Christianity
You Say Good-bye, I Say Hello
Like many of us at Earthchangers College, we have grown up in a Christ-haunted culture. I say “haunted” because we are living in a post-Christian era – after the death of the Christian church. Mainstream Christianity long ago lost the war with the world. The death throes in the U.S. have been going on for decades. Say Good-bye to the old, distorted Christianity.
But, is this the end of Christianity? As the institution founded by Paul of Tarsus, based on his interpretations of the death, resurrection and second coming of the Christ, yes. But, as to the message of Jesus, no. To his message and its esoteric meaning, I say Hello.
There are groups of Christians (and have been for two thousand years) who understood the hidden meanings underlying his message and, when the tide turned in favor of institutional Christianity, they went underground to protect and preserve it.
[If you are thinking gnostic, there is some of what is labeled gnosticism (Greek for “knowledge”) inherent in Christ-ianity, but gnosticism, as what evolved as a belief system--wherein salvation resides only in knowledge--like everything else, went off track, too.]
So, there are two kinds of Christian churches. The extoteric (public) church, is the one that everyone is familiar with, and preaches the parables and stories. Then there is the esoteric (hidden) church, consisting of those who wanted to know more and were able to understand the hidden meanings. As you know, the history of the church shows how those who didn't toe the line with the mainstream church (Roman Catholic Church-RCC) were subjected to some very unloving actions—quite the opposite of what Jesus the Christ preached.
Ah, but the Reformation came about. That handled the abuses. Didn't it? To some extent and for a time. But still, there has been so much emphasis put on Paul's teachings, and scriptures that are rife with mis-copyings, missing text, added information, legends born from oral traditions, etc., as to make the scriptures informative, but not infallible.
It has been said that what became the RCC kept Christianity alive, because of its codification of scriptures and its cohesiveness. But, was it alive in the first place? The RCC propagated Paul's version of salvation by belief in the death and resurrection of the Christ, but Jesus never preached (as far as history allows us to know) that people had to rely on his death and resurrection to find salvation. And, it begs the question, salvation from what? It is said there is a hell and salvation is from its eternal damnation. But, that's not what Jesus preached. He preached love. L-O-V-E.
What Jesus did say to his followers was that we, too, could do the things he did, and even more. He also said the kingdom of God is within. So, what was he saying? That he was God? No, he was saying he was human, and that we can achieve what he had achieved.
While its a well-known New Age concept (that all answers lie within), it dates back to the Christ himself. Imagine if you will that Jesus was born a human, just like you and me, but a human far along on his spiritual path, so much so that he ascended that lifetime. Did he ascend by the same method he expected the rest of us to follow? To just believe that his death and resurrection would cause his own ascension? How could he?
As you will see in the following summaries from one of my studies of early Christianity, his saying “believe on me” is not necessarily something he said. As you will learn from the summaries, his saying you can do this, and even more, and the kingdom of God lies within, are not sayings Christians would have made up, since it goes against the proto-orthodox grain. In case you are unfamiliar, the RCC was the Christian church up until the Protestant Reformation beginning in 1517.
I hope the summaries will give you a quick, but insightful, glimpse into why the Bible, as well as the belief systems that rely on it, isn't what it seems. And, there was a lot of it, much of which never made it into the Bible. There is no intent to proselytize. It's a work about the historical accuracy of Christianity and Jesus, history that can be proven, with a reasonable level of certainty. For the best understanding, I encourage you to pick up a used copy of the book on amazon.com and read it in full. For the best understanding, I encourage you to pick up a used copy of the book on amazon.com and read it in full.
In closing this introduction, I'd like to share how I ended up in these studies. Through a series of synchronicities, I ended up in a small, esoteric seminary wherein, through one of the initiatic rites, I had a most marvelous vision. It was of a giant cross arising out of a lily. The real message, as Jesus intended, is being resurrected.
My Chapter Summaries from
The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
Fifth Edition, by Bart D. Ehrman,
James A. Gray Professor of Religious Studies
at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Chapter 1: What is the New Testament?
In the beginning of Christianity there were different groups claiming to be Christian: Adoptionists (Ebionites), Marcionites, Gnostic Christians, Proto-Orthodox Christians, and others. It took centuries before the varying viewpoints of what made Christianity christian was formalized into a canon of scripture we call the New Testament.
The Adoptionists (aka Ebionites), who were Jewish-Christians, believed Jesus was the most righteous man in the Jewish Law, but remained a man. He was "adopted" at his baptism because the voice of heaven, at his baptism, said, "You are my son, today I have begotten you." At that point, Jesus received the power of God to perform miracles and to teach about the kingdom of God until the end of his life, where he willingly laid it down as a sacrifice that put an end to all sacrifices under the Jewish law. They did not believe he was born of a virgin, or that he existed prior to his birth, or that he was God. Pursuant to their understanding, if he was God then that would make two Gods, and Jewish law was clear that there was only one God. So, he simply could not be God. He was adopted by the one true God of Israel as his son and empowered to be the savior of the world.
The Marcionites were followers of a second-century scholar and evangelist named Marcion. He claimed that he uncovered the true teachings of Christianity in Paul's writings and insisted that Paul was the true apostle (though we know Paul was never one of the original twelve apostles, never knew Jesus, and based his claim on a vision he said he had). Marcion believed that Paul's writings showed that Christ's gospel was antipathetic to Jewish law, and that Paul urged Christians to abandon the Jewish law altogether. This was seen in Paul's efforts to dissuade Gentile converts from following the Jewish law, such as circumsion and keeping kosher. Marcion went on to say that Jesus had nothing to do with the angry god of Israel and that Jesus' mission was to free the Israelites from that god. He concluded that Jesus did not have a real fleshly body, he was never born, that he only seemed human. This is the opposite of what the Adoptionists believed.
Then there were the Gnostic Christians. These were people who called themselves Christians who believed that a special knowledge (gnosis) was necessary for salvation. The Gospel of Thomas is one such writing. It is said that there was much diversity amongst the Gnostics. Some agreed with Marcion, that Jesus was totally divine and that he was not connected with the Hebrew god. Others thought he was both, divine and human. These gnostics also agreed that something "divine" had happened at his baptism, though they disagree that Jesus was adopted by God. It was at that baptismal point where he became a divine being, the Christ, which gave him the power to perform his earthly ministry. It was at the point close to death that the divine being left, causing Jesus to cry out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" For many gnostics, Jesus was just one of many deities that made up the celestial realm. They also felt alienated from the earthly realm, feeling like they didn't belong here. Salvation, to them, meant escaping the material world.
"Proto-Orthodox" Christians were those whose beliefs would become the canon of scripture in the ensuing centuries. There is much debate whether it was already in the majority, or whether it developed over time, that different forms were more popular in different areas. It seems that the Proto-Orthodox Christians agreed in part with the Jewish Christians, and in part with the Marcionites, and also with the Gnostics, but disagreed in part. As the group who won the day, they advanced beliefs that fit with theirs, but rejected beliefs that didn't. Thus, certain writings were eventually labeled heretical and did not become a part of the canon of New Testament scripture.
There was precedent for the setting forth of scripture in writing, which was the Hebrew Bible (though at the time of Jesus, it is unknown if it was actually written down). The New Testament begins with the four gospels, thought to have been written by Apostles, but only two have that distinction, the other two (Mark and Luke) are supposed to have been written by assistants to Peter (Mark) and Paul (Luke).
The gospels are followed by the Acts of the Apostles, supposed to have been written by Luke, and focuses on Peter and Paul. Then there are epistles, many ascribed to Paul, but some not passing the historical critical standard, ending with the apocalypse of Revelation, ascribed to someone named John (but unknown if it is the disciple John).
Then flowing from those are the writings of the early church fathers, known as the Apostolic Fathers.
Discuss all the ways that early Christians (and Christian groups) differed from one another. In your opinion, is there any belief or practice that all the groups held in common? That is to say, is there some one thing (or more than one thing) that made all the groups that called themselves Christian Christian? Or not?
On the issue of Jesus being human or divine:
- Adoptionists/Ebionites believed he was totally human, but empowered with supernatural gifts for his mission.
- Marcionities believed he was totally divine.
- Some gnostics believed he was divine, but just another deity from the celestial realms, some believed he was both human and divine.
On the issue of Paul's letters being the true teachings of Christianity, just the Marcionites believed that. Ehrman states, "In sharp contrast to the Jewish Christians east of the Jordan, Marcion maintained that Paul was the true apostle, to whom Christ had especially appeared after his resurrection to impart the truth of the gospel."
On the issue of the Hebrew God and Jewish Law,
- the Adoptionist/Ebionites saw him as the most righteous man under the Law, but just a man, not a god. They maintained their belief in the god of Israel, Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. They believed the law should be followed. They rejected Paul as a heretic.
- The Marcionites believed Jesus came to save the Israelites from the angry Hebrew god, and pursuant to Paul's writings, that the Jewish law should be abandoned, as it played no part in salvation. Only Christ himself was the way of salvation. Marcionites, thus, believed in two gods, the Hebrew God and Jesus, as God, and embraced Paul's teachings as the greatest of the apostles.
- The Gnostics that claimed Jesus consisted of two separate beings, the human and the divine, were in agreement with the Jewish-Christian Adoptionists that Jesus was the most righteous man on earth and that something divine (empowerment) happened at his baptism, but they did not believe Jesus was adopted as God's son. Gnostics believed in a multiplicity of gods. However, despite all these gods and gnostic beliefs, the true God was not the God of the Hebrews, corresponding with the Marcionites. But diverging that the Hebrew God was more than vengeful and righteous and had high standards, but that he was evil, as was the material world he created, and that gnostics were spiritual beings from the divine realm who were trapped in the material realm by this evil God. Salvation meant escaping it.
The lowest common denominator these groups had was Jesus. Whether he was human or divine, whether he came to fulfill the law or abolish it, whether he superseded the god of the Hebrews or was his son, however people viewed him, his life changed history. In him was seen salvation, and throughout incipient Christendom, the diversity of what that meant and how it was achieved was remarkable and diverse.
- Pick one of the early Christian groups other than the proto-orthodox and suppose that it had won out to become the dominant form of Christianity. How would the world we live in today be different? Would it be a better place or worse, in your opinion? Why?
I think the gnostics were the most different, in that they believed there was a multitude of divine beings (gods, if you want to call them that). Their viewpoint of salvation was the most different. For the others mentioned, salvation was an individual saving of the human soul. For the gnostics, salvation meant ensnared divine beings could escape the material world.
If the Gnostic philosophy/beliefs had prevailed, western civilization would have definitely evolved differently. Whether it would have made a better world, or a worse world would depend on whether the gnosis (knowledge) was used for good or evil. So, that is hard to say with any certainty. But assuming it was used for good, my instincts tell me that the true story of mankind's spiritual heritage would have become known because the superstitions and fear used by The Church to control the masses have not occurred. It's a radical thing for each person to be empowered with "divinity" (however you want to define it, in its basic form meaning having powers greater than the average human). In the other forms of Christianity, only Jesus (and a few others) were empowered. Even though Jesus did say that his followers would be able to do the miraculous things he did, and more, it was never an emphasis of The Church and not many people understood that they too were powerful divine beings. Why do God's people perish for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6)? The priests weren't sharing the knowledge. Then Jesus is sent with a mission to get people on the right track. But the priests derail him. Then, to finish the process, Paul comes along and derails Jesus's message further* by distracting Jesus' followers from his message with the Pauline rubric of what it all meant and how to proceed. Jesus seemed to be leading people into reclamation of their personal power and Paul took that and turned it into the worship of Jesus' power and dependence on him to realize what they should have been able to do on their own, their own salvation (or transcendence of the material world). That's aviewpoint. Whether it's the right viewpoint, of course, remains to be seen.
*Paul never mentions that he stopped being a Pharisee and I have long suspected he was a deep mole sent into the post-Christ incipient Christian community to send Jesus' message down a rabbit hole. Most of the apostles were suspicious of him and Jewish-Christians thought his writings that Christ brought an end to the Jewish law were heretical. There is nothing in Christ's actions, much less his words, that ever gave that indication. He continued following the law during his lifetime. Paul was never an apostle during the lifetime of Christ, and his claim of a vision of Christ after his death was unverifiable, so there are good arguments against Paul's claim. Whether he was an agent of the Pharisees, or an opportunistic kind of guy who wanted to make a name for himself is, of course, unknown.
Key Terms:
Adoptionists – Jewish-Christians who believed Jesus was a righteous man, but not God, who was empowered by God to do his mission, as explained above.
Ebionites – another name for Adoptionists.
Marcion – a second century scholar who believed the true meaning of Christianity was found in Paul's writings. He compiled his own New Testament with a scaled down version of Luke (Paul's traveling companion) and ten of Paul's letters, as explained above.