You are using various accounts of what happened against various accounts you question. Fine. But what will separate your preferred narrative from what you object to?

Well thats the problem I have struggled with. I consider the skepticism, frequently expressed with snide anger, a real moral problem and inseparable from the cold facts you might prefer to discuss with discompassion.

I am not sure history is something that can be discussed as a fact like what you and I are able to claim happened to us.
I recommend not looking at it as a matter of what pisses people off.
All the angry places have been taken. That is the Christianity I understand.

No one has expressed the conclusions I came to after several decades of thought on it, No one at all. So I am compelled to speak. Many Christians have not only expressed hate for what I am saying. Ive been excommunicated from a number of churches. At the same time, I get abuse from people wanting to dismiss the story entirely as being an idiot. Its been difficult to live with. I did rewrite the conclusion of my first post not to mention my objection, including instead some of what I had writte4n before in another essay 'The Passion, the shit sponge, and beyond' which you would not want to read because my description of the crucifixion has made a number of people nauseous.

There is something toxic in what you observe. But it ultimately is not about what happens to you or me because we say stuff.
The only thing is what is happening to all of us. My narrative is limited in that regard, not so much because it is missing information but because it draws back from what some thoughts require.

Why toxic? What is toxic exactly? Please provide example.

Toxic is well represented by the long tradition of destroying communities because they did not belong to a larger one.
So, all the terrible moves to remove people because of what they think/believe.

I'm sorry, I am asking for a specific quote of my text to illustrate your point so I may consider how to write it better. I do not intend at all to destroy any community, in fact I admire and respect people for the strength of their beliefs that they will even accept the scientifically impossible. I fail to see how that intent is toxic. If I did not state it somewhere properly, I am asking for help to revise it, and I think, considering your criticism of me, that is a very fair response to you.

I wasn't saying that you were subscribing to any intention.
The point I wish to make, without regard to what I may think is/was the case, is that mixing narratives of what one approves with those one does not approve needs an overarching structure that you have not provided.

So I think this is close to the history.. I posted two pretty plausible (more historical-minded) theories a couple times on this forum. They are both very similar (themes on a variation really and probably some combination of both).

Theory 1:
My earlier point was that it is best to reconstruct the original person of Jesus (Joshua), his very early followers, etc. by using a variety of historical and archaeological sources that provide a most likely scenario. It seems that John the Baptist started/continued some sort of Essenic interpretation of Torah law- with much emphasis against the political structure (anti-Herodian for John/ anti-Temple Establishment for Jesus). Jesus was known as some sort of miracle-worker (not uncommon at the time except the idea that his services were free and made him possibly more well known.. see Honi the Circle Drawer, Hanina Ben Dosa, and other of this time).. He goes to Jerusalem in an anti-Temple Establishment tirade at the center of the Establishment. This pissed off the authorities and had him crucified for trying to foment dissent and probably claiming kingship (Messiah title).

His immediate followers were led by his family, specifically his brother James (Jacob). This group thought Jesus was not actually dead because he was too righteous. Paul becomes an interloper who reinterprets the group and their not-quite-dead messiah. He introduces ideas of mystery cults- the idea of a god that dies for sins. He also elevates Jesus to more than a righteous guy (who was believed not-quite-dead by his followers), into a literal Son of God. He introduces shades of Gnosticism and views Jesus' life and death as a complete replacement of the Torah itself. This is Gnostic in the idea that the Torah represents the old (the "physical", the "demiurge", the lesser) and the new way is the "real" path ("the spiritual", Jesus' death and resurrection is greater vehicle). These irreconcilable and monumental changes in theology brought him in conflict with the original John-Jesus-James Movement. Paul, along with his followers, go and form their own communities, either under James' nose (without his knowledge) or simply without even having his consent. His ideas mostly resonated within the Gentile communities throughout the Greco-Roman world. These Pauline communities are what will eventually become "Christianity". This Pauline Christianity will eventually create many of its own schisms, that will eventually coalesce to become dominated by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.

The John-Jesus-James Movement, some possible subsect of Essenic Judaism (with anti-Establishment, Messianic message), becomes more obscure in the Jewish community as the Temple is destroyed by 70 CE. With the Bar Kochba Rebellion in 132-136 CE, this group becomes even more of an outcast in synogogues in the Levant as their dead messiah seems less efficacious than Bar Kochba, a general and messianic claimant who was actually beating the Romans.. The group probably lived on in the fringes of Jewish society, known as the "Ebionim" or "Ebionites" much later (meaning the "poor ones", possibly a name the original Jesus Movement called themselves).

Theme 2:
What was probably the case was Jesus fit very firmly in his cultural context of 1st century Judea. Based on his sayings and his outward focus, he was probably a radical or reformist Pharisee (focused on the margins of society and intent behind the law). He had his own opinions on Mosaic law (as there was no INTERPRETATION of the law codified yet in anything like a Talmud, at least for the Pharisee sect). Also, he was probably an apocalyptic Pharisee which made him unusual as most Pharisees were "wait and see". They knew too much focus on End of Times would get people killed by Roman authority. Thus by going to the "Lost Sheep of Israel" and getting them to be what he thought was better Jews, he thought the hastening of the Kingdom of God would occur. He probably incorporated that part from the same ideas as John the Baptist who came right before him. When he went to Jerusalem, he probably thought the Kingdom of God was literally going to start happening, and he was going to do some miraculous event. I have a feeling, the most historical lines in the whole New Testament was, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" If not whitewashed, that actually indicates that he really thought hew as going to get something done to change things and this didn't happen. Pontius Pilate (noted by Josephus and Roman historians as overly ruthless, even for Rome) had him crucified, like almost every other Jewish claimant to be the Jewish king. Oh, it didn't help it happened on Passover, the very holiday that Rome looks for Jewish "freedom fighters" and messianic claimants because it was a holiday revolving around liberation from a foreign culture (mythological Exodus story).. Rome knew this and acted swiftly. At that time, the High Priests and the Temple priests in general were in the pockets of Rome and were essentially their lackeys, helping them keep "order". This all makes sense. Jews that were of the radical Pharisee sort, Apocalyptic types, One -off Messiah claimants, Essenes, and Zealots would be not looked upon kindly if they acted up against Rome or Temple Priestly authority.

Anyways, a couple decades later, Paul's ideas of the death/resurrection of Jesus set the stage for Replacement Theology.. whereby the "new" Israel were believers in Jesus. Interestingly, early Gentile Christianity represented by people like Marcion wanted to completely detach from the "Old Testament" as he thought it might even be a separate god. However, in Roman society, ancient cultures were deemed more legitimate than "new age" innovations. Thus, early gentile Christians realized that to spread the theology of Paul (Jesus died for your sins), they NEEDED to attach the idea to a culture that was more ancient (Judean/Jewish culture) to have it seen as more legitimate amongst the converts around the Mediterranean. So, this is what the early "Church Fathers" did and succeeded in converting most gentiles to the new religion by the year 400 CE. Thus, the original Jewish Jesus sect died out basically in those first couple centuries. The Pauline gentile variant spread. With the idea of Replacement Theology, Jews were considered to be stubbornly "wrong" in interpreting their own religion. They needed to be persecuted to be corrected. Then of course the whitewashing of Jesus' death so that they are deemed as "Christ-killers" etc. This made Judaism even more insular as it needed to protect itself from interference and persecution. The rest is history. That hatred permeated in various forms throughout history up until the 20th and 21st century. So in the end it is the very basis of Christianity (Replacement Theology) to "kill" the original copywriters and "correct" that culture's own ideas about its mythological history. Again, that's crazy.

Again,I am requesting specific examples of what you consider toxic. My narrative is as follows:

* There is substantial corroboration that he exists, and immense consequences even in society today. The extent of corroboration is greater than most understand, not having learned much about ancient times, as we know about them today.
* As rational beings, we can examine the specifics of events as they were reported, and attempt to resolve issues for rational skepticism, or to counter doubts in faith for believers, that do not create toxic destruction of good communities, and reduces the ridicule, replacing it with more compassionate consideration.
* the number of topics are indeed immense for which one can discuss specifics. I have focused on miracles, social changes attributed to the Holy Spirit, the extent of accuracy one may expect from surviving texts, and in them, so far: Jesus's siblings, his birth, and the immaculate conception. For this I examine not only what is written, but the choices in what was written, and what was not.
* Personally, I regard St. Thomas as a principal agent in our modern age, and just as he likely felt about the other disciples, I admire and respect other followers for believing in love and forgiveness so much they are willing to accept the scientifically impossible. Like he wanted to put his fingers in Jesus' wounds as proof, I do not know if there is an afterlife, but if there is, nothing ever will delight me more than meeting jesus.

That's what Im trying to say. I have asked you several times for examples of why you think my text is toxic, exactly, and so far you only elaborated on what you think about your own beliefs of toxicity.

Wow! I would really like to see the original posts and comments there too! Thank you so much for summarizing them, please may I know the links too?

Im a little tired, Im going to need to rest a while, and consider your writing properly then. Im just writing to say thank you very much! Wow :)

Wow! I would really like to see the original posts and comments there too! Thank you so much for summarizing them, please may I know the links too? — ernestm

I'm glad they were of interest.

Im a little tired, Im going to need to rest a while, and consider your writing properly then. Im just writing to say thank you very much! Wow :) — ernestm

Sure, here are the original threads they came from:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/71045

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/369750

I in no way understand what you are telling me. What do I approve of and what do I not approve of? I discuss what I think is rationally feasible, and I attempt to say other alternatives are possible at all points, making the text far longer than I would really like, but necessary because people start making criticisms without really understanding what I am saying in total. I really need specific examples.

I won't be able to get back to you until tomorrow, its bed time.

Oh right ... this is about history! Have fun :)

Actually, it is more of a theological solution to the problems of an empirical approach to Western religious doctrine. You could call it the 'Church of St. Thomas for rational skeptics' if you like, but there's not many people in it currently. Later )

You are correct...it was long.

It seems you are more interested in lecturing than in discussing.

If you get around to where you want to discuss instead...let us know. I'll certainly join a discussion.

At the moment I am recuperating from writing the conclusion to several decades of meditation on a topic. Any good lecturer has a Q&A session after, lol. It seems to me people are more used to asserting opinions than asking questions. Well I am sorry it took so long to assert mine, but I do think I have something to say worth saying.

The toxic element I was referring to was the description of your experience when you said:

"Many Christians have not only expressed hate for what I am saying. Ive been excommunicated from a number of churches."

I wasn't saying that You were toxic.

Oh dear. Im sorry to misunderstand you. Sadly, they have to, because according to what they believe, even my reading of the Gospel of Thomas makes me heretical, let alone my postulation that all the miracles and even crucifixion could be explained with the laws of rational science. It's fundamentally contrary to the Nicene creed, leaving me only in a small sect known as the gnostics. If you look 'gnostic' up on Google, it states in no uncertain terms that gnostics are heretics. I can only hope that the future allows for people prefering not to believe in the scientifically impossible could also be accepted into the folds of the church, but as things are, I can't even get any ministers to reply to my emails.

I speculate that the remarkable success of Christianity is due to a number of factors, but most of all to (1) its assimilation of virtually all aspects of pagan culture which could co-exist, sometimes awkwardly, with the less odd (to pagans) traditions peculiar to Judaism, the result being a kind of hodgepodge offering to residents of the Empire something which satisfied most of them, and (2) its exclusivity and intolerance which became evident and active as its adherents obtained control of the Roman imperial government.

Remarkable, but but ultimately unfortunate, I tend to think.

I agree your first perspective is a viable way to view religious authority. On the other hand, it must rely on the fact that people actually want to respect religious authority, which opens a deeper question.

Personally, having been raised by a Jewish Father and Christian Mother, I have to say, I am extremely grateful for the existence of love and forgiveness that Christ initiated in the West. I do understand other people have not had good experiences with the Church. I also have not had good experiences with the Church in the last few decades, despite my continued love of Jesus, so I totally understand that frustration. But I do not believe he can personally be blamed for how religious authority still tries to dominate the world, with increasingly less success.

Actually I have put quite a bit more work into my piece. I adjusted the section on Judaic history a little, but perhaps not enough in your opinion. I added a new introduction, a section on the doctrine of the Holy Covenant which expresses the above frustration perhaps not as tactfully as I would like, and a new conclusion which is actually from other meditations I'd already written. In the section on the Covenant it states:

Fourth, and most importantly: if one is to believe in God giving humankind free will, then one cannot claim that differences in creeds, across those different sects who seek to know God, are part of God's will. Differences in creed, written by humankind, are not God's will. They are part of humankind's will. If there is an afterlife, God is rather put in the awkward position of stopping those with different creeds continuing their debate, possibly forever. It all seems to me essentially childish to insist on specific creeds when the full truth of one's heart could only ever be known by God. If we wish to know divine love, but cannot accept our differences in how we experience the divine on earth, how long must God keep all His children in separate playpens that they not quarrel, not on earth alone, but also in whatever afterlife may exist?

What do you think of that?

On the other hand, it must rely on the fact that people actually want to respect religious authority, which opens a deeper question. — ernestm

Remove the ‘must’ or the ‘religious’. What deeper question?

I have read a lot of Gnostic texts, including the Gospel of Thomas.
I have a different view of it than yours. I am not sure how to go there from your premises.
I will have to mull upon ti.

That's something I can really understand, lol. There aren't many of us, most people dont even really know the docs exists. I'll look forward to hearing from you very much!

Well, lol, I know you are wise enough to avoid answering questions, but in this case, I would have to ask you, putting aside issues with religious authority, how much more corroboration do you actually need that a Hoiy Ghost is working in the world, when Jesus wrought such a great change in the spirit of man? If you refer back to my section on therapeutics in the first piece, you will see I have revised it, maybe it does not say what it should well enough, but thats what Ive got so far.

I have to put some time into reading Schopenhauer's posts, it may be some time before I can get back to you.

Ok I started to look at your post, and I think it's just great. Would you consider collaboration on an anthology type thing? I have a couple of other homilies in progress:

* 'The Alpha, the Omega, and the Bee Orchid - Discussing how a different perspective of time can accommodate the biblical visions both of the creation and end of the universe make sense, also discussing the impact of technologies such as cloning on lifespans, and Kant's theory of intelligent design with respect to this planet being at the entropic center of the universe, rather than Euclidean space. Also it includes how history since Christ can be viewed as the three eras of the father, son, and holy spirit.
* The passion, the shit sponge, and beyond - Historical imagination and contemplation on the significance of of Christ 'only being dead enough' when taken off the cross.
* Holy Crap - historical imagination of the birth and contemplation on it
And I would like to include the Gospel of Thomas in the anthology

New conclusion to first homily:

The Response of St. Thomas:

This homily started by indicating how to extrapolate logically from the skepticism of St. Thomas. He did not accept that Jesus actually had been on the cross without feeling the holes in his limbs.. St. Thomas could very much speak for the reasoning person of science today. The philosophy of science holds that truth can only be known when sufficient hypotheses are verified to corroborate a theory beyond doubt. That's what St. Thomas was saying.

References to St. Thomas in the canonical gospels are few. But in 1945, a gospel by St. Thomas himself was found in the Nag Hammadi library, hidden during the long dark ages, all the way through the emergence from the enlightenment, to the current era of scientific skepticism.

With excitement I worked on my own translation in early days of research, only to find, to my complete astonishment, that it contains virtually no statements of historical events in Jesus' life at all. The text instead simply describes enough to set the stage for a fantastic set of Jesus' replies to questions. In the answers, Jesus often emphasizes how to find the Kingdom of Heaven--not necessarily only in whatever afterlife there is, but also, possibly, here on Earth as well.

So now, as discussed already, we have no necessary proof that that there is an afterlife. In accordance with rational empiricism. We can only wait to genuinely know of it, after our own passing. Yet it is fairly truthful to say, like St. Thomas, we still can turn to the marvelous lessons of Jesus to find joy here on Earth, right now, with all people joined together by the spirit of hope, love, and forgiveness, every day.
All churches today may say I have no faith. In one respect, they would be correct. The scientific method frowns upon belief without empirical ratification. But in another respect, I still believe in the lessons of Jesus.

My next homily "the alpha, the omega, and the bee orchid" discusses how current scientific knowledge, as well as Kant's 'theory of intelligent design,' can provide insights into the entire span of spiritual time, from the creation to the end of the world.

But for now, whatever faith I may be felt to possess, this homily has shown that the textual evidence for the existence of Christ is an order of magnitude greater than for any other person of the era. It can only remain a matter of opinion whether or how much the gospel accounts of miracles, and inconsistencies between the gospels are fraudulent, intentionally or not.

St. Thomas puts the quibbles of inconsistent historical details aside. Indeed, instead of recounting historical events at all, he focuses on his memories of Christ's lessons. For Jesus still leads us to a kingdom of perfect joy, eternal beyond time.

I’m not going to pretend I know exactly what your take is on The Holy Spirit. Needless to say it is clear enough that the narratives contained within the bible have impacted society (especially western societies).

In reference to ‘religious authority’ I can bend that, quite a way, to be referring to what is terms ‘religiosity’ - a kind of psychological ‘susceptibility’ to phenomenon like hypnosis or merely an ability to suspend belief, etc.,. In terms of authority in general I think people like someone to take responsibility off their shoulders to some degree or another. The body of ‘authority’ (be this parents, teachers, political/religious figures) necessarily lifts the burden of responsibility off of people, but by doing so limits their freedom. Some will ‘respect’ authority and some will ‘rebel’ - it depends.

I’m still interested to hear what the ‘deeper question’ is explicitly if can spare a minute to point it out and/or outline it for me.

Thanks