Merry Christmas!!

[Physics Guy]

I reckon that the most original source of Christianity that we can now find is the New Testament. And even if other evidence can be found for earlier Christian traditions, it is the New Testament tradition that grew and spread through the world, and in that sense I would say that the New Testament is Christianity, the way the Big Mac is McDonald's. It's the core set of memes in the brand.

Apart from a few loosely attached sections like all the birth narratives, moreover, I'm inclined to suppose that the New Testament is more a record of people's reaction to Jesus than something that later writers made up and projected on Jesus as a mouthpiece character. There may well be some of that, sure, but I think history includes a lot more examples of widespread meme clusters launched by one genius than it has of world religions launched by anonymous committee. Very likely the Jesus story accumulated extensions or distortions, but I think there must surely have been a core upon which they could accrete.

Something I still find fascinating about the New Testament, though, is how much it contains explicitly about the confrontation between the insular and religious culture of first-century Palestinian Judaism and the secular cosmopolitanism, mostly Hellenistic, of the whole first-century Roman Empire. The gospels even include a few interactions between Jesus and gentiles. One of the easiest to overlook might be the most important:

Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the festival. They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.” Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.

In John's gospel, it is this news that Jesus's message has started reaching "Greeks" that seems to trigger the whole Passion sequence.

Some of the Jesus-with-Gentiles stories do seem to be told from a pretty Jewish point of view, looking down on the heathen, but even these do show Jesus himself willing to expand his mission to include Gentiles, praising their faith. So I think that just reading the New Testament makes clear that Christianity was a fusion of Judaism and Hellenism, from the beginning.

The point I want to make is that it wasn't an unconscious fusion in which Greco-Romans simply hijacked a Jewish movement and made it into something new. Christianity was a conscious and explicit fusion, and you can see a lot of the fusing already happening in the oldest Christian sources we have. The oldest surviving written sources of the New Testament are all in Greek, after all—not Hebrew or Aramaic.

[malkie]

I reckon that the most original source of Christianity that we can now find is the New Testament. And even if other evidence can be found for earlier Christian traditions, it is the New Testament tradition that grew and spread through the world, and in that sense I would say that the New Testament is Christianity, the way the Big Mac is McDonald's. It's the core set of memes in the brand.

...

Do you think that New Testament Christianity supports the primacy of the Bishop of Rome? It's been a long time since I read any of the scriptures, but I always thought that the naming of Peter as "the rock" on which the earthly organization was to be built sounded a bit hokey. My feeling was that if that was Jesus' intention there would be a bigger deal made of it throughout the New Testament.

[Physics Guy]

The New Testament does seem to make out Peter as the top dog. He just has more scene time with Jesus than anyone else; even his threefold denial of Jesus gets its own little subplot. He stays prominent in Acts, and gets credited for a couple of epistles. Paul gets a lot more word count, but never met Jesus physically, so he’s just out of the running.

The idea that Peter’s primacy extends to his successors—that apostles would even have successors—really doesn’t seem clear in the New Testament, though. My impression is that this whole notion of authority by apostolic succession emerged over the next couple of centuries as a solution to a serious problem of version control.

Who could say what the real Christianity was, or what Jesus had really said and done? Paul was a crucial figure but he set a problematic precedent. Anyone could just declare that they’d had a vision of Jesus who gave them teachings, commandments, authority. This kind of free-for-all would probably happen anyway, in a time that we may be reentering now, when it’s hard to judge between competing stories. Paul’s example probably just made it worse.

The criterion that seemed to stick was to demand a sort of Christian version of Hadith. Did this teaching come from someone who had been approved by one of the original apostles, iteratively? This is still the Catholic criterion for validity of ordination. Did the ordaining bishop have a valid pedigree of apostolic succession?

[msnobody]

I reckon that the most original source of Christianity that we can now find is the New Testament. And even if other evidence can be found for earlier Christian traditions, it is the New Testament tradition that grew and spread through the world, and in that sense I would say that the New Testament is Christianity, the way the Big Mac is McDonald's. It's the core set of memes in the brand.

...

Do you think that New Testament Christianity supports the primacy of the Bishop of Rome? It's been a long time since I read any of the scriptures, but I always thought that the naming of Peter as "the rock" on which the earthly organization was to be built sounded a bit hokey. My feeling was that if that was Jesus' intention there would be a bigger deal made of it throughout the New Testament.

In Dr. Michael Heiser’s book, The Unseen Realm: Discovering the Supernatural View of the Bible, the author suggests that “the rock” on which he would build the church was instead, the location, Mt. Hermon, and the gates of Hell would not be able to withstand the church. In the context of the supernatural worldview of the biblical writers, as Heiser’s book suggests, this explanation of “ the rock” seems very plausible to me.


https://www.amazon.com/Unseen-Realm-Exp ... 227&sr=8-1

I think this link may explain Mt. Hermon further. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fa_XWaBPs ... Nlcg%3D%3D

[malkie]

The New Testament does seem to make out Peter as the top dog. He just has more scene time with Jesus than anyone else; even his threefold denial of Jesus gets its own little subplot. He stays prominent in Acts, and gets credited for a couple of epistles. Paul gets a lot more word count, but never met Jesus physically, so he’s just out of the running.

The idea that Peter’s primacy extends to his successors—that apostles would even have successors—really doesn’t seem clear in the New Testament, though. My impression is that this whole notion of authority by apostolic succession emerged over the next couple of centuries as a solution to a serious problem of version control.

Who could say what the real Christianity was, or what Jesus had really said and done? Paul was a crucial figure but he set a problematic precedent. Anyone could just declare that they’d had a vision of Jesus who gave them teachings, commandments, authority. This kind of free-for-all would probably happen anyway, in a time that we may be reentering now, when it’s hard to judge between competing stories. Paul’s example probably just made it worse.

The criterion that seemed to stick was to demand a sort of Christian version of Hadith. Did this teaching come from someone who had been approved by one of the original apostles, iteratively? This is still the Catholic criterion for validity of ordination. Did the ordaining bishop have a valid pedigree of apostolic succession?

In the Mormon church, each Melchizedek Priesthood holder is given a "Line of Authority" showing the ordination lineage/pedigree back to Jesus Christ, via modern-day apostles.

For example:

Apostle Line of Authority for President Spencer W. Kimball

• Spencer W. Kimball was ordained an Apostle Oct. 7, 1943, by Heber J. Grant
• Heber J. Grant was ordained an Apostle Oct. 16, 1882, by George Q. Cannon
• George Q. Cannon was ordained an Apostle Aug. 26, 1860, by Brigham Young
• Brigham Young was ordained an Apostle Feb. 14, 1835, by the three witnesses
• Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received priesthood 1829 from Peter, James and John
• Peter, James and John were ordained Apostles by the Savior (John 15:16)

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2013/3/2/ ... n-request/

[Limnor]

Who could say what the real Christianity was, or what Jesus had really said and done? Paul was a crucial figure but he set a problematic precedent. Anyone could just declare that they’d had a vision of Jesus who gave them teachings, commandments, authority. This kind of free-for-all would probably happen anyway, in a time that we may be reentering now, when it’s hard to judge between competing stories. Paul’s example probably just made it worse.

This seems right. I’d only offer that Paul didn’t create the problem as much as he did demonstrate something about revelation claims alone as authority: those claims have to be testable. Paul wasn’t accepted on a large scale until he was recognized—or tested—by the apostolic circle.

[malkie]

Do you think that New Testament Christianity supports the primacy of the Bishop of Rome? It's been a long time since I read any of the scriptures, but I always thought that the naming of Peter as "the rock" on which the earthly organization was to be built sounded a bit hokey. My feeling was that if that was Jesus' intention there would be a bigger deal made of it throughout the New Testament.

In Dr. Michael Heiser’s book, The Unseen Realm: Discovering the Supernatural View of the Bible, the author suggests that “the rock” on which he would build the church was instead, the location, Mt. Hermon, and the gates of Hell would not be able to withstand the church. In the context of the supernatural worldview of the biblical writers, as Heiser’s book suggests, this explanation of “ the rock” seems very plausible to me.


https://www.amazon.com/Unseen-Realm-Exp ... 227&sr=8-1

I think this link may explain Mt. Hermon further. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fa_XWaBPs ... Nlcg%3D%3D

Thanks, msnobody - I'll have a look at the video.

[MG 2.0]

Here is some more food to add to the Christmas banquet:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t ... 0742577814

Bari Weiss interviews Paula Fredrekson author of When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle, and Ancient Christianities: The First Five Hundred Years.

Early Jesus followers viewed themselves as Jews in the final generation before the Messiah's return, not founders of a new faith.The discussion explores their shift to identifying as distinct Christian.

The interview also delves into the apocalyptic expectations of Jesus' earliest Jewish followers, who anticipated the imminent end of history rather than founding a separate religion. It examines the gradual separation from Judaism, driven by unfulfilled prophecies, Gentile conversions, and tensions over the Messiah's identity.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

A merry Christmas. A greeting and wish that can mean something to all sorts of believers atheists included. But if you are MG you get pushback for posting the wish.

Letting that pass I wish all of you a merry Christmas. It a seasonal holiday with flexible parameters so I choose to think it not to late to say it here.

I was thinking about Kiskkumens comments about modern Christmas shaped by Dickens. I could wish that were more true. Christmas has a long history with variation in times and places. I am happy that it is a continuation of pre Christian seasonal celebration. Hope for a new year can link with Christian hope. I watched movie White Christmas last night. I can enjoy a bit of Bing singing and the fancy show dance numbers. There is not much for religious stuff there yet people relate to snow coming as a Christmas image, new, quiet, pure, time to pause for internal renewal.

Like celebrating and wishing folks well no belief system is necessary, well perhaps a bit of faith in the value of others, expressing hope and sharing.

Christians have long injected the seasonal time with images and representations of the Christian message. The gospel's birth narratives have a mythological dimension announcing a king as Kishkumen points out. It is a different hope than a birth of emperor of Rome and has different images.Christians have continued to shape the story to express this upside-down hope. Cows and sheep look at baby Jesus in a stable(might not be factual for the real birth of the real Jesus but tells the correct story)

[Limnor]

Ok, so I guess as a Christmas offering to show solidarity (maybe?), MG has graciously placed Paula Fredriksen on the table, like a figgy pudding, and then… wandered off. Sitting at the table, it is unclear whether we’re meant to eat it or wonder if there is a point somewhere in there about the Great Apostasy. This is an example of the type of move that might end up with a poster being labeled a troll, just so it’s clear.

The Fredriksen pudding, when spooned out in delicate bite-sized goodness, reminds us that Christians thought the world was ending any minute. They still thought of themselves as Jews, so long as you don’t include the gentile converts, and were unaware and uninterested in founding a new religion, let alone establishing a long-term authority structure. She also treats us to the delicious news that the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD was a moment that changed everything, and forced all Jewish movements to adapt.

All of which is interesting, but it’s still not very clear what we are supposed to do with this information. Does this support restorationism, refute it, or just offer that the original members didn’t plan on a long-term ecclesiastical structure?