early christianity

[spartan]

Just read an article on the gospel of Thomas (Which was found in 1945 and which is regarded as one of the earliest/oldest written recordings of Jesus' sayings).

Now what makes this important is the things that the gospel includes and doesnt include compared to the other much later gospels.

For instance in the gospel of Thomas Jesus is never called "christ" or "lord" just simply "Jesus".

It also dosent make one mention of classic new testament gospel doctrines such as satan, demons, the second coming, sin or signs.

It does however mention heaven and hell, damnation, the kingdom of god, miracles and salvation.

Now what makes this all significant is that the gospel of Thomas was written much earlier than all the other gospels and much nearer to Jesus' own lifetime which therefore in my eyes presents a more accurate picture of the historical Jesus.

It also contains new unheard sayings of jesus which have been described as very "Communistic" as well as sayings which contradict later supposed trueful gospel sayings of Jesus.

Also of intrest is that the gospel of Thomas dosent list the twelve apostles (Though i do think that all or most of them are in his gospel as characters and maybe disciples).

I think that the later gospel writers used Jesus and his teachings to futher their own agendas.

Perhaps they put all that shit about anti homosexuality, amongst other things, to futher their own agendas?

I think jesus wanted a complete overhaul of society where there would be no rich, no poor (he wanted everybody equal in all things), no church (I am sure that i remember Jesus saying or preaching against churches something like "worship is so private that it should be done in a closet!" i.e. "your personal relationship with God should be private not public for everyone to see and that things that are spoken to God should be private". He said this after mentionig that people who publicly worship, like many Jews did on street corners just to be seen in ancient times, was wrong because they were only doing it to be seen i.e. to further their social standing not true worship), no hierarchy, no discrimination based on sex or race, etc which are very Socialistic beliefs IMO.

Also Jesus was no rich man himself and this wasnt by choice as he was a simple carpenter who helped out other people, if you believe the bible, as often as he could for free!

The fact is Jesus was a simple Proletarian who preached his Socialistic beliefs, which he either mixed with religion deliberately himself (to reach a bigger audience for religion was a very important part of life to ordinary working people back then) or the later gospel writers mixed it with religion for their own purpses (yet again to reach a bigger audience), to society.

These beliefs were most probably twisted later on by the gospel writers, after Thomas, for their own greedy desires/purposes.

Perhaps these gospel witers, as well as the established churches (of which Jesus himself never believed in), after Thomas have successfully covered up or tried to cover up (Literally with the gospel of Thomas) Jesus' revoluionary past and his visions for a future ideal world society?

Perhaps Jesus was more socialist and revolutionry then most people think or give him credit for (Especially when you consider that he forcefully got the merhants and their market stalls off of the holy ground of the synagouge. Yes that was good old fashioned force no non violent shit in that action for he kicked and punched them out and destroyed their stalls with his own hands. I dont know if his disciples/followers helped him)?

Well any way if you dont believe any of this then please dont shit on me for it.

[freakazoid]

The Gospel of Thomas is nothing but Gnostic lies. :) It is also not really a Gospel, like the others, but it is a collection of sayings, 114. Also it isn't the earliest.

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:09 am
The Gospel of Thomas is nothing but Gnostic lies. :) It is also not really a Gospel, like the others, but it is a collection of sayings, 114. Also it isn't the earliest.
Proof?

And, Spartan, i would love to see the source of this, i personally believe that Jesus was more of a communist than anything, and would love to read this.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:09 am
The Gospel of Thomas is nothing but Gnostic lies. :) It is also not really a Gospel, like the others, but it is a collection of sayings, 114. Also it isn't the earliest.
Personally it just strikes me as something that the church authorities didn't like, so they didn't include it.

That's why I like my Qur'an, it's formation is slightly less complicated xP.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by The Red [email protected]ust 21, 2007 07:40 am

That's why I like my Qur'an, it's formation is slightly less complicated xP.
Emphasis on the 'slightly'.

Whats the point of spliting this off from the early christian communities thread ?

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by gilhyle+August 21, 2007 07:53 am--> (gilhyle @ August 21, 2007 07:53 am)
The Red [email protected] 21, 2007 07:40 am

That's why I like my Qur'an, it's formation is slightly less complicated xP.
Emphasis on the 'slightly'.

Whats the point of spliting this off from the early christian communities thread ? [/b]
Nope slightly was a joke. The original transcript of the Qur'an still exists + it's basically Muhammad saying stuff under a trance that is allegedly the words of Allah. The Bible is the Jewish Torah + books in the New Testament that the church authorities approved of.

Although I do not want to get in a religious debate on a communist message board tbh so I'll stop there.

yeah why was this split off? :huh:

[spartan]

At first i wasnt going to split it from the "Early Christian communities" thread but then i thought it would be an intresting topic in its own right.

And to "the-spark" i got most of my information from wikipedia (Yeah i know) as well as combining things from links in the "Early Christian communities" thread.

[spartan]

Some intresting historical Christian sects to research here: The Cathars, the Diggers, the Hussites, the Levellers, the Lollards, the Taborites, the Utraquists and finally the Waldensians.

Some of these groups, especially the Diggers and Levellers, had very Socialistic beliefs and ideals about how to live and work etc.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 21, 2007 08:08 am

Nope slightly was a joke. The original transcript of the Qur'an still exists + it's basically Muhammad saying stuff under a trance that is allegedly the words of Allah. Although I do not want to get in a religious debate on a communist message board tbh so I'll stop there.


Fair enough, but Im surprised to hear you say its straightforward; I had read an article that made me think 'oh here we go again, the whole thing is reconstructed'(havent got the reference, it was just something on the net....anyway wont go into it.

[Yardstick]

That description of historical jesus seems rather inaccurate.

While I agree that much of Jesus's teachings are very communistic, I would not go so far as to call him a communist who disguised himself as a religious person(clearly jesus believed he was the son of god considering he let himself be killed over this claim) nor does it seem likely that later people turned Jesus into a religious person because they could just keep the status quo instead of bringing in a new character.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by gilhyle+August 21, 2007 09:39 pm--> (gilhyle @ August 21, 2007 09:39 pm)
The Red [email protected] 21, 2007 08:08 am

Nope slightly was a joke. The original transcript of the Qur'an still exists + it's basically Muhammad saying stuff under a trance that is allegedly the words of Allah. Although I do not want to get in a religious debate on a communist message board tbh so I'll stop there.


Fair enough, but Im surprised to hear you say its straightforward; I had read an article that made me think 'oh here we go again, the whole thing is reconstructed'(havent got the reference, it was just something on the net....anyway wont go into it. [/b]
Yeah they had these people that like memorized what Muhammad said and they realized they needed to write it all down about 10-25 years after he died, so then the message wouldn't die and stuff. But they were really really obsessive memorizers.

[freakazoid]

^^ That is pretty much how the Bible was. It is called wrote rote memorizing. Also the main thing is to get the main stuff correct, not every single little detail.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:00 am
^^ That is pretty much how the Bible was. It is called wrote rote memorizing. Also the main thing is to get the main stuff correct, not every single little detail.
Ah yes, I see what you mean. With the Apostles remembering what jesus said and then writing it down?

Although, people can come to different conclusions from the same evidence. A Christian friend of mine prefers Christianity to Islam because Christianity has a wealth of canonical and non-canonical text to read, while Muslims only have one Qur'an. xP I personally find it less confusing though.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

some intresting historical christian groups to research here. the cathars, the diggers, the hussites, the levellers, the lollards, the taborites, the utraquists and finally the waldensians.

Taborites and Utraquists are both considered Hussites, Taborites being the more apocalyptic and socialist ... the Utraquists were considered the moderate faction of the Hussites ...

Hussites were all followers of Jan Huss, this comprised several different factions ... including the Taborites (named for their community of Tabor), the Utraquists (or Calixtines) whose name came from their symbol (a cup), as well as the Oberites (meaning Orphans, who were closer to the Taborites)

Calaxtines (the moderates) ended up joining with the Holy Roman Emperor to destroy the Taborites in 1434

[jaycee]

i think the most interesting thing about early christianity, and the various sects which emerged (usually at times of social upheavel) is their vision of the new world after the end times. The 'Kingdom of God', Zion in Judaism were glimpses of a future world, which is very simialr to a communist world. These visions were wrapped in mystic views because people during these periods in history could see no way of reaching such a world through human efforts alone.

However one recurring theme was the end of religion, the idea that in this new world their will be no need for religion as everyone will be automatically at one with god. This certainly corresponds with the Marxist view of the overcoming of alienation, in my opinion.

[gilhyle]

Here is the link to that article, which includes reference to some Marxist writers on the topic in the 1930s in the Soviet Union:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/792720/posts

(you scroll down for parts two and three, dont use the links), ignore the comments along the way)

What comes out of this is the clear contrast between the interpretation of the standing of the Qu'ran which became dominant from the 11th century and the views which had been there earlier -one wonders what influence the Crusades had in creating this view.

The dominant interpretation for the last 1000 years seems to see the Qur'an as a-historical, as necessarily standing outside historical events and as not subject to historical scholarship. This text from the Yemen, apparently contradicts that.

It might seem that Christianity had the same view, but even in its ancient form St Augustine was able to treat Christ as an historical figure, although the key personage in an alternative, sacred history.

Starting in the 17th century with Spinoza a very radical distinction started to be made between what David Friedrich Strauss came to call 'the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History'.

Many of the Christian communist sects rely on denying the historicity of Christ, in other words they rely on returning to the Gospels' word in defiance of subsequent interpretation by the Church. Their communism is, in that sense, unself-conscious, dependent and illusory.

(BTW it is striking to this day, that Christian domination of biblical studies seeks to re-create belief in a faithful oral tradition which precedes the gospels and which led to the setting down of a mythical document of the sayings of Christ, for which there is no real evidence - its pure speculation. At least Islam has some ancient accounts of how the Qur'an came to be written down after a battle where 80 of the 500 memorizers got killed!)

[jasmine]

The Gospel of Thomas is a symbolic text. It's not describing historic events. Probably none of the gospels are describing historic events. It's improbable that the Jesus Christ of the bible existed. The reason that the established christian churches' behaviour (eg the inquisition, support for hitler amongst many, many other examples) is so far from the apparent character and aims of Jesus is that the texts were hijacked for political purposes and their meaning skewed into the need for subservience to the established Roman order followed by a later reward in heaven (if St. Peter deigned to open the gates).

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:16 pm
The Gospel of Thomas is a symbolic text. It's not describing historic events. Probably none of the gospels are describing historic events. It's improbable that the Jesus Christ of the bible existed. The reason that the established christian churches' behaviour (eg the inquisition, support for hitler amongst many, many other examples) is so far from the apparent character and aims of Jesus is that the texts were hijacked for political purposes and their meaning skewed into the need for subservience to the established Roman order followed by a later reward in heaven (if St. Peter deigned to open the gates).
Its all suppose to be symbolic. Thats why the gnostic books are as relevant as the reest of the books. In the gnostic books he Book of Judas says hiostory has given him a bad rap. He was the closest to Christ and Jesus revelaed to him "The kingdom of God", a spiritual teaching, I personally believe was a form of meditaion, something like a mantra. But in the book of Judas, he didnt commit suicide and Jesus asked him to turm him in to further the cause, his crucifition.

Canon law centuries later decided what books were allowed to be included in the Bible. The Catholic church holds many secrets from the masses, and I believe there are more texts that we will never know about.

Then you have the protestants and King James changing text and leaving out even more books.

This is why fundalmentalism is so dangerous. Its not the word of God as it was originally written and then its left up to personal interpretation? Bullshit. There are contridictions out the ass, to the point, anyone with any intellect will throw their hands in total frustration.

If you are going to be a Christian, you just have to do it, out of all the sects I would choose Chrisitan Anarchism or Liberation Theology. Within those beliefs, its just you and your maker, you dont answer to anyone on Earth or any Governemnt. You do the best you can, and you give to those in need to the point of sacrifice. By doing this you dont have time to argue scripture with other demoniations.

I dont know if I believe that Jesus even walked the Earth, as even a historical character, but I do know that if we take the mysteries he thought, and apply it to our lives, there wouldnt be a religion forum on revleft. We would all be working together to make this world a better place and isnt that was communism, socialism or religion should be doing?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Debora [email protected] 27, 2007 07:05 pm
[ if we take the mysteries he thought, and apply it to our lives, there wouldnt be a religion forum on revleft. We would all be working together to make this world a better place and isnt that was communism, socialism or religion should be doing?
No we should be smoting Babylon, wreaking terror and destruction, dividing father from son, setting class against class, worker against bureaucrat, filling the streets with blood and laughter, giving ourselves endless headaches in late night meetings, telling lies and harsh truths, undermining the reputations of the the admired and transforming hope into bitter experiece, crucifying and getting crucified, to make the world a better place......slightly different

[freakazoid]

If you are going to be a Christian, you just have to do it, out of all the sects I would choose Chrisitan Anarchism

Christian anarchy FTW, :D

[MarxSchmarx]

I must confess that I fail to see what this historical Jesus stuff adds to the idea that Jesus was one radical lefty SOB. And God was one *****.

Although the OT/NT can be used to prove just about anything, the dude is pretty freaking out there in the canonical gospels. New manuscripts might detract from His divinity, but don't seem to add much to the radicalism of His message.

So, as leftists willing to exploit Christian doctrine for propaganda, what difference does it make what the early church thought and did? It won't make secularists out of people who take the "virgin birth" seriously.

Moreover, by appealing to doctrines about early Christianity, we effectively concede the fundamentalist position that it makes all the difference what the scripture "really says." Why do we leftists care what the scripture says, apart from possibly letting us open conversion doors that were previously shut?

So who cares what early Christianity was like?

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:36 am
So who cares what early Christianity was like?


Who cares what the early history of America or Rome or Russia? Cuba? It defines where we are historically. I love history, especially polical history, in fact thats what brought me to this site. And tell me Christianity wasnt politcal.