share their thoughts. Thankyou for doing so.

My wife gave me this hip flask for my birthday a couple of years ago!

I would gladly, Rom. Maybe one day when this world opens up again! Frankly though, just now my focus is finishing my 3-weeks out here, as we are a completely dry vessel! I suppose my forced temperance could be viewed as a health benefit - probably more physical than mental though!

Suicide is such a tragedy I think, mainly for those left behind. Unanswered questions, thoughts if more could have been done, blame and responsibility, etc. In my previous career as a police officer (some 20+ years ago now) I attended numerous suicides and numerous attendances to notify family and loved ones. Always the same question from them - "Why?". I have a much better understanding of 'why' these days, after having been in such a dark place myself at one point, but fortunately I didn't reach critical mass. I try to encourage anybody getting close to suicide - just keep breathing - you will come through it (whatever 'it' is) eventually.

I do think the world would be a much better place if many weren't so fixated on their beliefs being THE beliefs that everybody else should have. Whilst my hands are free I have grabbed onto bits and pieces from time to time that help me through life. I reckon there's maybe a bit from all sorts of religion, philosophies and science that we can all find a benefit from. But what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander and so we should be relaxed about others not being as passionate about our beliefs as we are. Each to their own I say, just as long as there is no harm done.

I do find news so depressing, but often I find myself unable to 'look away'. Sometimes I avoid it for days at a time, at other times - perhaps if there is a particular relevant item of interest - I'll watch or read as much as I can. Sometimes it makes me anxious, other times perhaps sad, rarely does it make me happy. I wonder if I am one who has both hands free in some ways, as I carry neither a bible nor Buddhism nor any other particular guide in either hand. I'm not recommending that course - it's just where I find myself. I don't really have any particular faith or belief other than we are here, now, and soon we won't be. I try to enjoy now, but I do find it quite hard work with what I feel is lots of responsibility and a ticking clock.

Sorted.

Okay, but divvy up we must if we want to get to the truth - even if the division is simply true or not true. But that in itself is what I am saying is subject to subjectivity, so how can there always be a singular 'truth'? Agreed that there may be truth or a truth in some circumstances that are beyond dispute, even if we don't know it at the time, and I don't have an issue with saying it is true that the earth rotates around the sun, but what is THE truth concerning if Hitler had died as a young boy. Those sorts of concepts don't seem to have a singular truth to me but are in the eye of the beholder (and the 'truth' may differ from person to person).

I'm enjoying the 'waffle'.

Yes, this is what I have been trying to express. There are 'hard' truths - e.g. facts that can be demonstrated to support or reject the truth. Then there are 'soft' truths, viewed through the lens of opinion and emotion. So whether something is viewed as good or bad, is an opinion. Is there a singular truth concerning this 'something' - I don't think there necessarily is. So it is in that sense that I was disagreeing with you about there always being 'a' truth. If you were only referring to something that can be empirically proven or not, then I would agree that in those cases there will be a singular truth, even if we can't establish it presently.

Blooks sound like a fabulous idea, Tariki. We've done a similar thing with photos. It's easy enough to upload a bunch of photos and text which are then formatted into a printed book that gets sent to you. We've done a few for family holidays, events, and for significant birthdays where we've captured a lot of historical photos and stories. They're great to have on the coffee table and I find I look through them more often than I ever refer to photos I have saved on the computer or in a box somewhere - yes, I'm old enough to have actual photos developed from rolls of film!

Sleepy in any rebuttal maybe but be assured that others are reading. There are literally dozens and dozens of purveyors of this site on a daily basis - many just choosing to read and not comment. Each to their own. But if you would like others to engage, please be encouraged to throw a question out there or suggest a response. Prince was an amazing performer and artiste! I do wonder where that guitar went after he chucked it!

I think 'maybe' is probably closer than giving up, or maybe not really trying in the first place? In this Mercedes/Adolf scenario I see the truth as being multiple, not singular (as in the eye of the beholder). I'm sure Adolf's Mum wasn't pleased about him getting run over (bad) whereas others perhaps think it was 'good' for other reasons. I don't think there necessarily always is a singular truth when it comes to emotion, feelings and concepts, as opposed to outright scientific facts like water is made up of H2O atoms.

Welcome back, Tariki. Chat away! It seems to me that dream interpretation is almost as wide and varied as interpretation of millennia-old religious texts, so I don't think I'd even really bother trying! But like Rom, I think there are underlying causes to dreams and our brain is perhaps recalling or trying to put together something, whilst simultaneously being chaotic. I remember when I was going through a period of anxiety and depression years ago, I kept dreaming about being attacked by a vicious black dog, sometimes to the extent that I dreamt it was trying to drag me by the throat out of my bed and I'd wake up finding myself half hanging out of my bed! I'm sure the underlying cause was stress and worry, but that's about where I stopped with the interpretation. Anyway, again, welcome back. Cheers Paul

So will committing adultery for instance help achieve community objectives or be detrimental? If it achieve objectives, I think calling it good is understandable, whereas being detrimental would be considered 'bad'. I mean usually there is logic (reasonable or faulty) behind calling something good or bad - it either adds to the community or it takes away from. Absolutely, but at the end of the day, usually the community (perhaps as a majority) are deciding on what they consider good for their community and what they consider bad for their community. Which of that is truth seems to lie in the eye of the beholder, rather than it being the only truth.

I can't see how a community can avoid judging, if indeed that community wants to survive or even thrive. If something harms the community, let's say drug or alcohol abuse, then the community would probably judge those actions as 'bad' or harmful to the community, and may try to minimize or eliminate them. I doubt a community just saying 'maybe' to a problem would be beneficial to that community.

Yeah, I can accept that - the difficulty is in accurately defining any said 'truth'. It may seem accurate to us, but then it is not accurate to another. Rather, perhaps there is a truth amongst that lot somewhere, but likely all sides haven't precisely captured it. I believe truth does exist, just that not everything we understand as truth should be called truth just because we think it is truth. I guess it can be said to exist - it just can't be accurately defined most of the time. I guess good and bad can be assessed as valuable or not depending on what it delivers to the community. If a community wishes to survive or even thrive, then that community must judge good versus bad in order to manage it's existence.

Which is where I question if there can always be a single truth. To me, it would seem not. What is truth for one, is simply not truth for another, very often. So whilst some things maybe we can say are 'true', in general I think maybe there is no 'truth' per se - there's just what we feel is the truth.

It's almost as though people are recognizing the limitations on mindsets within a narrowly defined culture from 2000 years ago! Imagine that! I think 'some' truth exists - at least in how we define it. Most of us for instance accept the truth that the earth revolves around the sun. That's a pretty straightforward truth. Where 'truth' gets icky, in my opinion, is where it is more conceptual. For instance, the 'truth' that something is good or something is bad. That's what I was taking from Campbell - we may seem a certain truth as 'good' for us, but simultaneously that truth of good for us is considered 'bad' by another. So there would appear to be no 'single' truth, rather the truth is so much more broader and all encompassing. Maybe that's what you mean by 'accurate description'?

I read once that Marcus Borg was attributed as saying that Spong was good at pulling things apart and breaking down/dismissing the old understandings, but not so good at putting them back together (or something to that affect). I think it sums Spong up nicely for me - I'm grateful for his education and insight about how Christianity in general has gotten so much wrong about Jesus and God, but what he tries to 'replace' it with doesn't necessarily work for me. I'm not sure there are 'truths' to always be distinguished. Like Campbell alludes to, nothing we do is 100% good. Our 'truth' is probably never going to align with 100% of other people, so it can't be a 'truth' other than for the individual (and maybe a certain number of others).

Yep - with you there. Yep - agree also. No, I don't have a need either. Spong does - but I do wonder if that's because he just doesn't want to fully let go of the concept of God that he was so accustomed to throughout the bulk of his life. Could there actually be a ground of being though - maybe, and I'm agnostic on that. I think insight can be valuable from the point of view in helping us exist in a way that we find 'better' than perhaps other ways without such insight. But whether such insight is a 'truth' or not, can be much more difficult to distinguish. I kinda like "you do what's good for you, I'll do what's good for me, and if neither of us are hurting anybody else (physically or mentally), I'm not sure anybody else should care".

I'm guessing that for Spong, as he considers 'it' the Ground of Being, to me he seems to indicate that he thinks it actually does (or has done) something. For me - who knows. I like that. But Spong might ask 'what' causes this affinity, 'where' does it come from, 'why' this affinity and not another? I'm sure there could be very scientific explanations which we are yet to fully grasp, but then again, I leave room for Spong's 'Ground of Being'. And, I have no issue with writing such fiction if it is what works for the individual. For me where it goes pear-shaped is when individuals start claiming authority or right-ness.