Log in

No account? Create an account
Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

(no subject)

A new page about the fascinating first hundred years of Christianity. Adoptionist doctrines are now all but lost, as later developments (i.e., inventions!) such as the Trinity became official, enforced dogma. But it was not always so, and adoptionism started out as the universal belief amongst early Christians, including those who first wrote about Jesus.

Christian Adoptionism and the Baptism of Jesus Christ: Centuries of Belief Before the Trinity by Vexen Crabtree (2011)

  • 1

It's interesting how the Virgin Birth comes up as a later development, and that before then the more natural stance is accepted. It would have been obvious to all around Jesus that something changed in him as he moved into his 'big works'. A spark of the divine, or Schizophrenia. Seeing as Schizophrenia had not been discovered yet and his 'madness' made sense to many ( he can't have been that ill ) we have a crowd listening and learning and believing what he said, his rating going up A LOT, and as such him then being seen as truly special.

Lob in a couple of Pagan Style hero stories ( exaggeration more likely than fantasy ), like the feeding of the 5000 ( it was probably 50 originally and there were 20 loaves and 6 fish or something ), et voila. As Beatle-mania spreads suddenly he can pull banquets out of his top hat.

The Bible is an interesting thing. Most of what is recorded would have been done by word of mouth first, and then put in. Add to that how the parts of the Old Testament were written on animal bone first, and how slaves use bones to make broth, there's no guarantee the Old Testament is the complete story anyway. How much was lost to hungry slaves?

Now add to that the inevitable exaggerating that comes with Beatle-mania, and how being one of Jesus' mates could socially do you rather well, and how much exaggeration crept in also becomes a concern. Add to that power in Rome coming up on the cards, and you have to wonder who sold out in the end? Not just Judas? Who told a few porky-pies to make a few quid in those early fevered days?

I believe Christ existed. But he was a freedom fighter in my eyes. A well educated Jew by the looks of it, and pretty smart. He came up with something that worked and lead to his people getting a much better deal. But his illness/ genius did the rest. And that 'rest' is a whole hullabaloo of opportunities for power and wealth. I guarantee someone blagged it. They always do.

Virgin birth and Christ the freedom fighter

I also do not believe that the first "Christians" believed in the virgin birth. As evidence, the earliest writing that we have are those of the ultimate "Christ-is-divine" guy, the apostle(?) Paul. For all of his turning this Jewish movement into another Pagan mystery religion and all his elevating Jesus to godhood, he never mentions the virgin birth. One might argue that within the context of the subject matter upon which he wrote, that the there was no need to mention it. However, that is simply not true:"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." (Romans 1:3-4)

How could Paul go through that spiel and not mention the virgin birth -- if he believed in it?

Another episode is found in the three synoptic gospel (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Matthew and Luke almost certainly copied from Mark. Anyway, it is recorded that Jesus is speaking to a group of people when his mother and brothers show up and want to see him. Jesus publicly snubs them by saying that his "real" mother and brothers are those that do the will of God. Many would agree that this is an attempt by gentile writers of the gospels to denigrate not only the Jews, but also blood relatives of Jesus, who did seem to have an almost dynastic importance among Jewish believers in the Jerusalem church. Regardless, Jesus comes off sounding like a jerk. He certainly seems to be violating the 4th commandment about honoring his father and mother. Of course, a grown man does not have to continue to obey his mother, but he does have to respectful. He sure comes off like a very mean spirited and disrespectful guy -- in Matthew and Luke, that is.
In Mark, we are given a preface to the event. In that Gospel, we are told that the reason that Jesus' mother and brothers were there was to take charge of him, for they believed what others had told them, namely, that Jesus had gone off the deep end. Why would Matthew and Luke leave that part out when it goes a long way to explaining Jesus' behavior? For one thing, how could Mary, the virgin mother who had had angelic visitations announcing to her the miraculous birth of her son, the Messiah, believe that he was some crazy person who needed to be taken charge of. Could it be that Matthew and Luke saw the inconsistency and decided to leave that part out? Would not Mark also see the problem? Not if he did not believe or know about the virgin birth. He never mentions it. Matthew and Luke are the only two gospels that explicitly tell of it and they are the ones who leave out the part of Jesus' mother thinking him crazy!

As far as Jesus being a freedom fighter there is again an episode recorded in the Synoptics. It is the exorcism of the wild man who lived among the tombs on the Sea of Galilee. I suspect that what we have is a parable/allegory mission statement that, through the retelling over many years, comes to be wrongly perceived as an actual historical event. As the story goes, Jesus confronts a man who is possessed by demons. Jesus asked the demon(s) its(their) name(s). The answer is "Legion" because "there are so many of us". The conversation between Jesus and this unfortunate soul would have taken place in Aramaic or Greek, it, not Latin, being the "lingua franca" of this part of Palestine. Both Aramaic and Greek have their own words for a multitude. Neither need borrow from Latin(Roman). So why do we have this Roman word introduced into the conversation? To answer that, let us return to the narrative. Jesus exorcises the demons by causing them to go into a herd of pigs, who then run helter skelter over the cliff and into the sea. The message is clear. The "Legion" of demons is actually the Roman Legions, who are nothing but pigs, unclean animals, whom the Messiah will drive into the Sea. Well, it is just a thought.


  • 1