Food for thought: Jesus was NOT a Christian

[LynneSin]

He was Christ but he was not a Christian. He died thinking he was the Messiah for the Jews not the leader of a new Christian faith.

http://nov55.com/rel/fundam.html

The Purpose of Fundamentalism

Inerrancy has the only purpose of locking in Paul's theology as unquestionable, while everything Christ taught is defied.

Fundamentalism creates a fake relationship to Christ or the Holy Spirit in contempt for the moral standards which Christ taught. It's hugging a vacuum instead of overcoming sin.


Fundamentalism is designed to remove moral truth which Christ taught. Moral truth convicts corrupters of sin, which is why Christ was crucified. Fundamentalism picks up where the crucifixion left off in burying moral truth.

In the religion of fundamentalism, Christ's teaching is nonexistent. Paul is quoted instead of Christ. When questioned about these contradictions, fundamentalists give no answers. This means they are knowingly and deliberately removing Christ from their version of religion. Paul replaces Christ as the god of fundamentalism.

Paul's theology is designed to replace Christ's teaching with an emptiness. If there were any substance to Paul's theology, the contradictions would be too visible.

The emptiness of Paul's theology attempts to nullify the two most important features of Christianity, which are Christ's crucifixion and his teaching on social justice as the path to life.

[datasuspect]

1. now don't go injecting historical reality into this!

everyone knows jesus was a fundamentalist christian who had blonde hair and blue eyes and hated gays, the poor, and minorities.

[LynneSin]

7. Hey, I'm a Christian who actually follows what Jesus said

NOT what Paul said. I really want to inject this thought into DU because of what happened yesterday.

First, I was amazed at the overwhelming response to the fundie that jumped in on my Falwell thread but I was a bit upset over some of the postings that made it sound like Christians didn't exist here at DU and was a horrible faith.

I think we really need to better identify the differences between the various sects of Christianities because it is true that Fundamentalists will more likely quote the words of Paul, NOT Jesus in justifying their hateful behavior.

I have found more Agnostics and Atheists here on DU who exemplify the life and teachings of Jesus even if they do not profess the Christian faith.

Because if you're doing good works, treating others with respect and that age old adage - Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you - then you are pretty much following the teachings of Jesus even without professing to be a Christian.

Jesus, whether he was the Messiah or just a radical Jew with some good life practices - is someone to respect. Even Gandhi once said "The best thing about Christianity is Jesus Christ, the worst thing about Christianity is the Christians" and Gandhi was a big follower of Jesus's non-violence civil dis-obedience.

Maybe I'm just giving a big shout out about a guy who had a message that rivals what we do here - peace and acceptance.

[tanyev]

2. That looks like an interesting article.

Kick for later.

[Ravenseye]

3. Nice piece

I've long thought that anything by Paul should be discounted. Sadly it also makes me question what record we have of Jesus' teachings. There are hints and glimmers of something very different than what Paul put forward, and I wonder what the teachings actually were before they were battered around for a few hundred years. Before Nicae.

Jesus certainly wasn't a Christian, and neither are, it seems to me, the vast majority of people who claim to be, unless you define Christian as a follower of Paul.

[waiting for hope]

9. The Gospel of St. Thomas

is to supposedly have the closest sayings of Christ - But it's Gnostic so many "Christians" believe it to be heretical and therefor not worthy of inclusion...Ah, politics is everywhere, go figure.

On Edit: Added Link - http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm Gospel of St. Thomas

[SPKrazy]

30. Iraneus Believed It Heretical

but mainly it threatened to divide the already fragmented Church at that time (around 80-150 CE)

Not just Thomas, but many texts and sects of Christianity had appeared.

Iraneus had been a missionary in Gaul, France, and had seen his mentor, and numerous other Christians killed and Churches destroyed.

He seems to have taken the stance that 4 gospels were like the 4 legs of a table, and proceeded from there.

His picks were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, except that he placed John as the first book in the four as it was the strongest book to dispute the gospel of Thomas. Very similar books, and written about the same time. Thomas talked about humans having divine in them, while John spoke of going to God through Jesus to find the divine. That was a major difference.

A lot of Iraneus concern was with Churches at that time that were developing new traditions and practices, like second Baptisms, sort of "advanced" Christianity for those who were ready for the second one.

The more fragmented the Church became, Iraneus seemed to beleive the more vulnerable it was to being snuffed out.

So, yes, heretical. Politics, in the sense that he was trying to keep the power of the Church centralized for the sake of survival.

[LynneSin]

10. The best way to understand Jesus is to read the Gnostic gospels

many of these gospels were written much closer to the time of Jesus's death which brings better accuracy to who Jesus was during his time.

Did you ever see the movie Stigmata? It was an ok movie that talked about how the church discredits the Gnostic's because their message was too radical to work with their Religious Infrastructure. Church was never defined as a building but as a gathering of several people in the name of Jesus. Heck, that definition alone could define this thread and our discussions as a Church. Jesus was not a man of wealth nor did he accept it when offered to him. However that message, which is much more defined in the Gnostic's, would lead us to believe that the overabundance of wealth that many religious establishments have is pretty much blasphemous to the teachings of Christ. Best to not include such profound scripture in the bible and call it heretical in it's message.

[GeorgeGist]

4. He wasn't ...

a christ either but who cares.

[havocmom]

5. Wanna make a fundy's head implode?

Remind them that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder :evilgrin:

[bryant69]

6. I agree in part

I mean I do see that the Fundamentalists are looking for ways to justify themselves - they are crafting a set of beliefs which excuses their sins while condemning the sins of others.

On the other hand, I don't agree that Paul and Christ are in opposition one to the other. And I don't think that Paul invented the Atonement.

Still the article is an interesting read.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LynneSin]

11. Consider this

Paul's story was about the advancement of the teachings of Jesus after the Crucifixion. In all reality I don't even think Paul was a bad person. But again - the bible was NOT a Divine intervention handed down to us from God. They were stories and books inspired by the happenings of Jesus - many passed through generations. These people were INSPIRED by Jesus but through several generations the message did get a bit hazy and reinterpreted to serve their purpose.

Paul's message wasn't overtly bad but distorted enough to serve purpose. But because Paul was a Christian and was providing definition to what he felt the faith should be - there is variation from what Jesus actually did during his times. Paul and Jesus were not different but Paul was more amplified and doing what it takes to get people to convert whereas Jesus wasn't really trying to convert since he was already the faith of the people.

[Ezlivin]

8. The seminary I graduated from was fundamentalist and Pauline theology

was king.

The New Testament basically has two views: those of Jesus and those of Paul. Paul's letter to the churches were published before any of the Gospel accounts were written, but have no quotations from Jesus! (Imagine a die-hard Elvis fan who doesn't know any song lyrics.)

Pauline theology rules in fundamentalist circles. The whole "Left Behind" novel serialization rests upon one statement made by Paul in one of his letters. A lot of energy goes into tying disparate verses into the "idea" of Rapture.

Without Paul you would not have a fundamentalist church, for without Paul you have no admonitions concerning women's roles, homosexuality or slavery.

[LynneSin]

12. It's almost like we should call fundies "Paulists"

And here is perfect example of how they use Paul's words to justify their religion:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0041/0041_01.asp

[Mr_Spock]

15. Excellent toon.

One of many hypocritical aspects to Paulism. Dupes, all of them.

[TornadoTN]

16. Ah, Jack Chick

If those things weren't so scary because people put stock into them, I would probably laugh my ass off.

I do my part when I see those blasted things at the Gas pump - toss them into the garbage where they belong.

[LynneSin]

21. I'll tell you this much - as an 8-year old they scared the crap out of me

and because of the Cartoonish nature of the Chick Tracts and how they are promoted as alternatives to Halloween Candy, they serve their purpose to try and go after the young & impressionable.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. I was lucky as a child

I had fundy relatives, but my mother always said, "Doesn't it seem funny to you that a person could be wicked and evil all his life but if on his deathbed he says he accepts Jesus he goes to heaven, while a person who does good works all his life but doesn't accept Jesus (maybe he's never heard of him!) goes to hell?" It was totally illogical to me then and it continues to be illogical to me now.

[Mr_Spock]

13. If only fundamentalism was remotely related to thoughtfulness

Jesus was thoughtful, fundamentalism is devoid of thought - "hugging the vacuum" as it is put in the article. Paul was a twit symbolic of the fundamentalist's lack of connection to the actual teachings of Christ. They're all dupes.

[Lilith Velkor]

25. Like flag-wavers who disregard the Constitution

That would be the political equivalent, no?

[sinkingfeeling]

14. At times Paul did seem to understand the message of Jesus.

Gal 3:28 "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus." seems to sum up Jesus' definition of mankind (neighbor). Then he will turn around and contradict himself, such as in his first letter to Timothy, Paul forbade a woman to lead men in a worship service or, in any other way, to exercise “authority” over the man in this spiritual context (1 Timothy 2:8).

This leads one to believe that either Paul had a 'split personality' or that someone else wrote some of the writings attributed to Paul. The last choice is that the 'Bible' was heavily edited and changed for politial/social reasons across time.

[LynneSin]

18. One only needs to understand about the Nicene Council

to understand how the message was finally documented into a book. There was much creative editing done to serve a purpose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[bloom]

27. In the book I'm reading

Adam, Eve, and the Serpent by Elaine Pagels

She was saying that Timothy was written by someone other than Paul - who was trying to tone down Paul's message to make it more acceptable to more people.

But either way - Paul and pretend Paul(s)- seemed esp. intent on minimizing the role of women.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. My guess would be the combination of 2 and 3. nt

[Lerkfish]

17. Paul's letters need to be understood in the context of WHEN they were

written and to WHOM.

There is nothing wrong with Paul's letters (so I disagree that he preaches "emptiness"), the problem instead is that modern fundamentalists are actually Paulists instead of Christians (which is where I agree with the link), but its worse than that: instead of trying to understand Paul's teachings on Love, on living the christian life in humility, etc. Modern fundies ignore all SUBSTANCE and fixate on strict opinions which reflect the ATTITUDES OF THE TIME PERIOD more than Paul's views on christian living.

The inability to discern between what is teaching and what is chronistic mores is the crux of the problem with modern fundies.
This is why liberal christians often say that fundies are not "true" christians because they by and large ignore christ's teachings of forgiveness and compassion, and are obsessed with Paul's judgements and worldly attitudes, as well as the extreme judgementalism of the old testament.

The problem exists because unfortunately, though not surprisingly, fundie preachers preach by talking points. They only know a few items in the bible and keep repeating ad nauseum, often out of context and usually to support their own bigotry. I suspect they have only studied the fundie cliff notes version of the bible.

If they were to read the entire bible, open-minded, cover to cover, they'd have a much more balanced view of the human condition AND more importantly would realize that being Christ-like is ALL about turning the other cheek, forgiving your enemies, and NOT judging one another.

[LynneSin]

20. I think Fundies treat Paul's teachings like the treat Leviticus

I mean, god forbid we make slaves of our daughters, leave our beards unshorn, or forgo crabcake sandwich, lobster tail or cotton-polyester blends. But there are a few key verses that serve a purpose in Leviticus like the whole "man lie next to man like a woman" type bullshit. Even the fundie yesterday went so far to debate about Soddom & Gommorah but fell short of the complete story at the end of the chapter which talks about how Lot's daughters got their father Lot drunk and had sex with him.

Paul had a message and in full context a good message. But again, if we pick and choose the verses of Paul individually we'll find enough ammunition to justify hate, war and other non-Jesus like behaviors.

It's a sad world

[JerseygirlCT]

34. Yes! Absolutely agree. nt

[greenman3610]

19. my favorite line for fundies at my door

"What I like most about Jesus Christ is that
he wasn't a Christian."

[LynneSin]

24. Gandhi pretty much said the same thing

He too was a student of the teachings of Jesus but not of CHristianity

[H2O Man]

22. "The very word 'Christianity'

is a misunderstanding; in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The 'evangel' died on the cross. What has been called 'evangel' from that moment was actually the opposite of that which he lived: 'ill tidings,' a dysangel. It is false to the point of nonsense to find the mark of the Christian in a 'faith,' for instance, in the faith in redemption through Christ: only Christian practiced, a life such as he lived who died on the cross, is Christian."
-- Nietzsche; The Antichrist.

"Living Christ is a living cross; life without Christ is living death." -- Gandhi.

[Igel]

23. There are those that see no contradiction.

They keep a strict Sabbath, they don't eat shrimp, they know that their goodness won't save them, and they tithe as Jesus said to.

They're tolerant, they give to the poor, they engage in good works, and they're pacifists.

They sometimes read too much of the present day into Jesus' sayings--less than most--but who doesn't?

Jesus spoke to Jews who understood what 'righteousness' meant. There was a context to his preaching, and a tradition that they knew. He didn't deny the entirety of the tradition; just the additions made by Pharisees.

Paul's audience had a different context, a different tradition, and needed to be approached differently. Arguing against certain kinds of traditions was pointless. But, with Jesus' followers came those arguing for Pharisaism, on the one hand, and for completely rejecting the Jewish tradition, on the other hand; he argued against both.

[bloom]

28. Pagels

in - Adam, Eve, and the Serpent by Elaine Pagels -

...she makes the case that much of what Christianity is based on is the belief that the world was coming to an end - or maybe the people of the time esp. wished it would - because of the Roman occupation.

Much effort was exerted by many Jews to define themselves as separate from the Romans and other non-Jewish people.

Fasting, sexual purity, prayer was all a part of that.

Also - Jesus pushed Jewish law by reinterpreting the Adam and Eve story to disallow divorce. When people objected Jesus said - so then don't marry/have sex at all. Did not think that barren women should be abandoned - for the husband desire to procreate.

At the same time - or maybe at a later time - he was giving exhortations to people to leave their family (even to "hate" them) and "follow him".


While Paul was more extreme yet - all of the ideas are based on an extreme position that the world was coming to an end and so people should be esp. pure while waiting for this to happen.

People are still waiting. And I think that if the "world" (civilization) ends - it will be of our doing.

[Cassandra]

29. Could you explain what this means.

"The demons controlled humans for thousands of years by requiring murder as a test of allegiance. The practice was then modified by the ancient Jews, where killing as a test of allegiance was replaced with blood holocaust for the purpose of forgiveness, called atonement. "

I don't want to get huffy and take it out of context if there's a context that makes sense.

[SPKrazy]

31. Kick because it is a real topic to discuss n/t

[nealmhughes]

32. Jesus trumps Paul. Simple. Done with.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. I'd take issue with your second sentence.

He did indeed think of himself as a Jew. But I don't think for a moment he thought what he had done was done soley for the Jews -- or that what he did would not radically change things as they knew them.

Certainly there was no such thing as a "Christian" yet. But the paradigm would shift -- that was for sure. His teachings would challenge the establishment. He surely knew that.

As to the over-reliance on Paul, sometimes to the point of ignoring what we're told of Christ? Yes, I do see that. I'd go a little further though, and say the over-reliance on comfortable, but probably inaccurate, interpretations of Paul.