The original gospel? - Page 2

**metis** · #11 (**permalink**) 9th September 2007, 07:09 PM

aged hippy, in regards to the quote that you posted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aged hippy

* In the beginning, Christianity was an entirely Jewish movement. So this is where the Historical Jesus was coming from.

Mostly true, but a decision was made by Paul and the apostles not to have to have followers become Jewish through circumcision, which ended up quickly creating a movement that quickly became increasingly non-Jewish. .

Quote:

* This situation prevailed for a long time, much longer than most people may suspect. Indeed, there is good evidence that the movement was still overwhelmingly Jewish-Christian even as late as 135 CE (Common Era).

Overstated. The archaeological and historical evidence indicates that by the end of the first century, there were already a splintering into several groups due to differences in interpretation and composition. This "splintering" even shows up to a certain extent in Acts.

Quote:

* It was at that time, in the terrible aftermath of the Second Jewish War, which was one of the darkest periods of Jewish history -- when Judaism was basically outlawed by the Roman state -- that the leadership of the movement had been seized by Gentile Christians -- in Rome, as well as in Jerusalem. So this, as I see it, was the Great Gentile Hijacking of Christianity.

"Seized" is too strong a word for my comfort. Dominated, yes. What happened is that the number of gentile followers of "the way" began to far outnumber the number of Jewish-Christians. And the evidence seemingly indicates that Jesus wasn't altogether that clear about what his followers should do in some important areas, plus that his teachings were quite liberal when compared to normative Judaism, allowed a great deal of wiggle-room when it came to interpretation and adherence to the normative Judaism. This opened the door to substantial gentile influence that was counter to traditional Jewish observance.

Quote:

* Then, in the aftermath of the Hijacking, a Big Cover-up began. This was an attempt by newly emerging Catholic orthodoxy to falsify the true story of Christian beginnings, which were essentially Jewish-Christian beginnings. And so, this was also the time when the gospels were being re-edited substantially to reflect these doctrinal changes.

Disagree. It wasn't as much as a "falsifying" as much as it was a drifting away as I mentioned in my previous paragraph. And we have to remember that such writings reflect a great deal of subjectivity, so they tended to write down mostly what they came to believe.

Quote:

* Although far from being trouble-free and easy to impose, still, the Cover-up proved to be remarkably successful -- because it has survived mostly intact even until now. In fact, the academic biblical historians are still very much taken in by that official cover story -- that foundational Catholic myth that was cobbled together back in the second century CE.

It wasn't just "Catholic" but, eventually, Orthodox and Protestant as well. For the author to simply blame it on Catholics indicates a bias he has imo. These changes occurred very early in the movement. Yes, there was some playing fast and loose with scripture, but that's to be expected under the circumstances.

Shalom,
Vern

aged hippy · #12 (**permalink**) 11th September 2007, 01:09 AM

Thanks for the input, metis, it's always good to have another point of view - it keeps things in balance.

I do tend to agree with him about the "falsifying", though, there's no evidence that Jesus lived when and where he was alleged to have done, and much of the mythos seems to have originated elsewhere.

Peace, Love, & Light

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode