At 08:54 AM 10/13/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>We seem to be getting quite far off any identifiable political topic,
>>however. While I don't know what it means to "distort Christianity," since
>>I don't know exactly what undistorted Christianity would be like, I have
>>understood that it was well established that there were quite different
>>interpretations of what Christianity was all about "at the beginning".
>>Paul, for instance, who apparently never met J.C. before his death [except,
>>perhaps in the role of a temple guard who might have accompanied the
>>crucifixion procession] seems to be the one who introduced the notion that
>>J.C. was God incarnate and that Christianity was more than just another
>>group of pious Jews following the teaching of a new Prophet. The Peter
>>Party apparently took the other line, and there was negotiation and
>>jostling back and forth for years.
>>
>>Once we get beyond the Apostolic period things get even more diverse,
>>until, of course, that great theologian with the sword, Constantine, orders
>>the discovery of the one true, orthodox, and canonical Christianity and
>>then makes sure that the discovery is enforced as true.
>>
>>The earliest Gospel was, I believe, written down some 70 years after the
>>death of J.C., and the newest was written down over 100 years afterwards.
>>Hence, I don't know that we can really separate out what J.C. claimed about
>>himself and what others later claimed about him and put into his mouth or
>>actions.
>>
>>You might also want to consider what it means to be the "Son of God". The
>>term is certainly less than clear and unambiguous in my mind. Does it mean
>>that he was a righteous man who was obedient to his "spiritual father," or
>>that he was God or something in between?
>>
>>
>>Craig
>>
>Craig, he was quoted as saying "before Abraham was, I AM". It says they
>picked up stones to stone him; i think they knew exactly what he was
>claiming. If you don't think that was really said, that's another matter.
Actually, I think that I made it quite clear that we can't tell what he
said or didn't say, let alone what he did or didn't do, or what the people
related to him did or didn't do. The contemporaneous records simply don't
exist, and by the time any records existed, tere were AT LEAST two major
schools of thought as to interpret the significance of J.C.'s life with
rather hardened bodies of interpretation. It would be foolish to imagine
that the schools did not influence the written reports.
Further, the terminology itself illustrates the ambiguity in the "canonical" writings that is, in turn, a reflection of the differing points of views from which the writings were composed and sometimes revised. For instance, in addition to the two interpretations of "son of God" I ave before, one could also add that perhaps J.C. was the "son of God" in the same sense that Hercules was purportedly the son of Zeus. That is, if the "Holy Spirit" is God, and God impregnated Mary, then Jesus was the "son of God" biologically. Hence, perhaps the terminology was intended to support the doctrine of virgin birth [virgin = untouched by HUMAN or "material" hands], which was apparently one of the last inventions and had not a lot of support in any of the earlier texts.
CJB