Books about early Christianity

by EdenOne 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Magnum

  jehovahsheep: I read a couple of aforementioned books and sadly am coming to the conclusion that Christianity is a false religion.

  Doug Mason: jehovahsheep, Are you yet able to extend your conclusion to all religion?

  Doug, does the quote shown above indicate that you believe that all religion is false? I am interested in your feelings/opinions since you seem to have really studied & pondered the matter. Are you a firm atheist? (I am PMing you)

  garyneal: I was given a list of books from my philosophy professor back in college. I haven't read any of them yet but plan to.

  If you still have the list, would you please post it here or PM it to me?

  This thread has been helpful. Thanks EdenOne for starting it and thanks to everybody for the reading suggestions.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Magnum,

  I have no problem if a person needs to have a supernatural being to make sense of the world and to cope with it, or if they need to gain strength through physical association with like-minded people. Each person must make up their own mind for what genuinely helps them.

  I perceive religion as a means for a small group of people to control the minds and lives of many. Of those who control, one can ascribe motives such as the sense of power or yet again the sense of helping. Institutions need to ensure obedience by the masses, to protect the organisation, to make sure that the boat is not rocked, regardless of what is truth. The leaders need to protect their position of authority. Read the OT in this light.

  For me, whether there is a God or not is God's probem, not mine. It is up to the gods to be concerned whether they exist. If you want to pigeon-hole me, call me an agnostic who does not trust the "God told me" assertions that people hide behind.

  What is up to me is to live each day, having made a contribution, making life better for someone, regardless of their creed or colour; to behave towards them in the way I would like to be treated.

  Doug
• 

  James Brown

  There is a 3 hour video on youtube of a
  "History of Christianity"

  Also Paul and Jesus by Tabor. on youtube.

  Bert Ehrman has videos on you tube also.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  EdenOne,

  If you are interested in dissecting Christianity and the Bible, you may find it helpful to investigate where that Bible came from.

  Contrary to what most Christians will tell you - the Bible is not a primary book. The Old Testament (Torah) gets much of its content from pre-existing sources. Even though some Christians will ignore or reject the Old Testament, it is undeniable that Christianity has layered itself over the old writings.

  The discovery of Ugarit has done much to add to scholars' understanding of the Biblical text.

  http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm

  The ancient Canaanite city-state of Ugarit is of utmost importance for those who study the Old Testament. The literature of the city and the theology contained therein go a very long way in helping us to understand the meaning of various Biblical passages as well as aiding us in deciphering difficult Hebrew words. Ugarit was at its political, religious and economic height around the 12th century BCE and thus its period of greatness corresponds with the entry of Israel into Canaan.

  Why should people interested in the Old Testament want to know about this city and its inhabitants? Simply because when we listen to their voices we hear echoes of the Old Testament itself. Several of the Psalms were simply adapted from Ugaritic sources; the story of the flood has a near mirror image in Ugaritic literature; and the language of the Bible is greatly illuminated by the language of Ugarit. For instance, look at M. Dahood’s brilliant commentary on the Psalms in the Anchor Bible series for the necessity of Ugaritic for accurate Biblical exegesis. (N.B., for a more thorough discussion of the language of Ugarit, the student is advised to take the course titled “Ugaritic Grammar” offered by this institution).

  In short, when one has well in hand the literature and theology of Ugarit, one is well on the way to being able to comprehend some of the most important ideas contained in the Old Testament. For this reason it is worthwhile that we pursue this topic.
• 

  EdenOne

  OrphanCrow,

  I've discarded the validity of the OT quite awhile ago, at least in the sense of allowing it to have any significant wheight on my wordview. Being a "Christian", my primary interest was to test the validity of the Christian wordview. To do so, one MUST investigate the historical Jesus, what he really said, what he really taught. The result is astonishing: We know not much about what the historical Jesus actually said. What we DO know, for the most part, is what the apostle Paul constructed from the Jesus movement. And nowadays, especially with the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Qumran [Essene] community, and the Nag Hamadi texts, we have a much better idea about the "Jesus movement", and what they stood for. I have to say the result of that isn't flattering for the faith in Jesus Christ.

  To a fundamentalist Christian, which now I acknowledge that I was, as a Jehovah's Witness, the notion that the historical Jesus said and taught everything that the New Testament texts say is crucial; if Jesus isn't the son of God and he didn't teach those things, it's utterly damaging to your faith. It's what's happening to me. Some may have a more allegorical / philosophical reading of the NT; given my background, I can't do it. It either is, or isn't. Finding out it isn't is absolutely damaging to the 'christian' faith.

  Eden
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Oh. I see, Eden One.

  So 'Christianity' discards the Old Testament altogether and just sticks it in the closet where it won't be so bothersome.

  If your goal is to dismantle the Christain thought, I would think that Old Testament validity would be relevant - seeing as the Christian faith is so intricately linked to that old text.

  But, good to know that you have thrown out the validity of the Old Testament already.

  Why are you bothering with 'Christain' biblical text when its foundation is so shaky?
• 

  EdenOne

  OrphanCrow

  When I started out, I wasn't set on dismantling the Christian thought. The OT is important to give Christianity context, but I thought Christian thought could do well without it - simply store it on a closet as an obsolete worldview, as you said.

  However ... upon close observation [and I say this as I am getting to the end of the book on James, by Eisenstein], the NT is but a war of words and ideas between a post-maccabean, xenophobic, apocalyptic jewish zealot movement [represented by the Qumran community, that ended up producing John the Baptist, Jesus, his brother James plus his other brothers, the Zealots, Siccars and the Ebyonites] opposing the Herodean-Roman rulership and the polluted temple establishment in Jerusalem, and a personal re-interpretation of this movement by an esoteric pro-hellenist, pro-roman, neo-platonist pharisee named Paul, who hijacked the near-exclusive jewish nature of the Jesus movement and transformed it into a new religion, pallatable to the greek-roman world.

  We know who won this war.

  Eden
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Oh, Okay, Edenone.

  So you are studying Christianity - and discovering that all that religious maneuvering is just about political power.

  Religion=politics.

  Nothing has changed. Religion is just politics under another name.

  However, when you say:

  Paul, who hijacked the near-exclusive jewish nature of the Jesus movement

  you are acknowledging the importance of the Jewish faith in the develoment of the Christian religion. Therefore, I don't see how questioning the validity of the Old Testament doesn't come into play in this.
• 

  EdenOne

  OrphanCrow, you said

  you are acknowledging the importance of the Jewish faith in the develoment of the Christian religion. Therefore, I don't see how questioning the validity of the Old Testament doesn't come into play in this.

  I never questioned the relevance of the Old Testament into the understanding of the Christian wordview. Like I said, the Pauline version of Christianity - or, better, Christianity IS Paul's much altered version of the Jesus movement - can stand on its own without needing theological support from the OT except to provide it context. The OT is relevant, of course, to understand the nature of the Jesus movement, because it's through and through jewish in nature. But in order to do so, one needs to handle the NT with extreme care because nearly all of it, (with the exception of James and Jude) is written under heavy Pauline point of view. And this includes the four biblical gospels.

  As for the OT, the mere fact that the apocalyptical movement that Jesus came to be the symbol of FAILED in its intents and aspirations, should be a cautionary tale about taking the jewish OT as "truth". Point is, I had already discarded them even before I started my examination of the NT scripture and apocrypha. It's an interesting set of texts, some wisdom can be retrieved out of it, but I don't let it have any wheight on my worldview anymore. Sadly, I'm coming to the exact same conclusion about the NT as well.

  Ps: I can see Cofty with a wicked smile saying: "told you so, Eden, told you so..."

  Eden
• 

  Phizzy

  Have you tried Eden, seeing how Jews themselves view their Scriptures ? They do not view them the way JW's and other groups do. Yes, they see the hand of God in them, but they see the Scriptures as having sprung from the religion, not the religion from the scriptures.

  The same could be said for early Christians of all hues, they did not have "Scriptures" of their own, but they all had a religion, the Scriptures, those inside and outside of the accepted Canon, came later.

  Many a modern Christian sees Scripture as unimportant in the final analysis, what is important is to believe in J.C, that belief can be aided by Scripture, but is not dictated to by Scripture.

  Thus arguments about Canonicity, or every "Jot and Tittle" of the Writings, is irrelevant to such people.

  Of course they have to admit, if they are honest, that theirs is the very best example of Blind Faith. ( The sad condition, not the Supergroup LOL)