Real Christianity vs Modern Christianity

[UllysesS.Archer]

It's a well-known fact every college student learns that with every retelling of a tale, little changes creep in. With religions this is especially true given there's been almost 2000 years of retellings. And with every church-split as new denominations are founded, almost every time a new edit of the Bible comes along with it. Consequently, unless you can read the original ancient Greek and Hebrew, and are looking at the surviving text fragments (there is no complete original Gospels, NT, or Bible) chances are you're just following someone else's idea of what Jesus meant to say was...

First was the Gnostics, but as competition to the blossoming Catholic church they got wiped out so the Catholics could control the information. And they did for about a thousand years. Then the Protestant Reformation came along, and after a while more all the Proestant denominations we have today fracturing off the first reformation. Thus "Christianity" as thought of today bears little if any resemblance to anything Jesus actually taught. Christians are inadvertantly following the ideas of men and women, not Jesus. At least not in any great way. There's two main differences, what Jesus taught which was Judaism Since the NT Gospels wouldn't get written until centuries after his death, and the current warm and fuzzy version which makes Jesus and God seem all benevolent.

Depending on the scholar you ask, some will date Matthew from 55-65 AD, some will date it around 70-80 AD.
Mark was written somewhere between 50-70 AD, with most scholars believing this was the first of the Gospels written.
Luke is said to have been written between 59-62 AD, and a lot of it is linked to historical figures in order to achieve that time frame.
John appears to be the latest written, dating it sometime after 70 AD.

Now none of these Gospels listed above is written centuries after Jesus lifetime. Depending on who you ask, He was crucified between 1 AD and 33 AD, some may say a little earlier or later, but that is the general consensus. The oldest listed date above is 80 AD, so that is a difference of either 80 years or 47 years, the earliest date listed is 50 AD, so the difference is either 50 years or 17 years. Any way you want to put it, it is a long way from centuries as you referred to it.

On a side note. I love the way non believers, and the whole world in general have to use today's date. They can say what they like, but it will always be BC=Before Christ, AD= After Death. No, I know that isn't the technical terms, but come on, we all know that is what it means. So keep on dating them checks and official papers in the time of Christ. Sorry couldn't help myself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's a well-known fact every college student learns that with every retelling of a tale, little changes creep in. With religions this is especially true given there's been almost 2000 years of retellings. And with every church-split as new denominations are founded, almost every time a new edit of the Bible comes along with it. Consequently, unless you can read the original ancient Greek and Hebrew, and are looking at the surviving text fragments (there is no complete original Gospels, NT, or Bible) chances are you're just following someone else's idea of what Jesus meant to say was...

First was the Gnostics, but as competition to the blossoming Catholic church they got wiped out so the Catholics could control the information. And they did for about a thousand years. Then the Protestant Reformation came along, and after a while more all the Proestant denominations we have today fracturing off the first reformation. Thus "Christianity" as thought of today bears little if any resemblance to anything Jesus actually taught. Christians are inadvertantly following the ideas of men and women, not Jesus. At least not in any great way. There's two main differences, what Jesus taught which was Judaism since the NT Gospels wouldn't get written until centuries after his death, and the current warm and fuzzy version which makes Jesus and God seem all benevolent.

College students must be incredibly stupid in your world, in mine I learned about changes to dialogue in 5th grade. I guess this world is smarter than yous though, which is why we invented writing thousands of years ago.

And, once again, the Gnostics were not the first Christian sect. In fact, their roots date back at least 600 yeas before the birth of Jesus. The very fact that Christians tended to write everything down while Gnostoics believed that writing would corrupt the Word of God, is more than enough to prove that your idea that early Christians were actually gnostic in their beliefs is absurd if you knew anything about religion at all. I seriously wish you would learn to do basic research before posting, it would make it so much easier to point out what you have wrong. As it is, you are so far from actual reality that all anyone can do is point out that you really have no idea how the church developed.

On the other hand, you could try to point out which teachings of Jesus supported the idea that all worldy matter was sinful.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of Christianity, it now seems clear that the first traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era."

"When Gnosticism came in touch with Christianity, which must have happened almost immediately on its appearance, Gnosticism threw herself with strange rapidity into Christian forms of thought, borrowed its nomenclature, acknowledged Jesus as Saviour of the world, simulated its sacraments, pretended to be an esoteric revelation of Christ and His Apostles, flooded the world with apocryphal Gospels, and Acts, and Apocalypses, to substantiate its claim. As Christianity grew within and without the Roman Empire, Gnosticism spread as a fungus at its root, and claimed to be the only true form of Christianity, unfit, indeed, for the vulgar crowd, but set apart for the gifted and the elect. So rank was its poisonous growth that there seemed danger of its stifling Christianity altogether, and the earliest Fathers devoted their energies to uprooting it."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gnosticism

As they did with others like Jews, pagans, Muslims, the Catholics fought and killed any competing narrative which might threaten their power.

The Catholic Church did not exist when Gnosticism was purged from the ranks of the early church. I know they claim they did, but they also claim that they have the keys to heaven.

 

[PostmodernProph]

It's a well-known fact every college student learns that with every retelling of a tale, little changes creep in.

and yet, as we discover even older manuscripts we find that there are very few changes in the text of scriptures dating back thousands of years.....sort of negates the essence of your argument, doesn't it.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Thus "Christianity" as thought of today bears little if any resemblance to anything Jesus actually taught.

really?.....what do you think is different?....

 

[PostmodernProph]

The Gnostic Origins of Calvinism: Ken Johnson: 9781492386094: Amazon.com: Books

The Gnostic Origins of Roman Catholicism: Ken Johnson: 9781492830566: Amazon.com: Books

what?....did no one ever write a book about the 'gnostic origins' of the anabaptists?.....

 

[sealybobo]

Hard not to notice many outspoken Christians seem to talking about a Jesus and Christianity not backed up by actual Scriptures. When ever you wanna know the truth about something go to the source and oldest, most original version (before schizms and rewritting took place.) For Christianity this is found in Gnosticism which is the original version of 'Christ followers.'

Great site here, link is to a chronological listing of the Christian writings as with the NT, apocrypha, etc.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Looking at this link it's amazing where Gospel fo Matthew is considering the 20 or so pieces of writing out decades before. Yet I'll bet most Christians assume Matthew was written first since it appears first in the NT.

The site's entry for Gnostics is especially worth-while,
Gnostics, Gnostic Gospels, & Gnosticism

"A one-sentence description of Gnosticism: a religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the god of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body, a religion that preaches a hidden wisdom or knowledge only to a select group as necessary for salvation or escape from this world."

Most Christians think Jesus was the literal son of God since many referred to him as that. Yet the earliest "Christian" writings reveal much more accurately what Jesus was all about than the modern fables do.

With a more accurate and complete picture of the religion that sprang up LONG after Jesus' death, what we think it means to be Christian today can only make you laugh.

Very good points. Clearly the story was embellished over time.

Reminds me of the story that George Washington told of an angel who revealed a prophetic vision of America to him at Valley Forge.

Read more at snopes.com: George Washington's Vision

 

[PostmodernProph]

Very good points. Clearly the story was embellished over time.

really?.....give me one example of these "clear" embellishments......

 

[sealybobo]

Very good points. Clearly the story was embellished over time.

really?.....give me one example of these "clear" embellishments......

Virgin birth, performed miracles & rose from the dead.

Will 3 do?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Very good points. Clearly the story was embellished over time.

really?.....give me one example of these "clear" embellishments......

Virgin birth, performed miracles & rose from the dead.

Will 3 do?

and which of those are you arguing have changed since the original texts?.....

 

[Chuckt]

really?.....give me one example of these "clear" embellishments......

Virgin birth, performed miracles & rose from the dead.

Will 3 do?

and which of those are you arguing have changed since the original texts?.....

I'm waiting for their answer.

 

[MarcATL]

Hard not to notice many outspoken Christians seem to talking about a Jesus and Christianity not backed up by actual Scriptures. When ever you wanna know the truth about something go to the source and oldest, most original version (before schizms and rewritting took place.) For Christianity this is found in Gnosticism which is the original version of 'Christ followers.'

Great site here, link is to a chronological listing of the Christian writings as with the NT, apocrypha, etc.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Looking at this link it's amazing where Gospel fo Matthew is considering the 20 or so pieces of writing out decades before. Yet I'll bet most Christians assume Matthew was written first since it appears first in the NT.

The site's entry for Gnostics is especially worth-while,
Gnostics, Gnostic Gospels, & Gnosticism

"A one-sentence description of Gnosticism: a religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the god of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body, a religion that preaches a hidden wisdom or knowledge only to a select group as necessary for salvation or escape from this world."

Most Christians think Jesus was the literal son of God since many referred to him as that. Yet the earliest "Christian" writings reveal much more accurately what Jesus was all about than the modern fables do.

With a more accurate and complete picture of the religion that sprang up LONG after Jesus' death, what we think it means to be Christian today can only make you laugh.

So you believe you a privy to secret knowledge of God and salvation that "the rest of us" don't have?

 

[BluePhantom]

For Christianity this is found in Gnosticism which is the original version of 'Christ followers.'

uh no....not quite. The Gnostics were certainly a very early sect but they were far from the first and certainly not the only ones around.

 

[BluePhantom]

Very good points. Clearly the story was embellished over time.

really?.....give me one example of these "clear" embellishments......

I can give you one. In the Gospel According to John, the story about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. That story didn't start appearing in that book until the mid-fourth century (if memory serves). Copies dated earlier than that do not include the story. It got added later.

I can give you another one too. Mark 16: 9 - 20 do not appear in the earliest existing copies. The book ended at 16:8 and because it ended somewhat abruptly the following verses were added later in an attempt to give the story a satisfactory ending. That one is such common knowledge that most Bibles don't even try to hide it. Most have footnotes at the end pointing out that those verses were added later.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Very good points. Clearly the story was embellished over time.

really?.....give me one example of these "clear" embellishments......

I can give you one. In the Gospel According to John, the story about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. That story didn't start appearing in that book until the mid-fourth century (if memory serves). Copies dated earlier than that do not include the story. It got added later.

I can give you another one too. Mark 16: 9 - 20 do not appear in the earliest existing copies. The book ended at 16:8 and because it ended somewhat abruptly the following verses were added later in an attempt to give the story a satisfactory ending. That one is such common knowledge that most Bibles don't even try to hide it. Most have footnotes at the end pointing out that those verses were added later.

since both were clearly documented and corrected due to historical research, how do you count them as "embellishments"?......

 

[BluePhantom]

really?.....give me one example of these "clear" embellishments......

I can give you one. In the Gospel According to John, the story about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. That story didn't start appearing in that book until the mid-fourth century (if memory serves). Copies dated earlier than that do not include the story. It got added later.

I can give you another one too. Mark 16: 9 - 20 do not appear in the earliest existing copies. The book ended at 16:8 and because it ended somewhat abruptly the following verses were added later in an attempt to give the story a satisfactory ending. That one is such common knowledge that most Bibles don't even try to hide it. Most have footnotes at the end pointing out that those verses were added later.

since both were clearly documented and corrected due to historical research, how do you count them as "embellishments"?......

Because the average person who reads the Bible doesn't read footnotes. The average Christian believes that Mark 16: 9 - 20 is something Mark wrote and it's not. In truth Mark didn't write any of it. Matthew, Mark Luke, and John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were written by someone else and in the second or third century they were attributed to those authors. The gospels themselves don't even claim to be written by who they are attributed to. Nowhere in Matthew does it say "I am Matthew a disciple of Jesus".

The gospels are not written in first person. For example in Matthew it says (paraphrasing) "Jesus came to a tax collector who was sitting at his booth. he said follow me, and he did." Well if Matthew was writing it he would have written "And Jesus came to ME as I was sitting at my tax collecting booth. Jesus said to ME follow me and I did"

In reality no one even thought the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John until well into the 2nd century. And there are plenty more gospels. There is the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, etc. that never made it into the Bible for various reasons.

The letters of Paul....13 in total but it's almost universally accepted that at least 6, maybe 7 of them are pseudopigraphic.

II Peter is universally recognized as pseudopigraphic and I Peter is nearly accepted as the same.

Come on brother. I love the Lord but let;s tell it right.

 

[BluePhantom]

really?.....give me one example of these "clear" embellishments......

I can give you one. In the Gospel According to John, the story about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. That story didn't start appearing in that book until the mid-fourth century (if memory serves). Copies dated earlier than that do not include the story. It got added later.

I can give you another one too. Mark 16: 9 - 20 do not appear in the earliest existing copies. The book ended at 16:8 and because it ended somewhat abruptly the following verses were added later in an attempt to give the story a satisfactory ending. That one is such common knowledge that most Bibles don't even try to hide it. Most have footnotes at the end pointing out that those verses were added later.

since both were clearly documented and corrected due to historical research, how do you count them as "embellishments"?......

I mean dude are you serious? I gave you two clear examples of where the Bible has been changed and believe me I can give a lot more. It's one thing to have faith but it's quite another to blindly accept as gospel what a translator has to say about a given topic. There are so many embellishments in modern English versions of the Bible that reading it that way is almost impossible to grasp. Read it in Greek, read it in Aramaic, read it in Hebrew...you will read a VERY different book than what is written in English.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Hard not to notice many outspoken Christians seem to talking about a Jesus and Christianity not backed up by actual Scriptures. When ever you wanna know the truth about something go to the source and oldest, most original version (before schizms and rewritting took place.) For Christianity this is found in Gnosticism which is the original version of 'Christ followers.'

Great site here, link is to a chronological listing of the Christian writings as with the NT, apocrypha, etc.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Looking at this link it's amazing where Gospel fo Matthew is considering the 20 or so pieces of writing out decades before. Yet I'll bet most Christians assume Matthew was written first since it appears first in the NT.

The site's entry for Gnostics is especially worth-while,
Gnostics, Gnostic Gospels, & Gnosticism

"A one-sentence description of Gnosticism: a religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the god of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body, a religion that preaches a hidden wisdom or knowledge only to a select group as necessary for salvation or escape from this world."

Most Christians think Jesus was the literal son of God since many referred to him as that. Yet the earliest "Christian" writings reveal much more accurately what Jesus was all about than the modern fables do.

With a more accurate and complete picture of the religion that sprang up LONG after Jesus' death, what we think it means to be Christian today can only make you laugh.

So you believe you a privy to secret knowledge of God and salvation that "the rest of us" don't have?

Uh ya, as an atheist that 'secret' is it's all a sham. There, now you have it too.

Just because someone knows something about a religion doesn't mean they also agree with it.

 

[MarcATL]

Uh ya, as an atheist that 'secret' is it's all a sham. There, now you have it too.

Just because someone knows something about a religion doesn't mean they also agree with it.

Oh, so you're an atheist?

[MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Uh ya, as an atheist that 'secret' is it's all a sham. There, now you have it too.

Just because someone knows something about a religion doesn't mean they also agree with it.

Oh, so you're an atheist?

[MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]

I thought he was Jewish. Shows how much I know.