EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus

[Sammy G]

Who knows what specific meaning all those differing early sects had about christianity - lots seemingly had secret rituals and practices that we can only guess at. I still think a core bunch of principles remains even after centuries of editing (and even if they're totally different to what many/all actual early christians thought/did) - i suspect the compassion stuff was there in some form from the start, because it was there before jesus with pharisee rabbi hillel (not to forget buddhist/hindu ideas which must have trickled into alexandria by then).

I like the gnostic gospel of phillip: there's loads in there which is about 'sacred marriage', but in context seems to be about sex magic of some sort (maybe more homophobia, but as crowley would tell you bumming works just as well). Plus the famous quote about mary magdalene with the missing word: 'jesus used to kiss her often on her ___' (ooer) (doorstep? balcony? holidays?).

The gnostic stuff generally seems to have its own secret interpretation of christianity (demiurge, matter=evil/spirit=good jehova=baddie/serpent=good etc) - reading between the lines, it seems to be a mish mash of neoplatonism and hindu/buddhist ideas

I'm quite aware of the Christian Mystery Tradition, and find it a fascinating subject.

Surely, though, the fact that both of the Epistles from which I quoted pre-date the earliest extant fragment of the Gospel of Philip by well over a century gives pause for thought?

Did Paul (and those writing in his name) really pervert some hypothetical Gnostic cult to his own ends, or did the Gnostics hitch their ideas to the Christian wagon, for survival's sake if nothing else?

 

[Raasyvibe]

1 Timothy 2:12

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Timothy 2:11

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection

Titus 2:5

To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed

Paul of Tarsus? You decide.

Seems that the doctrine of pure compassion, tolerance and personal liberation which you're proposing is at the heart of Christianity (and I'm not contesting that point) wasn't all that obvious even to its earliest adherents, and that control and subjugation had nailed their colours to the mask before the shroud was even dry.

^ It get's even worse than that

Timothy 2:14

For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Paul actually insinuates that the story of Adam and Eve, suggests woman are more wicked than men.



Well, I'm well and truly beaten with this one. HOWEVER, NightsEpiphany isn't, and she'll answer this one fully in my place.


So come on, woman. I'll let you break your silence this once if you can shut these atheist scum-bags up.

 

[Sammy G]

suggests woman are more wicked than men.

He did have a point.

And less of the 'atheist', please.

 

[Vurtual]

I'm quite aware of the Christian Mystery Tradition, and find it a fascinating subject.

Surely, though, the fact that both of the Epistles from which I quoted pre-date the earliest extant fragment of the Gospel of Philip by well over a century gives pause for thought?

Did Paul (and those writing in his name) really pervert some hypothetical Gnostic cult to his own ends, or did the Gnostics hitch their ideas to the Christian wagon, for survival's sake if nothing else?

I wasn't saying anything about it being the truer christianity, just giving a bit of seemingly non-mysogynist stuff as balance. Paul also transmitted lots of the more compassionate stuff from jesus too as far as i know alongside that mysogynist stuff. Some people think paul was an interloper who was sent to beat up the early christians in 'damascus' (the dead sea scrolls community) and then adopted/adapted their religion for his own ends at a later date (some think that the dead sea scrolls refer to paul as 'the liar').

I don't think it's possible to find the truest christianity with certainty (for all we know it was the gnostic stuff, but they were later in commiting it to text due to its esoteric nature); but even with all those different types, they mostly agree on some central things about what jesus says (eg the beatitudes) - they then have to make varying efforts to fit that stuff with the extra detail or particular predilections of their particular sect.

Edit: As for the sins of eve, just go for the gnostic version of eden instead:

...the demiurge is responsible for the placement of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The demiurge has created the fleshly bodies to entrap the spirits of Adam and Eve. Adam is placed under a spell of ignorance and put to sleep by the false god. Eve is placed next to him, and she commands Adam to awaken. When Adam sees Eve, he believes that she is his creator.

The demiurge wanted to keep Adam and Eve ignorant; forever worshipping him. The Gnostics believe that the demiurge was posing as the false god, thus keeping Adam and Eve under his spell of ignorance. As long as Adam and Eve believed that he was the only god, they would worship him forever.

The serpent is regarded as an evil figure in traditional Christian stories, but to the Gnostics, the serpent is the hero! The Gnostic text teaches that as the demiurge tells Adam and Eve that they may help themselves to anything the Garden, they are to stay away from the Tree of Knowledge. As Adam and Eve listen to the serpent, their eyes are opened, and the spell of ignorance is broken forever. Because they chose to listen to the serpent, Adam and Eve no longer worship the demiurge, but recognize that there is the True God, and he was not the creator of the evil, imperfect, material world.

 

[Sammy G]

I Some people think paul was an interloper who was sent to beat up the early christians in 'damascus' (the dead sea scrolls community) and then adopted/adapted their religion for his own ends at a later date (some think that the dead sea scrolls refer to paul as 'the liar').

Indeed - but read my post again. How is it possible to make a serious case for this theory when all scriptural and historical evidence would seem to imply that the Pauline doctrine (at least as a written tradition) pre-dates the various skeins of Gnostic thought?

The Dead Sea Scrolls were not written by Christians, so would it not be fairly obvious that the authors (be they Essenes, Zadokites or whatever) had some antipathy against Paul?

It's a lovely myth, but a flimsy one.

 

[ColtDan]

Anyone up for fucking all this old nonsense off and starting our own religion

 

[Sammy G]

 

[ColtDan]

i'll take that as a yes

 

[Vurtual]

Just do like i do and worship at the altar of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs (or a pope of discordia failing that)

 

[Sammy G]

Can't go wrong with Bob Dobbs. Subgenius.

 

[Vurtual]

Indeed - but read my post again. How is it possible to make a serious case for this theory when all scriptural and historical evidence would seem to imply that the Pauline doctrine (at least as a written tradition) pre-dates the various skeins of Gnostic thought?

The Dead Sea Scrolls were not written by Christians, so would it not be fairly obvious that the authors (be they Essenes, Zadokites or whatever) had some antipathy against Paul?

It's a lovely myth, but a flimsy one.

All of the textual evidence comes several decades after jesus though, so it's anyone's guess which is most authentic, if any (and as i said, the gnostics may be less inclined to write down their secrets). The earliest texts do suggest primacy though. Maybe the earliest christians were the same/similar as the dead sea scrolls people, and christianity only came to the form we recognise with greek influence/reinterpretation - some scholars think so.

(and yes, all hail Living Slack Master Bob)

Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhiABi6vw3A - the bible's buried secrets by Francesca Stavrokopoulou - this is interesting and semi-offtopic (but really i just wanted to watch her in action again (she can analyse my bible any time )

 

[Sammy G]

All of the textual comes several decades after jesus though, so it's anyone's guess which is most authentic, if any (and as i said, the gnostics may be less inclined to write down their secrets). The earliest texts do suggest primacy though. Maybe the earliest christians were the same/similar as the dead sea scrolls people, and christianity only came to the form we recognise with greek influence/reinterpretation - some scholars think so.

Other scholars would argue that the many Gnostic Christian traditions were the result of Greek influence and reinterpretation. Nag Hammadi would seem to bear witness to that theory.

 

[Vurtual]

That's likely - nonetheless, christianity as a whole wouldn't be what we know it as without greek and then roman influence, whether via gnostics or not. Anyway, i'm watching francesca now...

 

[Sammy G]

So would I be, were it not for the fact I'm in work...

Aye, she'd be welcome to cast an eye over my codices and attempt to harmonise my corpus too.

 

[Raasyvibe]

Pretty much all the critique towards Christianity on this thread is easy to answer. Most of it is typical misconceptions about the old testament, which can be handled with a few swift quotes from the NT.

Paul and his mysogyny however is not so easy, and very applicable as the issue of woman bishops is on the news at the moment.

I look forward to getting my teeth into it, but just moved house! No net connection. Im not answering all this on my mobile phone. Do it for me NE. Tell em how Christians are in no way misogynistic. Im sure u'll answer it well, for a woman anyway.

 

[Shambles]

The Pope.

Unless a person of Christian persuasian happens to be a follower of one of the 30000+ alternative Christian denominations, of course... Not all Christian folk find the pronouncements of paedophiles (and habitual protectors and hiders from prosecution (whilst consistently blaming and defaming the victims) thereof) to be entirely a good fit for their religious and moral belief systems. Thankfully.

 

[Sammy G]

Now, now.

I can understand the anger and frustration at the Roman Catholic establishment for its many misdeeds, but to gloss over the similar atrocities committed by those of other denominations is just a little unbalanced, don't you think? Does the current Pope automatically bear the sins of his predecessors, regardless of the very real signs of reform?

Besides, it's pretty clear from the following paragraph that LosBlancos is not actually a Catholic, and was being sarcastic.

 

[Shambles]

The Vicar of Christ is infallible. Cos he sez so. Therefore all previous Popes were also infallible. Several of the them condoned paedophilia (amongst other atrocities) for generations. Therefore condoning paedophilia is sanctioned by the infallible Vicar of Christ. All of them. By definition.

(they also did lots of other very, very wrong shit... as do and did all other religions... and indeed all peoples when similarly taken as a mass (as it were)... which says a lot more about the infallibility of being subhuman as a species than it does about transcendental Truth)

EDIT: LosBlancos may or may not be Catholic but he is MSB so it's kinda open season

 

[Sammy G]

The Doctrine of Infallibility is a relatively recent introduction, so technically you absolve several Pontiffs, ironically some of whom may have been the nonciest.

But yeah, open season. :D

 

[Vurtual]

What about that Pope John XXIII? Vatican II and all that? not to stand up for popery (pot pouri?) generally, but the history of the second half of the 20th century might have been very different if the vatican hadn't had the backlash against vatican II (lead by ratzinger under john paul II i believe), and became more Liberation Theologist like lots of latin americans did - catholicism as a whole may have ended up very different if that process had run its course (antipathy to liberation theology is another reason why the 'west' loved john paul II so much).

Much as i agree as a whole with the characterisation of catholicism as the definitive dogmatist/centralist religion, chuck in a bit of vatican II, a bishop romero, a jean-baptiste aristede, and a bit of teillhard de chardin and you'll have a catholicism that i wouldn't argue with (much).