Liberal Jesusism Is Not Christianity

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Just before the parade at pride last sunday, I had an interesting talk with a friend of a friend who is a lutheran pastor. I found alot of what he said knowledgeable and interesting, something I never thought I would've said regarding a pastor or religious leader of any stripe. However, despite how much I respect his beliefs, and how preaches, its simply not christianity, at least not in the way the religion is meant in the Bible. It's well meaning and respectable, but not Christianity. Universalism? To a large extent.

 

Not all lutherans hold his beliefs, he is a part of the northeastern branch that accepts homosexuality, sees truths in all religions as being earlier expressions of what is a consistent message also preached by Jesus. He doesn't accept biblical literalism (or so it seemed), but instead looks to the positive messages he finds in the Bible.

 

But my claim is here, that without guilt for what Adam and Eve did, and without worshipping one God and asking him for salvation, or burning forever in hell for following false beliefs, what you believe isn't based in the Bible, nor Christianity nor its foundations. Debate.

[TrailBlazer]

I'm slightly confused as to what exactly you want to open a debate about, but I'll make an assumption and jump in anyhow.

 

Who was the first church? They were followers of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth and were Adventists awaiting the eminent return of the man the apostles claimed to be the Messiah. They lived like hippies on a commune; they did not worship Jesus as if he was God, they accepted Jews, pagans, tax collectors, gypsies, lepers, and the like. They did not have a bible to read, they did not partake in traditions like monthly communion or Christmas, and their biggest enemy was not Satan but was fear itself and persecution. They spent their days listening to sermons, sharing bread with each other, evangelizing at the temples, and begging for charity in the streets.

 

It was a time before Paul messed everything up, a time before Christian dogmas; a time when people were leaving behind everything they knew of their former lives and religion to live with the apostles and be followers of Jesus. Everything was up in the air, nothing was organized, Jewish laws were brought into question and everything seemed a bit awkward.

 

I say all that to get to my real point. Modern Christianity looks very different from the first "Christianity". The religion swayed very far away from its first intent as it evolved and if the religion was just beginning today, I bet they would have accepted homosexuality, they wouldn't worry about every little word written in the bible, they wouldn't spend their time worrying about sin and all the little things in life that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

Now my meds are wearing off and I've lost where I was going with this. My apologies for posting anyway.

[florduh]

...all religions as being earlier expressions of what is a consistent message also preached by Jesus.

Obviously not a Christian view. One may be a Buddhist, Hindu, or other and say such things but Christianity is an exclusive religion that worships the one and only God, and all other gods are demons. Christianity sees itself as THE way and worships the Jesus character as God, the Son of God, and Messiah. No other religion makes such a claim, and the exclusivity is actually what gives the religion its power and attraction. Watered down Christianity has nothing to offer, in my opinion.

[TrueFreedom]

Define Christianity.

[mcdaddy]

I'm slightly confused as to what exactly you want to open a debate about, but I'll make an assumption and jump in anyhow.

 

Who was the first church? They were followers of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth and were Adventists awaiting the eminent return of the man the apostles claimed to be the Messiah. They lived like hippies on a commune; they did not worship Jesus as if he was God, they accepted Jews, pagans, tax collectors, gypsies, lepers, and the like. They did not have a bible to read, they did not partake in traditions like monthly communion or Christmas, and their biggest enemy was not Satan but was fear itself and persecution. They spent their days listening to sermons, sharing bread with each other, evangelizing at the temples, and begging for charity in the streets.

 

It was a time before Paul messed everything up, a time before Christian dogmas; a time when people were leaving behind everything they knew of their former lives and religion to live with the apostles and be followers of Jesus. Everything was up in the air, nothing was organized, Jewish laws were brought into question and everything seemed a bit awkward.

 

I say all that to get to my real point. Modern Christianity looks very different from the first "Christianity". The religion swayed very far away from its first intent as it evolved and if the religion was just beginning today, I bet they would have accepted homosexuality, they wouldn't worry about every little word written in the bible, they wouldn't spend their time worrying about sin and all the little things in life that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

Now my meds are wearing off and I've lost where I was going with this. My apologies for posting anyway.

 

No one knows what the first "Christians" were like. Probably bc there were so many fricking sects that were very loosely "Christian" in some regard or another. We'll never know what the first group of "believers" was like.

Never.

[TrueFreedom]

No one knows what the first "Christians" were like. Probably bc there were so many fricking sects that were very loosely "Christian" in some regard or another. We'll never know what the first group of "believers" was like.

Never.

 

That's an awfully bold statement, McD. Some reading this thread may be unfamiliar with this perspective, but after extensive study, I have a fairly strong opinion that the earliest followers of the "Joshua" described in the gospels were apocalyptic Jews and that the triumphant version of "Christians," who were still quite similar to "Christians" today, were Roman followers of Paul's new religion, which, of course, was based largely on other popular cults. Despite the rampant book-burning of the Romans, we have pretty good forensics from that period. A true follower of Y'shua was a messianic Jew. A Christian has always been a gnostic following in the tradition of Paul.

[TrailBlazer]

Mcdaddy, I'm thinking about the very first converts, like pre-Pentecost church. When the apostles were still together, everybody lived together in Jerusalem, and Paul the @$$ was still Saul the Jew.

[TrailBlazer]

No one knows what the first "Christians" were like. Probably bc there were so many fricking sects that were very loosely "Christian" in some regard or another. We'll never know what the first group of "believers" was like.

Never.

 

That's an awfully bold statement, McD. Some reading this thread may be unfamiliar with this perspective, but after extensive study, I have a fairly strong opinion that the earliest followers of the "Joshua" described in the gospels were apocalyptic Jews and that the triumphant version of "Christians," who were still quite similar to "Christians" today, were Roman followers of Paul's new religion, which, of course, was based largely on other popular cults. Despite the rampant book-burning of the Romans, we have pretty good forensics from that period. A true follower of Y'shua was a messianic Jew. A Christian has always been a gnostic following in the tradition of Paul.

 

A very well thought out clarification on this issue, TF. This is a distinction I was shocked to discover years ago as I leaned about xianity and something I really wish more xians knew about in churches today. At first I wanted to convert to Messianic Judaism, until I discovered every religion has its ups and downs; beauty and flaws.

[Vigile]

It's not a true Scotsman?

 

There are some 18,000 sects in xianity and the bible says what each of them want it to say. If someone uses the bible and follows the teachings of "christ" they are by definition "christ"ian.

 

Maybe it's just a sect that is more palatable?

[TrueFreedom]

Thank you, TrailBlazer. We are all wise to show humility in these areas and learn what we can. I've thoroughly enjoyed exploring the origins of Christianity, even after losing faith in my prior popular Christian gnosticism.

 

Vigilie, many more sects have been persecuted into extinction. Most of them appear to have been non-Roman gnostic sects.

[mcdaddy]

No one knows what the first "Christians" were like. Probably bc there were so many fricking sects that were very loosely "Christian" in some regard or another. We'll never know what the first group of "believers" was like.

Never.

 

That's an awfully bold statement, McD. Some reading this thread may be unfamiliar with this perspective, but after extensive study, I have a fairly strong opinion that the earliest followers of the "Joshua" described in the gospels were apocalyptic Jews and that the triumphant version of "Christians," who were still quite similar to "Christians" today, were Roman followers of Paul's new religion, which, of course, was based largely on other popular cults. Despite the rampant book-burning of the Romans, we have pretty good forensics from that period. A true follower of Y'shua was a messianic Jew. A Christian has always been a gnostic following in the tradition of Paul.

 

So you're ok with saying that I'm making a "bold statement" for saying we'll never know what the first handful of Christians believed, but then say you have a strong opinion on what they were like, as though that means that they probably were, in fact, that way? It seems to me that is just as bold a statement! If it were that cut and dried the debate would be more or less over then right? I've never seen anything close to a consensus on the question at hand. Maybe I can't say "we'll never NEVER know" but it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY we will. How can you prove "yshua" was even a real historical person? That's not even anywhere close to a sure thing.

 

Maybe aliens will come down and clue us in, but barring that, I'm not seeing anything coming down the pipe. What's this forensic evidence you're talking about?

[TrueFreedom]

I plan to share as time allows, McD. Sorry if I sound pompous. I'm a bit drunk...and tired...

[mcdaddy]

It's cool. Btw, I just got my new issue of Biblical Archaeology Review in today. Yaaay. Seriously, I only got it to read the letters to the editor from fundies who blast them for bringing archaeological findings to light that contradict the bible. It's hilarious. "I DON'T CARE EEF YOUZ SAY DERES NO PROOF UF ANY UF EET! GAWDS WURD SAYS ITZ TRUE!!!!"

[Guest wester]

Link to some histories I copped and paraphrased from Ehrman's lectures on the early christians and their sects:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/43558-the-history-of-the-christian-bible/

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

It's not a true Scotsman?

 

There are some 18,000 sects in xianity and the bible says what each of them want it to say. If someone uses the bible and follows the teachings of "christ" they are by definition "christ"ian.

 

Maybe it's just a sect that is more palatable?

To have Bipolar, you don't have to have all the symptoms, but you need a certain amount of key symptoms on the spectrum to be counted as such. Likewise, Christianity being an abrahamic faith, needs to be centered around its one god theism, and that would be the one in the Bible. All others must be viewed as false. The religion has to have some basis in the Bible, with the new testament. Its gotta have symptoms making it resemble christianity.

[Vigile]

So, mormonism isn't a form of christianity? They believe in many gods and believe that heavenly father is but one god in the universe.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

So, mormonism isn't a form of christianity? They believe in many gods and believe that heavenly father is but one god in the universe.

Its a branch off it. I would consider it a seperate religion in the same way that I consider Islam a seperate religion, as well as Judaism.

[Vigile]

But they call themselves Christians.

 

I would argue that the bible is malleable enough to be interpreted in an infinite number of ways.

 

In biology organisms are classified based on how close they line up with other organisms along the biological tree.

 

The way I see it is mormonism, fundamental protestant christianity, catholocism, etc... are all members of the xian family and perhaps even genus, though are not necessarily the same species. Judiasm and Islam, both of which do not claim to follow christ specifically would perhaps fit within the order of religions that evolved in the same area of the world from perhaps the same religion or group of religions, but are not in the xian family.

 

 

On the other hand, arguing that those who follow the teachings of christ (even if they don't agree with what you consider to be his teachings) are not in fact xian, is making the mistake of the no true scotsman fallacy IMO.

[Thackerie]

But they call themselves Christians.

 

I would argue that the bible is malleable enough to be interpreted in an infinite number of ways.

 

In biology organisms are classified based on how close they line up with other organisms along the biological tree.

 

The way I see it is mormonism, fundamental protestant christianity, catholocism, etc... are all members of the xian family and perhaps even genus, though are not necessarily the same species. Judiasm and Islam, both of which do not claim to follow christ specifically would perhaps fit within the order of religions that evolved in the same area of the world from perhaps the same religion or group of religions, but are not in the xian family.

 

 

On the other hand, arguing that those who follow the teachings of christ (even if they don't agree with what you consider to be his teachings) are not in fact xian, is making the mistake of the no true scotsman fallacy IMO.

 

I tend to agree ~ if they call themselves "Christians," that's good enough for me. With thousands of denominations and dozens of bibles in existence, I find it pointless to settle on a strict, one-size-fits-all definition for what a Christian is supposed to be.

[TrueFreedom]

The oldest "orthodox" branches of Christianity have always held a much looser view of scripture than protestant sects. They are much more open to allegorical interpretations. Eastern Orthodoxy has preserved non-substitutionary atonement, which does not require a literal fallen Adam and Eve.

[FeelHappy]

Mcdaddy, I'm thinking about the very first converts, like pre-Pentecost church. When the apostles were still together, everybody lived together in Jerusalem, and Paul the @$$ was still Saul the Jew.

 

Says the writer of Acts which obviously got his information wrong about what we actually know about paul from his letters, he likely made up much much more about the early church:

 

Galations 1: ¹⁷ I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

¹⁸ Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. ¹⁹ I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. ²⁰ I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

 

Compared with:

 

Acts: ¹⁷ Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” ¹⁸ Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, ¹⁹ and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. ²⁰ At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. ²¹ All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” ²² Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.

²³ After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him, ²⁴ but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. ²⁵ But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.

²⁶ When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. ²⁷ But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. ²⁸ So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. ²⁹ He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews,but they tried to kill him. ³⁰ When the believers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

[mcdaddy]

Mcdaddy, I'm thinking about the very first converts, like pre-Pentecost church. When the apostles were still together, everybody lived together in Jerusalem, and Paul the @$$ was still Saul the Jew.

 

Says the writer of Acts which obviously got his information wrong about what we actually know about paul from his letters, he likely made up much much more about the early church:

 

Galations 1: ¹⁷ I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

¹⁸ Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. ¹⁹ I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. ²⁰ I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

 

Compared with:

 

Acts: ¹⁷ Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” ¹⁸ Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, ¹⁹ and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. ²⁰ At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. ²¹ All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” ²² Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.

²³ After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him, ²⁴ but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. ²⁵ But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.

²⁶ When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. ²⁷ But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. ²⁸ So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. ²⁹ He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews,but they tried to kill him. ³⁰ When the believers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

 

Bingo. Like I said, it's impossible to know for sure. So many outright contradictions.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

But they call themselves Christians.

 

I would argue that the bible is malleable enough to be interpreted in an infinite number of ways.

 

In biology organisms are classified based on how close they line up with other organisms along the biological tree.

 

The way I see it is mormonism, fundamental protestant christianity, catholocism, etc... are all members of the xian family and perhaps even genus, though are not necessarily the same species. Judiasm and Islam, both of which do not claim to follow christ specifically would perhaps fit within the order of religions that evolved in the same area of the world from perhaps the same religion or group of religions, but are not in the xian family.

Quite the contrary, the muslims DO follow Jesus, in the sense that they see him as the prophet that came before Muhammad. Their view of Jesus is much like many christians in Arabia viewed him, as a prophet instead of a God.

 

Is Islam christian?

[TrueFreedom]

You can't know anything for sure, but you can decipher probabilities based on proven methods. Paul probably made a lot of stuff up. Jesus taught Jewish law. Paul taught "believe and be saved." Paul's religion evolved amongst the Romans and became the dominant one.

[Vigile]

Believing he's a prophet and following his teachings are two separate things. I'll leave it up to the Muslims or someone who is more expert on the subject to determine if they are xian. I'd say they don't meet several criteria that liberal xians do, but that's just a swag.