Any thoughts? — Jack Cummins

You're not asking much, are you?!
There is an awful lot of ground to cover from Ur to the televangelists.

The origins of Judaism date back more than 3500 years. This religion is rooted
in the ancient near eastern region of Canaan (which today constitutes Israel
and the Palestinian territories). Judaism emerged from the beliefs and practices
of the people known as “Israel”

But the creation story and all of Genesis up to Joseph's sojourn in Egypt, is suffused by the mythology of the region.
Some historical background.
Then come the conquest and settlement of lands by the Israelites coming out of Egypt and developing their peculiar relationship with the tribal god who 'chose' them. All of this is later incorporated into Christian lore, in order to give it roots, even though the belief system alters considerably after the Jesus story.
There is considerable documentation of the Roman occupation from a Roman perspective, and from the Judean pov, Flavius Josephus http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/.

Next week: The legend of Jesus Christ.

Okay, I am probably asking a lot, but my rationale is that philosophy of religion often focuses on the existence of God. This is important, but it may sidestep some of the more intricate aspects of belief, especially in relation to Christianity. From my point of view, the historical aspects of Christian teachings, which emerged in the Judaeo-Christian tradition are as pertinent, if not more than the logistics of the idea of God's existence.

Some of this may come down to scholarship, but it is likely that there are gaps here, which may reflect biases in theology, as well as the political aspects of the development of the Christian Church. This may say alot in itself, but it does make it hard to put the missing jigsaw pieces together coherently.

The Gnostic gospels, as discovered in Nag Hammadi, are important, as was the philosophy of Gnosticism. The Gnostics took more of a symbolic interpretation of ideas in scriptures. — Jack Cummins

There’s a professor of religious studies, Elaine Pagels, who has written many books on this subject, notably Beyond Belief and The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus. These are both based on the Nag Hammadi manuscripts.

Pagels explores how early Christian leaders and orthodox factions suppressed certain texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, in favor of the texts that would later become part of the New Testament (what we now know as 'the Gospels'). She analyses the political and theological motivations behind the selection strategy, shedding light on the process of the formation the Christian canon out of the ferment of competing creeds in the early Christian era.

In the Gospel of Thomas, the emphasis is on immediate presence of the kingdom of God within each of us, and that individuals can discover this divine spark through self-awareness and self-knowledge (somewhat similar to Indic religions). It suggests that one can attain spiritual enlightenment and salvation by looking inward and seeking the divine within oneself. The Thomistic tendency towards a more individual and introspective approach to spirituality, focusing on personal insight and understanding of Jesus' teachings has, since its discovery, become New Age favourite (online edition can be found here.)

What became the mainstream, on the other hand, represented the perspective of the Gospel of John, which is one of the canonical gospels in the New Testament. The Gospel of John emphasizes the divinity of Jesus, focusing on his identity as the eternal Word (Logos) of God made flesh.
According to the Johannine Christians, Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of the world. They emphasized the importance of faith in Jesus as the means to attain salvation and eternal life and attacked the gnostics are heretics (and also as elitists, on the basis that only the few can ever attain gnostic insight).

If you had to select which model to serve as the basis for a powerful 'centrifugally-based' organisation, the Johanine model would obviously serve better - and that is very much what happened. But the gnostic sects lived on as an underground movement - indeed Dan Brown draws on that in his popular literature (which personally I never liked). The Catholic war against the Cathars of Languedoc was a notorious example.

So, in this context, I am raising the philosophy questions of how was Chrisianity was constructed, and may it be deconstructed? If the emphasis on the supernatural is demystified, how does the traditional stand as a philosophy and foundation for ethics? It may be connected to a belief in God and life after death, but these are components and how do they come together? — Jack Cummins

I encountered these books studying comparative religion in the early 1980's. At the time, I was also studying Eastern philosophy, which I was interested in due to its emphasis on the experiential aspects of meditation. I formed the view that this experiential aspect had been important to the gnostic sects but was downplayed by their opponents (who were designated 'pistic' after the Greek 'pistis' meaning 'belief' or 'opinion', as opposed to 'gnosis' meaning 'knowledge'. You can find an explication here and while you're there, also have a look around at that website, formed from the residue of the Gnosis Magazine which was published from 1985 to 1999. Much to read there, if you're interested. )

As I understand it, Christianity was constructed well after the deaths of Jesus, his disciples, Paul, the participants in the post-crucifixion home churches, and others. I presume there was a continuous community who carried their experiences, memories, and collective understandings forward, but they did not "construct" an institution.

The construction crew began work decades after Jesus. At the moment I can't cite a number. The crew had various writings in hand (like Paul's), oral material that was eventually committed to writing--some of which probably came directly from Jesus and the 12. How much? I don't know. They also had a fairly numerous body of 'Christians' (as they would eventually be called) who needed documentation to buttress their faith and experience. There was also a need to establish some sort of organization -- the early 'church' -- but not yet the organization that has come down to us,

The construction crew existed in a rich and varied cultural context. which influenced how they edited documents, what they accepted and what they rejected, and perhaps what intent they wrote to tie the fragmentary documents together. The construction did not take place in Jerusalem or thereabouts.

The thing is, the story of Jesus came together as a cohesive narrative supplied in the Gospels, but the letters of Paul, and by other authors. That's the document -- New Testament.

Thousands of believers scattered around the Mediterranean in the Greco-Roman world had their own local experiences, and over time developed rituals, liturgies, orthodoxies, and heresies.

Eventually the nascent bishop prick of Rome and some other centers became strong enough to promote the right kind of faith and suppress the wrong kind of faith.

So, here we are, after 1500 years+ of never-quite-kept-for-long-peace-and-harmony-in-the-Body-of-Christ.

Christianity Today is being deconstructed through several avenues.

1) millions and millions of people no longer participate in Christian religious activities.
2) scholarship (like the Jesus Project) undermines the historical record that was established by the early church. (This is different than the historical record of whatever actually happened in Jerusalem or on the Road to Damascus about which we have no objective sources.)
3) secularism and secular institutions supply many of the services the church alone once supplied

1) It isn't as if Christianity was on its last legs. It is, however, shifting from the active religion of Europe and the western hemisphere to the active religion of the global south -- particularly Africa.
2) Christianity is the leading faith, first before Islam, and most people in the world are followers of one religion or another.
3) In some areas, evangelistic Protestantism is supplanting Catholicism (South America). Protestants (Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.) who have substantial membership in Africa are being outflanked on their right by conservative churches--not fundamentalist or evangelistic, just more conservative theologically. The consequence is the fracture of groups, like the Methodists, into a new more conservative group and an established mainline group. Sexuality is often the gravel in the gears that leads to rupture,

Must a believer think that the Jews became a people and the Christian Church arose because God intervened in history to make these happen in the way that they did? Or, can a believer think that the Jews constructed their history in the process of living it, and that the Christian Church was constructed without the participation of its divine founder?

I think Christianity was constructed apart from its founder. There was never a historical necessity for the Christian Church to exist. The First Century Roman scene offered a variety of possible belief systems. But, as it happened, Holy Mother Church was constructed from the available materials and it succeeded.

The humanly constructed church without divine guidance or intervention will be anathema to orthodox believers. The sacraments require God to have been present from the beginning, and God is required if ecclesiastic personnel are to have creditable religious standing. I'm OK with that. I can tolerate their position better than they can tolerate mine.

I believe that everyone who engaged in constructing Holy Mother Church did so with authentic, good motives. (In time, yes, there were bad actors all the way to the very top). The founding of Holy Mother Church was meritorious, even if wasn't "divine". The Church should be taken seriously, as should its rituals, sacraments, and traditions.

I'm sort of fond of OLD institutions, The Stella Artois logo and marketing pay homage to the Den Hoorn Brewery, established in 1366. The Hudson Bay Company is 365 years old. Mere children! Kongō Gumi Co., Ltd. (株式会社金剛組, Kabushiki Gaisha Kongō Gumi--no connection to gummy rats) is a Japanese construction company founded in 578 A.D. St. Benedict died in 547, which puts the Benedictine Monastic tradition in the same old-age league.

So, in this thread I am interested in exploring and considering this in relation to the understanding of the Christian story. How was Christianity constructed and how may it be deconstructed, especially in relation to the quest of philosophy. — Jack Cummins

I guess you may be asking in essence how do the teachings of Jesus stack up against other ethical systems in philosophy. We don't really know what the historical figure (assuming he existed in some form) Yeshua taught, but we do have old books - translations of copies of translations of copies, written anonymously many years, decades after the events. I'm not sure any definitive conclusion is possible.

How do you see Christianity as part of philosophy (are you talking about cultural Christianity and the influences of Stoicism and neo-Platonist thinking) or are you being less ambitious? There are many types of Christianity today and doctrines and beliefs are a question of interpretation and personal preferences. How are you proposing anyone can get to what it all really means?

"Christianity the First 3,000 Years," is a pretty good survey of how Christianity was constructed.

Christianity is hard to summarize because it is so broad and influential. For example, Saint Augustine is probably the most influential philosopher on free will and has a huge influence on other areas of philosophy, essentially founding semiotics, and by some accounts creating the idea of the "will" itself. All his work is tied up with religion though. And that's just one example. Origen, Pseudo Dionysus, Ambrose, etc. all have had an influence on philosophy, not to mentioned later theologians like Saint Aquinas, or mystics like Boehme (who had a huge influence on German idealism, particularly Schelling and Hegel). Even Paul's letters themselves get into philosophy, along with books in the Bible like Ecclesiastes.

Light to Light is a really good anthology on Christian mysticism.

But, yeah, it's a very broad chain of influence. John Edwards for instance still has a huge influence on cosmology through his variant on the cosmological argument.

Any thoughts? — Jack Cummins

:chin:

An old post about "Christian philosophy" (re: ethics) ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/732167

An old post about the 'historicity of the person of Christ' ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/556934

Some posts from an old thread "How Do We Think About the Bible From a Philosophical Point of View?" (re: "Christianity de/constructed") ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/556132

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555741

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555924

A post from an old thread "Case against Christianity" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/448923

Seems to me like, it's not a philosophy but a doctrine. In the NT - however contrived that document may be - we have the shaky beginnings of an ethic of forbearance, tolerance and charity. Under the Roman empire in Europe, it became a pormanteau of religion, subsuming aspects and characters and symbols from various pagan beliefs and Latinizing them, which served as unifying force. In the medieval period, it morphed into a religion of self-abasement, guilt and atonement...... until the Enlightenment and Luther and all that strife. It doesn't serve a useful purpose in the modern world, so it's more materialistic - more crassly so, in some instances, than it was when Luther objected to indulgences. Obviously, celibacy is not an issue for many recent Christian sects, any more than are humility and asceticism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=preacher+with+two+jet+planes+#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:f9afef3d,vid:hiHghDYvpBU
They're deconstructing Christianity before their congregations' eyes, and nobody much seems to care.

The construction crew began work decades after Jesus. At the moment I can't cite a number. — BC

To be precise, it began three centuries after Jesus, in the exact year of 325 CE. This is the year of The First Council of Nicaea, where the doctrine of the Trinity was compromised between and constructed by different factions into its initial manifestation - this with the oversight of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Before this council convened, there was no Trinity and, hence, no Christianity - a religion pivoted on the reality of the Trinity.

Well, unless one wants to claim that anyone who in any way believes in Jesus and/or his teachings is a Christian. In which case, many a modern voodoo practitioner is a bona fide Christian (this to pick on voodooism as one religious example, among others, wherein the divinity of Jesus is often upheld by those who are almost universally considered to be non-Christians).

Yea, I know, The many sects of pre-Council-of-Nicaea believers in Jesus are popularly called "Christians" on the internet and in history books. Doesn't change the fact that none of them had any inkling of, much less believed in, the Trinity.

(With all this being inspired by a post that now seems to reside somewhere in the otherworld …)

There’s also the idea that Christianity is a (I would uphold forced and, hence, improper) hybridization of Jesus’s life and teachings, of some philosophical notions of the absolute (despite the differences between Gnosticism and Neoplatonism, they both affirm such), and, last but not least, of polytheistic paganism's Jungian-like wisdom (if one can call it such). To which I say, “but of course”.

The Easter bunny and egg has nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with the Pagan notion of spring being a time of fertility and of vegetative rebirth after the relative “death” of winter – with a lot of symbolism to all this now largely forgotten. This being forcibly tied into the mythos of the resurrection. Likewise, there’s no historical record to indicate that Jesus was birthed in December (and, best I recall, some evidence of it having been spring), but this time of year is the time of the Pagan revered winter solstice, a time which within many a pagan folklore/mythos signifies, symbolizes, the (re-)birth - or else the (re-)expansion - of light that counteracts an expanding darkness. This being tied into the notion of Jesus as the light bringer. To not even start with Christian notion of Santa Clause and the Christmas tree. :wink:

There is soooooo much out there now, challenging the historical validity/accuracy of the traditional origins of Christianity. Enough for me to assign a high credibility to the proposal that the whole story of Christianity and all its characters are based on parodies of many historical real people who fought against Rome.

I particularly see value in the research done by and published in the books of:
Dr Richard Carrier, Joseph Atwill and James Valiant.
I also accept that these three people disagree with each other, on some of the main criticisms they make regarding christianity. Richard Carrier has even referred to Joseph Atwill, as a crank. Joseph has responded in kind, regarding Richard Carrier. Has it not been ever thus?


I am sure these types of analysis of old fables, was going on, when the people who specialised in making up 'religious truths/facts,' wrote the fables/lies that are now accepted today by such as Christians and Muslims as historical fact.

I just began reading the thread today and smiled when I found one of the previous threads of mine on thinking about the philosophy of the Bible. It is about 2 years ago, and brought back memories of interaction on the site a couple of years ago. It seems such a long time ago and it is almost an entirely different place. It also reminded me of interaction with Amen3017 and the Madfool.

It also led me to wonder how much my thinking has changed or hasn't changed since that time. I am more into thinking more about ideas of Christianity outside the mainstream and that which is not included in the Bible. I am not saying that I was really mainstream then, but I do like to read between the gaps in the history of knowledge. I guess when we read our own and those of others on previous threads it is important in tracing one's philosophy journey. At this point, on this topic, and so many others, I am aware of so much potential worthwhile reading. Hopefully, this reading is a basis for shifts in thinking, along with ongoing reflection.

It does seem that there is so much out there which challenges the mainstream accounts of it. I guess that the various disagreements when I read different writers often leaves me rather confused at times. I am sure that this does apply to other religious teachings, such as Islam and Judaism. Often, I unsure to what extent it comes down to actual 'lies' or simply different interpretations, just like the way in which each person on this forum thinks from a different point of view. There may be a whole spectrum of this based partly on wishful thinking and social contexts in which one exists and has learned specific ideas.

I am interested in both the demystification of religion as a system of ethics and in the history of ideas. To a large extent, the disentanglement of philosophy for ethics occurred in the movement of humanism.

The underlying belief system of Christianity has taken place through methods and writings from the enlightenment and science, as well as approaches in philosophy, including analytic philosophy and postmodern. I guess that while I see these as being important I am also interested in the developments within history, as well as the underlying approach of comparative religion. I am actually interested in the philosophy of religion, but more from an angle of the esoteric. Here, I have to admit some underlying sympathy with idealism, but balanced against mythical narratives.

I am not saying that I swing to a 'hardcore' idealism, but have a general leaning towards the nature of 'symbolic truths'. From my current reading, I see the history of Christian ideas being partly related to historical gender wars, and other political issues, especially in the way Christianity wiped out paganism. Of course, a literal paganism may be problematic as well, as opposed to a more symbolic approach, such as the way most writers on shamanism juxtapose imagination and the symbolic understanding of 'otherworlds'.

My understanding of theological scholarship is that the writings of the NT were written much after the time of Jesus. So much is the perspective of Paul which influenced the development of the Church and the canon, especially in opposition to the Gnostics.

It does seem that the issue of sexuality is such an important theme in the battle for and against Christianity, which is often not acknowledged enough. Gay people often have a hard time in Catholicism in particular, as well as the topics of abortion and even contraception. There is a general puritanical slant which even forbade masturbation as sinful. This probably applies to many religions as well. Islam is particularly opposed to gay people and is also connected to the subordination of women. The political aspects of religious ideas is essential in thinking about it critically, and a lot of ideas thrive on the emotions of fear and guilt.

I am more into thinking more about ideas of Christianity outside the mainstream and that which is not included in the Bible.

You might find Kant or Hegel's speculative religion interesting.

John Stewart's lecture on Hegel's philosophy of religion is pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8LzH62iODU

Bubbio's "God and the Self in Hegel: Beyond Subjectivism," has good coverage of both, and got a professional narration for the audio version, but I had a hard time following it in that format. This same poor woman somehow got stuck narrating this and a book doing a deep dive on the Logic. I assume she must have volunteered for these lol.

The construction crew began work decades after Jesus. At the moment I can't cite a number.
— BC

To be precise, it began three centuries after Jesus, in the exact year of 325 CE. This is the year of The First Council of Nicaea, where the doctrine of the Trinity was compromised between and constructed by different factions into its initial manifestation - this with the oversight of the Roman Emperor Constantine. — javra

Thanks - good information. I haven't done any reading in the early history of the church for quite a few years and it seems like there is only so much room upstairs for facts. Each new fact costs me one old fact.

The Creeds are a stumbling block for me. On a good day, if I'm feeling sort of religious, I can passively assent to the first statement in the creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth

but then as it gets further into the weeds, the whole thing becomes pretty dicey.

Instead of derailing your thread, I created another one. But the TL; DR is I think it’s a waste of time. But that’s all I’ll say here.

Incidentally, I think you’re a great contributor here. My sentiments aren’t directed solely at you.

Gay people often have a hard time in Catholicism in particular, as well as the topics of abortion and even contraception. — Jack Cummins

Yes, yes, yes. The church forgets St. Augustine's sexuality --

"Oh, Master, make me chaste and celibate - but not yet!"

The Catholic Church is unequivocally committed to reproduction, for sure. Officially, no contraception, no abortion. Masturbation? Is the pope against that too? Can't remember. But it isn't just the Catholics. At one time or another, every branch of Christendom has led the charge against various forms of unauthorized fornication. In these more liberal times, many churches welcome gay folk. I suspect that one source of this welcome is their chronically shrinking demographics. They weren't welcoming when the church was full with breeding pairs.

The only problem is that I created a thread on Christianity yesterday when there didn't appear to be any active ones. Now, there are 4 on the front page. It doesn't matter really but it probably ends up with a lot of broken up discussions. Christianity is probably a large topic, so it may be that several are needed, although there are likely to be a lot of crossovers within the various ones. But, it makes a change from the threads discussing the more abstract issues of the existence of God.

Like I said, it’s really not you. I don’t mean to single you out— there are almost always a number of (in my view) tedious discussions going about one aspect or another of Western culture’s deity. I’m reacting in part to that.

The Catholic Church has a large shadow of repressed sexuality. Even at age 12, when I chose to go to a Catholic school because I didn't agree with the idea of evolution at the time, I noticed so much sexualisation in the Catholic one than the other non religious one. It was like the repressed sexuality throughout history was leaking out everywhere.

The book which I have been reading has articles by Elaine Pagels. I find the tradition of Gnosticism and the Grail legend interesting, especially as I am interested in esoteric philosophy. That is more my interest really rather than the fors and against of religion. As there are now threads looking at that, I think that I am going to change my title to reflect the esoteric! That was my own angle, and I now have an excuse to follow the path of the more esoteric ideas.

I do realise that you are not singling my topic out. If anything, I don't want my thread to be filled with the tedious, so mine is going to be given a new title to make it slanted towards the more esoteric. That is more the area which I read in anyway.

I have read some of Hegel's ideas and found them useful, but the political aspects emerging from his ideas are more questionable.

As for Kant, he was definitely anti-sex and may have done so well in the emergence of puritanical thinking, especially in his writings on morality. I have come across the suggestion that Kant's arguments for the existence of God were to back up his moral theory. However, it is hard to know and remains speculative.

I am not saying that I swing to a 'hardcore' idealism, but have a general leaning towards the nature of 'symbolic truths'. From my current reading, I see the history of Christian ideas being partly related to historical gender wars, and other political issues, especially in the way Christianity wiped out paganism. Of course, a literal paganism may be problematic as well, as opposed to a more symbolic approach, such as the way most writers on shamanism juxtapose imagination and the symbolic understanding of 'otherworlds'. — Jack Cummins

It seems to me that certain personalities are drawn to 'symbolic truths'. I like the idea of it but it has never worked for me. I can't think of any symbolic truths that have made an impact upon me in life. I seem to be immune for this form of conceptualization. Probably comes from having a working class, Calvinist upbringing (via the Baptist church).

Christianity didn't just wipe out paganisms, it also wiped out Christianity - forms of it that weren't seen as being in the service of the dominant account.

What is your attraction to the symbolic? Is it something about perceived truths which can't be expressed directly?

Here, I have to admit some underlying sympathy with idealism, but balanced against mythical narratives. — Jack Cummins

Why not? I find idealism in it's various forms and, such as I understand it, one of the more interesting aspects of philosophy.

Thanks - good information. — BC

Hey, with pleasure!

My own primary takeaway for this often-unmentioned fact of the Trinity’s commencement is that whomever Jesus might have been and what he in fact taught is a completely different beast from that of the institutionalized religion which is Christianity.

As one example I take to be blatant, and not very controversial by comparison to many other possible observations: Whereas what we know about Jesus from various sources (the Gnostic Gospels very much included) doesn’t present Jesus as expressing or engaging in many hypocrisies, I know of no institutionalized religion that has historically been more hypocritical than Christianity. This of itself can substantiate that the principles taught by Jesus are by in large diametrically opposite to the larger sum of principles upheld by Christianity in general.

But be that as it may, glad you found the info useful.



For what it’s worth, tying the just mentioned into the thread’s new topic of Gnostic Christianity:

If Jesus was in fact largely Gnostic, which I so far don’t find much reason to doubt:

The Gnostics generally held a worldview that often addressed the biblical Yahweh as a lesser deity (in contrast to, for example, Sophia, the final emanation of the Monad which is absolute), a lesser deity that is either ignorant of the Monad or else is opposed to it and thereby malevolent to boot. This malevolent lesser deity, the biblical Lord, was more generally known as the Demiurge, who traps people into materialistic mindframes via the physical world that the Demiurge creates. (In fact, some later sects of Gnosticism, the Ophites, associated Jesus with the serpent of the garden of Eden who, basically, according to them wanted to liberate folks from ignorance of right and wrong so as to gain gnosis of the Monad.) So, if Jesus was in fact a Gnostic of sorts, then it can well be argued that the Christian Church doctrines that followed are in direct contradiction to what Jesus himself stood for.

Not sure if this is in line with what you’d like to discuss. But I wanted to mention it all the same.

For what it's worth, I wrote this in another thread, but think this fits here too actually:

No I get it. You are trying to say that it is an odd "proof" to say that God wants us to use our free will to know him so that we can fulfill his plan in light of other Biblical characters such as Jonah, etc. who "knew" he existed but didn't follow him.

Just stepping back a bit. I'll be the "devil's advocate" for a minute (no pun intended).

In ancient Jewish/Israelite religion God seems very transactional. He won't wipe your city out if you do as he says and worship him alone. He will allow you and your nation to be prosperous if you follow his commandments properly. He won't blot you out of existence when you die (return/resurrect in the World to Come) if you only do the proscribed commandments with fidelity.

This was basically how most ancient gods of the Bronze and Iron Age worked. You do the right rituals and procedures, and the god rewards you. Israelite religion had its own interesting spin and story with Moses, though as with all ancient stories, had pastiche from nearby civilizations (Egypt and Babylon) though not to deny that there were unique "Israelite" qualities to their historical narrative of their nation's founding.

However, as Judaism came into contact with Greco-Roman demands for proper reasoning behind various worship, religion became a lot more complicated. It wasn't enough to just have the tradition, but it was important to understand "deeper implications". So the reason you followed Mosaic Law was because not only is transactional but because it allows the participant to be closer to the godhead. That is to say, each practitioner is playing their part in the divine plan by following the commandments of Mosaic Law. So, using your free will to follow commandments became necessary to curry the fulfillment of God's divine plan. With the ancient lineage of kings being a very remote possibility as time went forward, the idea was not only to restore Israel to its rightful kingship under a Davidic king again (the Messiah), but that God was going to fulfill his ultimate vision. History would get to a point where God would dwell on earth similar to as in heaven. And because these are humans making up the stories, there will be a time when those who followed the Mosaic Laws get to resurrect and dwell in the World to Come and live in God's open presence and not just hidden anymore.

Now of course, why this whole scheme is made up in the first place, seems a bit odd. But I guess those who truly believe in it, don't question the reason other than this is what God wants. He has a plan, and he's carrying it out. The plan itself is not questioned.

So with Christianity, you have the character of Paul in his epistles that does question this plan. See, Paul had a new idea, that was probably influenced by Platonic and general Greco-Roman philosophy around the idea of a demiurge (which is really the foundation of Gnosticism/gnostic ideas). The demiurge is a creator of some sort, but he is a sort of evil one that creates the world in a way that is flawed because the deity himself is capricious and flawed in some way. However, there is the Universal One or the God of Light who is above and beyond all creation that is the real deal God. And he is all Good. But you see this Good God, would then have to be inept or indifferent!

So whereas in the Judaic conception you have a God where the flaws are substantiated in the deity (this is just his plan, and he is carrying it out.. who cares if the plan itself involves suffering.. we just don't question it. He likes things like punishment and rewards .. and we are just his participants in that).. In the Pauline (Christian) idea, God is like the gnostic version of The Good who is never "flawed" (never causes or wants suffering), but you see the demiurge (the LAW in Paul is now a standin for the demiurge) is keeping the people down and so the death/resurrection of some dying god (Jesus who is just rehashed mystery cults that Paul seems to integrate into Judaic thought) becomes the way that atones. The Law was a sort of false start and the real law is from The Good who provides you the real deal compassion (except somehow later on, the idea of Hell being eternal and for those who don't believe in Jesus makes it even more transactional than before, but let's not look at the plotholes for now).

So Pauline Christianity (most of mainstream Christianity) is based on gnostic notions of a true god beyond the demiurgic/lower god of the physical suffering world. So the god of the "Old Testament" while the same god, is really preparing for his compassionate path to salvation. So for whatever reason, he created this world so he can save us from this world.. Which makes absolutely no sense. At least in the original Jewish version, it was simply "the plan man". In the Pauline version the plan becomes about saving people from his plan. Which is so very odd.

Either way, my point is why is this the plan though? Why are we all playing this out in some game of "did you do the thing the way you were supposed to?" It seems like a very human kind of thing to want to see play out. But I guess we are made in his image... he he likes to see people punished and rewarded? And if it's about relationship, he's going to be pissed off if you don't want to hang out with him in the way he wants? It's all very oddly childish to me. It's like god is portrayed as a baby who isn't happy when his toys aren't doing the things he planned for them. How oddly weird for a supreme being to be playing "gotcha!". — schopenhauer1