Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt01339)

You wrote:

  "Dear Vince,
 
  Yes, I agree that we are in a similar boat, but got there in very 
different ways.  The three topics that my parents never discussed in 
front of the children were religion, politics and race.  So, I never 
really discovered these things until I was about twelve--and then, 
on my own.  They then became subjects of primary interest. Since I 
had no religious instruction from home, lived in a Jewish 
neighborhood, and attended a public school where everyone was 
Jewish, I just half assumed that I was a Jew, like everyone else."

Hhmm, okay.  Interesting.  My mother has characteristically been 
privately religious (believes in God, but doesn't read the Bible or 
attend church), whereas my father has been more anti-religious 
(can't stand Christians or the Bible).  But then the religious 
institutions were quick to educate me in their religious agenda, 
just so long as I'd be sincere, believing with the heart prior to 
thinking with the mind.  Nonetheless, my questions caused me to be 
labeled as a thinker.

  "As I entered my teens, I discovered the beatniks at Venice beach, 
and used to hang around them.  My mother became alarmed and decided 
that I must be becoming a "juvenile delinquent" and began to take me 
to a very conservative Lutheran Church. That was my first formal 
contact with Christianity. I found the services and sermons 
curious.  Lots of mysticism about an invisible god, a ressurected 
man, and promise of an afterlife if I believed the right things."

That's actually a little bit ironic.  My mom took my brother and I 
to a Lutheran Church when my brother was becoming a 'delinquent'.  
(I was too young at the time for delinquency.)  Years later I began 
having metaphysical experiences (without drug usage), so I started 
attending church on my own to learn about the supernatural.  Of 
course, they eventually told me that my metaphysical experiences 
were bad, and that I needed to repent of them.

  "The problem was that I didn't feel like I was damned. I 
understood about right and wrong actions, but this idea of "sin" was 
strange. Why should Eve's eating of an apple have anything to do 
with me?  After all, it was she who screwed up, not me.  Soon we 
began going to classes to learn about the religion. The notion of 
original sin remain illogical.  I couldn't buy it."

Now me, I felt damned.  I noticed alot of crime transpiring in the 
world around me, although I was one to keep my nose clean.  But alot 
of people in my youth were outright criminally violent.  So I got 
the sin part down pretty well.  Nowadays though, I feel quite a bit 
different about sin concepts and where they originate from, but I 
was just a preteen then.
 
  "The Pastor spent most of his time talking about why Catholicism 
is in error and how awful the Jew were.  One night the Pastor told 
us that God is only now beginning to forgive the Jews for killing 
Jesus. That was the first time I ever heard such a thing and the 
remark deeply disturbed me. All of my friends were Jews and I didn't 
find them awful at all. The implication I got in the Pastor's 
remark, was that God must have been pleased with Hitler's attempted 
extermination of the Jews."

That sounds a little bit like one of the comments that a former 
pastor of mine made about desiring to nuke the middle-east, to 
exterminate the races that Moses and Joshua missed during their Old 
Testament genocide campaigns.  Except he wanted the United States to 
carry it out, so Israel could get back the majority of the middle-
east territory like God had promised them in the Old Testament.  
More pro-Jew than anti-Jew, but into USA-originated nuclear genocide 
just the same.

  "So, other than the unfortunate encounter with the Lutheran 
Pastor, I entered a study of Christianity with pretty much of a 
clean slate, and began by reading, on my own, the New English Bible 
of the NT, which had just been published for the first time.  There 
I was delighted to discover that the three wise men were 
called "astrologers."  That delighted me because I had recently 
discovered that my aunt practiced astrology professionally, but out 
of respect for my mother's wishes, never mentioned it to me.  So, 
from the beginning, my investigation into Christianity had no 
theological guidance, which left me to my own resources to make of 
it what I could."

I noticed the part about the three 'magi' (mages, magicians) too.  
The Bible is actually very metaphysical.
 
  "When the Nag Hammadi codices were published in translation around 
1970, I raced to the Bodhi Tree Bookstore and bought a copy.  I then 
began reading more scholarly commentaries on Christianity, Christian 
and Gnostic texts, beginning with Elaine Pagel's writings.  While 
all of this was happening, I attended churches and talked casually 
to ministers of various denominations. When we moved to Northern 
California, my wife and I began attending the Unitarian Universalist 
Church where a member with mainline Christian beliefs is not to be 
found."

When I accumulated volumes containing a total of about 300 different 
pseudopigraphal texts, I was strictly told that I was straying into 
heretical texts by fundamentalist Christians.  I only discovered the 
existence of unitarian churches this last year, but they are all a 
half hour away from me.  I'm surrounded by Christian fundamentalist 
megachurches where the pastoral salaries often exceed $100 grand.  A 
congregation of 5000 people is just too small nowadays in my area.
 
  "So, like you I discovered that the Bible is misrepresented by a 
strange theological structure, but took a very different route to 
end up in the same place. When we started the Origins of 
Christianity class two years ago, I discovered that there were a lot 
of barriers to communication. Theological conditioning from years of 
church going was to blame.  One of them is as you mentioned: The 
Gospels read very differently from the theological interpretations. 
One member or out group who was raised in a conservative Christian 
home discovered this when we began studying Judaism and 
investigating the Hebrew scriptures."

I believe that shortcomings in present-day cultural norms distort 
biblical interpretation quite a bit.

  "Some other barriers that met with considerable resistance were:
 
  1. The Gospels were not written to be historical accounts of 
Jesus' life.  Rather, they are evangelical tracts written for the 
purpose of gaining converts and to answer the objections of critics 
of the early Christians."

Okay, I never heard that one before.

  "2. One must therefore, make a distinction between the historical 
Jesus, the Jesus represented in the Gospels, and the theological 
Jesus."

I just tend to differentiate between the Jesus of the Bible and the 
Jesus of Christian fundamentalists.  They don't seem quite the same.

  "3. There were, in the beginning dozens of Christian communities 
with very divergent beliefs.  Many of them had Gospels and religious 
writings of their own.  Most of these writings were destroyed after 
Christianity was declared the only legal religion of the empire.  
That is, the variety of Christianity adopted by the Emperor of Rome."

Okay, I follow.  Government definitely got heavily involved.  Very 
political.

  "4. Since these other Christian communities, later 
called "gnostics," were outlawed and their writings destroyed, we 
know little about them except through a few meager texts that 
survived, and through the criticisms of the canonical church 
fathers."

I got labeled as a gnostic too by the fundamentalist church through 
formal excommunication.  The funny thing though was that I was 
actually agnostic when the church declared me to be gnostic.  Go 
figure.

  "5. The members of these other Christian communities considered 
themselves to be just as Christian as those belonging to the sect 
adopted by the Emperors."

I'm sure they did.  Jesus probably fell in the same boat.

  "6. Critical works of Christianity written by philosophers and 
other learned people were systematically destroyed.  All that 
survives are the reconstructed writings of Porphyry, Celsus, and the 
preserved orations of the apostate Emperor Julian."

I'm not famiiar with those.

  "7. Because of 4 and 6, our knowledge of the earliest history of 
the Christian movement is fragmentary, biased in favor of the early 
Roman church, and much is left to conjecture and theological 
manipulation."

Perhaps some form of metaphysical revelation will have to suffice 
then.  I interpret the Bible metaphysically for the most part, 
although simultaneously aware of what the literal text says.

Vince

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> 
wrote:
>
> Dear Vince,
> 
> Yes, I agree that we are in a similar boat, but got there in very 
> different ways.  The three topics that my parents never discussed 
in 
> front of the children were religion, politics and race.  So, I 
never 
> really discovered these things until I was about twelve--and then, 
on my 
> own.  They then became subjects of primary interest. Since I had 
no 
> religious instruction from home, lived in a Jewish neighborhood, 
and 
> attended a public school where everyone was Jewish, I just half 
assumed 
> that I was a Jew, like everyone else.
> 
> As I entered my teens, I discovered the beatniks at Venice beach, 
and 
> used to hang around them.  My mother became alarmed and decided 
that I 
> must be becoming a "juvenile delinquent" and began to take me to a 
very 
> conservative Lutheran Church. That was my first formal contact 
with 
> Christianity. I found the services and sermons curious.  Lots of 
> mysticism about an invisible god, a ressurected man, and promise 
of an 
> afterlife if I believed the right things.  The problem was that I 
didn't 
> feel like I was damned. I understood about right and wrong 
actions, but 
> this idea of "sin" was strange. Why should Eve's eating of an 
apple have 
> anything to do with me?  After all, it was she who screwed up, not 
me.  
> Soon we began going to classes to learn about the religion. The 
notion 
> of original sin remain illogical.  I couldn't buy it. 
> 
> The Pastor spent most of his time talking about why Catholicism is 
in 
> error and how awful the Jew were.  One night the Pastor told us 
that God 
> is only now beginning to forgive the Jews for killing Jesus. That 
was 
> the first time I ever heard such a thing and the remark deeply 
disturbed 
> me. All of my friends were Jews and I didn't find them awful at 
all. The 
> implication I got in the Pastor's remark, was that God must have 
been 
> pleased with Hitler's attempted extermination of the Jews. 
> 
> So, other than the unfortunate encounter with the Lutheran Pastor, 
I 
> entered a study of Christianity with pretty much of a clean slate, 
and 
> began by reading, on my own, the New English Bible of the NT, 
which had 
> just been published for the first time.  There I was delighted to 
> discover that the three wise men were called "astrologers."  That 
> delighted me because I had recently discovered that my aunt 
practiced 
> astrology professionally, but out of respect for my mother's 
wishes, 
> never mentioned it to me.  So, from the beginning, my 
investigation into 
> Christianity had no theological guidance, which left me to my own 
> resources to make of it what I could. 
> 
> When the Nag Hammadi codices were published in translation around 
1970, 
> I raced to the Bodhi Tree Bookstore and bought a copy.  I then 
began 
> reading more scholarly commentaries on Christianity, Christian and 
> Gnostic texts, beginning with Elaine Pagel's writings.  While all 
of 
> this was happening, I attended churches and talked casually to 
ministers 
> of various denominations. When we moved to Northern California, my 
wife 
> and I began attending the Unitarian Universalist Church where a 
member 
> with mainline Christian beliefs is not to be found.  
> 
> So, like you I discovered that the Bible is misrepresented by a 
strange 
> theological structure, but took a very different route to end up 
in the 
> same place. When we started the Origins of Christianity class two 
years 
> ago, I discovered that there were a lot of barriers to 
communication. 
> Theological conditioning from years of church going was to blame.  
One 
> of them is as you mentioned: The Gospels read very differently 
from the 
> theological interpretations. One member or out group who was 
raised in a 
> conservative Christian home discovered this when we began studying 
> Judaism and investigating the Hebrew scriptures.
> 
> Some other barriers that met with considerable resistance were:
> 
> 1. The Gospels were not written to be historical accounts of 
Jesus' 
> life.  Rather, they are evangelical tracts written for the purpose 
of 
> gaining converts and to answer the objections of critics of the 
early 
> Christians.
> 
> 2. One must therefore, make a distinction between the historical 
Jesus, 
> the Jesus represented in the Gospels, and the theological Jesus. 
> 
> 3. There were, in the beginning dozens of Christian communities 
with 
> very divergent beliefs.  Many of them had Gospels and religious 
writings 
> of their own.  Most of these writings were destroyed after 
Christianity 
> was declared the only legal religion of the empire.  That is, the 
> variety of Christianity adopted by the Emperor of Rome. 
> 
> 4. Since these other Christian communities, later 
called "gnostics," 
> were outlawed and their writings destroyed, we know little about 
them 
> except through a few meager texts that survived, and through the 
> criticisms of the canonical church fathers.  
> 
> 5. The members of these other Christian communities considered 
> themselves to be just as Christian as those belonging to the sect 
> adopted by the Emperors.
> 
> 6. Critical works of Christianity written by philosophers and 
other 
> learned people were systematically destroyed.  All that survives 
are the 
> reconstructed writings of Porphyry, Celsus, and the preserved 
orations 
> of the apostate Emperor Julian.  
> 
> 7. Because of 4 and 6, our knowledge of the earliest history of 
the 
> Christian movement is fragmentary, biased in favor of the early 
Roman 
> church, and much is left to conjecture and theological 
manipulation.