Christian Atheism

[philosopher]

The New Testament is composed of several gospels, of which only few gospels remains in edited form in todays Bible.

Non-canonical gospels, like the gospel of Judas, Mary Magdalene amongst many others, were not canonized along with the gospel of Luke, Mark etc.

These gospels were edited from their original form, and the original Gospel of Mark does not end with Jeus' resurrection, it just ends with the discovery of an empty tomb. There is widespread consensus amongst modern scholars of the New Testament that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest gospel of the New Testament.

If we consider the vast detailed descriptions of the early "Christians" (which, btw. were not named Christians until much later in the 2. century), we see a diverse, scattered community disagreeing about... everything. Everything from wether or not non-Jews could be accepted in the Jesus-movement (it was because of Paul of Tarsus that gentiles would be accepted, Jesus and all his followers were Jews) and even the ressurrection story itself.

It wasn't until much, much later in the 3rd-5th century that the Roman Catholic Church along with the Roman Emperor, decided what is "right" and "wrong" and condemned everyone who disagree, heretics.

That the corner stone of Christianity is the ressurrection of Jesus, is what all Christians agree on, is only true from the 5th century onwards.
Before the 5th century, and even amongst some Gnostic Christians in The Middle Ages, Christians could disagree on wether or not Jesus was resurrected.

There is a gospel, the Gospel of Thomas which is a collection of a lot of "mystical sayings" by Jesus. But to 1st century people, these sayings were not mystical at all, because it is a language of symbols, ie. the lion was a symbol of something, the snake is a symol of another etc. Of course the symbolism varies from region to region, and I'm not sure wether it is the Greek or Egyptian mythology that was used here.

Anyway, according to the Gospel of Thomas the important thing is not how Jesus died, or wether Jesus was resurrected.
The important thing is his sayings. His opinions about the world, his philosophy.

Christianity comes from the Greek word, Christos, meaning savior. It doesn't mean "god".

From the late Ancient history to this day, nobody could question the orthodoxy of the Church, or any church at all.
Fortunately, no churches has absolute political power and people are free to believe whatever they wish.

This begs the question:

Can a Christian be an Atheist/Atheist be a Christian - at the same time?

I think one can. If we adopt the differences of theology once again, and become pluralists once again, like in the early history of the Jesus-movement (which gradually became Christianity), Atheists too can become Christians - as well as Christians can become Atheists - and keep their Christianity.

But WHY would an Atheist even consider becoming a Christian (or a Christian becoming an Atheist)?

First of all, Science push "God" further and further away. In ancient times, the gods lived in caves. When mankind found there was nobody home in the caves, the gods "elected" One God who moved to the sky.

Then the astronomers of the 16th and 17th century found God was not in the sky sitting on any cloud, and couldn't possibly live amongst the stars either, so God was moved once again into the realm of the unknowable.

I believe that instead of moving God further and further away, just keep Him down on Earth, in the minds of HUMANS.

There is a lot of beautiful art/music in Christianity. The architecture, the art, music - and of course the Ethics & Morality derived from (liberal) Christianity, I think that if you are living as a Christian - not neccessarily going to church, but live with its values, but don't subscribe to the belief in an omnipotent or omniscient but only omnibenevolent deity, you could call yourself an Atheist Christian (or Christian Atheist).

I'd like to get some feedback on this post. Please let me know of any inconsistencies, or other mistakes.

[QuantumT]

Christianity comes from the Greek word, Christos, meaning savior. It doesn't mean "god".

Christos/messiah means anointed. Basicly it means having oil poured on ones head, as a symbolic act of being anointed king.

But I largely agree with your points. I have christian values too, and I am a bit of a Jesus fan, allthough I do not believe in any form of divinity.

[philosopher]

Christianity comes from the Greek word, Christos, meaning savior. It doesn't mean "god".

Christos/messiah means anointed. Basicly it means having oil poured on ones head, as a symbolic act of being anointed king.

But I largely agree with your points. I have christian values too, and I am a bit of a Jesus fan, allthough I do not believe in any form of divinity.

Yes, you're right it means anointed, but it also means a saviour. A saviour who was anointed.

[Eodnhoj7]

The New Testament is composed of several gospels, of which only few gospels remains in edited form in todays Bible.

Non-canonical gospels, like the gospel of Judas, Mary Magdalene amongst many others, were not canonized along with the gospel of Luke, Mark etc.

These gospels were edited from their original form, and the original Gospel of Mark does not end with Jeus' resurrection, it just ends with the discovery of an empty tomb. There is widespread consensus amongst modern scholars of the New Testament that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest gospel of the New Testament.

If we consider the vast detailed descriptions of the early "Christians" (which, btw. were not named Christians until much later in the 2. century), we see a diverse, scattered community disagreeing about... everything. Everything from wether or not non-Jews could be accepted in the Jesus-movement (it was because of Paul of Tarsus that gentiles would be accepted, Jesus and all his followers were Jews) and even the ressurrection story itself.

It wasn't until much, much later in the 3rd-5th century that the Roman Catholic Church along with the Roman Emperor, decided what is "right" and "wrong" and condemned everyone who disagree, heretics.

That the corner stone of Christianity is the ressurrection of Jesus, is what all Christians agree on, is only true from the 5th century onwards.
Before the 5th century, and even amongst some Gnostic Christians in The Middle Ages, Christians could disagree on wether or not Jesus was resurrected.

There is a gospel, the Gospel of Thomas which is a collection of a lot of "mystical sayings" by Jesus. But to 1st century people, these sayings were not mystical at all, because it is a language of symbols, ie. the lion was a symbol of something, the snake is a symol of another etc. Of course the symbolism varies from region to region, and I'm not sure wether it is the Greek or Egyptian mythology that was used here.

Anyway, according to the Gospel of Thomas the important thing is not how Jesus died, or wether Jesus was resurrected.
The important thing is his sayings. His opinions about the world, his philosophy.

Christianity comes from the Greek word, Christos, meaning savior. It doesn't mean "god".

From the late Ancient history to this day, nobody could question the orthodoxy of the Church, or any church at all.
Fortunately, no churches has absolute political power and people are free to believe whatever they wish.

This begs the question:

Can a Christian be an Atheist/Atheist be a Christian - at the same time?

I think one can. If we adopt the differences of theology once again, and become pluralists once again, like in the early history of the Jesus-movement (which gradually became Christianity), Atheists too can become Christians - as well as Christians can become Atheists - and keep their Christianity.

But WHY would an Atheist even consider becoming a Christian (or a Christian becoming an Atheist)?

First of all, Science push "God" further and further away. In ancient times, the gods lived in caves. When mankind found there was nobody home in the caves, the gods "elected" One God who moved to the sky.

Then the astronomers of the 16th and 17th century found God was not in the sky sitting on any cloud, and couldn't possibly live amongst the stars either, so God was moved once again into the realm of the unknowable.

I believe that instead of moving God further and further away, just keep Him down on Earth, in the minds of HUMANS.

There is a lot of beautiful art/music in Christianity. The architecture, the art, music - and of course the Ethics & Morality derived from (liberal) Christianity, I think that if you are living as a Christian - not neccessarily going to church, but live with its values, but don't subscribe to the belief in an omnipotent or omniscient but only omnibenevolent deity, you could call yourself an Atheist Christian (or Christian Atheist).

I'd like to get some feedback on this post. Please let me know of any inconsistencies, or other mistakes.

If no God exists, and man is the supreme measurer, than man falls under the definition of God as supreme being. Christianity observes the premise of God as Man and corroborates with a very weak form of atheism.

[philosopher]

If no God exists, and man is the supreme measurer, than man falls under the definition of God as supreme being. Christianity observes the premise of God as Man and corroborates with a very weak form of atheism.

I agree Jesus was human, a teacher of rightousness.

I also agree that Jesus' teachings were resurrected. But not the person of Jesus.

This is probably where I disagree with mainstream Christianity. I have yet to see evidence that Jesus was resurrected.

Even if Jesus visited me or spoke in my head, and told me he has indeed risen from the dead and he is God, I'd probably dismiss it as my brain playing tricks on me.

I need some bulletproof evidence, like both BBC, CNN and various other TV channels along with NASA and the European Space Agency all has confirmed the existence of a supernatural omnipresent being speaking words that are indisputably saying "I am Jesus Christ, I was human and I have risen from the dead and I am God!" - and have it all recorded for every human to see.

- then, and only then should we take it as evidence of the existence of a supernatural being.

We are now living in an age of information and technology, recording devices and what not.

The fact that God has never spoken to all of mankind at once with all the recording and technological devices, is not only lack of evidence for God.

It is in-fact evidence of the non-existence of God. If God exists, he would certainly make himself known to everyone. Including atheists, and make it bulletproof clear with tests that can be reproduced again and again as with all other science.

That fact that "god" relies on faith and faith alone, is evidence that God does not exist.

If God exists, he should be proven in a lab.

[Nick_A]

Philosopher

That the corner stone of Christianity is the ressurrection of Jesus, is what all Christians agree on, is only true from the 5th century onwards.
Before the 5th century, and even amongst some Gnostic Christians in The Middle Ages, Christians could disagree on wether or not Jesus was resurrected.

Actually the essence of Christianity flourished before Jesus birth. He actualized it.

The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian. -ST. AUGUSTINE, Retractiones

St Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 said

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied……………………..

In order to obey God, one must receive his commands.
How did it happen that I received them in adolescence, while I was professing atheism?
To believe that the desire for good is always fulfilled--that is faith, and whoever has it is not an atheist.
- Simone Weil, First and last notebooks (last notebook 1942)
(Oxford University Press 1970) p 137

Do we know what a Christian is or even if an atheist is only denying idolatry.

[Eodnhoj7]

If no God exists, and man is the supreme measurer, than man falls under the definition of God as supreme being. Christianity observes the premise of God as Man and corroborates with a very weak form of atheism.

I agree Jesus was human, a teacher of rightousness.

I also agree that Jesus' teachings were resurrected. But not the person of Jesus.

This is probably where I disagree with mainstream Christianity. I have yet to see evidence that Jesus was resurrected.

Even if Jesus visited me or spoke in my head, and told me he has indeed risen from the dead and he is God, I'd probably dismiss it as my brain playing tricks on me.

I need some bulletproof evidence, like both BBC, CNN and various other TV channels along with NASA and the European Space Agency all has confirmed the existence of a supernatural omnipresent being speaking words that are indisputably saying "I am Jesus Christ, I was human and I have risen from the dead and I am God!" - and have it all recorded for every human to see.

- then, and only then should we take it as evidence of the existence of a supernatural being.

We are now living in an age of information and technology, recording devices and what not.

The fact that God has never spoken to all of mankind at once with all the recording and technological devices, is not only lack of evidence for God.

It is in-fact evidence of the non-existence of God. If God exists, he would certainly make himself known to everyone. Including atheists, and make it bulletproof clear with tests that can be reproduced again and again as with all other science.

That fact that "god" relies on faith and faith alone, is evidence that God does not exist.

If God exists, he should be proven in a lab.

And what is the proof for the lab being the ultimate authority of truth?

[QuantumT]

And what is the proof for the lab being the ultimate authority of truth?

Concur!

Hardcore physicalists are so up their own asses, that they even fail to see what's going on in their own labs!
They are so focused on the details, that they are totally blind to the whole picture. IMO they have failed as explorers of reality.

[gaffo]

oh, i like this thread already!

from your post - you show great knowledge of "the bible" and welcome discussion here!

--too many do not know "the bible" ;-(.

you and i do - and so look forward to discussing/debating said.

The New Testament is composed of several gospels, of which only few gospels remains in edited form in todays Bible.

Non-canonical gospels, like the gospel of Judas, Mary Magdalene amongst many others, were not canonized along with the gospel of Luke, Mark etc.

yep.

These gospels were edited from their original form, and the original Gospel of Mark does not end with Jeus' resurrection, it just ends with the discovery of an empty tomb.

you show much knowledge just from stating the above which is true!

the latter part - of Jesus' resurection in Mark was added early after the original. just sayin here.

also note that the whole "who so ever is without sin cast the first stone (about the adulteress - in Gosp of John (the best part of John IMO) - was also added to that Gospel latter than the original work

There is widespread consensus amongst modern scholars of the New Testament that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest gospel of the New Testament.

yes its the oldest surviving work (there were older works assumed to have existed - i.e. "Q"/and at least one other (thought to not be a narative like he Gospels, but just a set of sayings (like Gosp of Thomas) ------------earlier sources that predate Mark and are lost (but were used in the construction of Matthew and Luke - independantly).

Mark dates to 40 yrs after Jesus death.

Matt and Luke (I'd love to know which if these two is older - not heard of views on this - all seem to equate them as the same age (but one had to be a yr or two older) - date to 55 yrs after Jesus death.

john is the newest one - 65-70 ys after Jesus' death.

---------

Saul's works are the oldest BTW - 20-25 yrs after Jesus' death.

If we consider the vast detailed descriptions of the early "Christians" (which, btw. were not named Christians until much later in the 2. century), we see a diverse, scattered community disagreeing about... everything. Everything from wether or not non-Jews could be accepted in the Jesus-movement (it was because of Paul of Tarsus that gentiles would be accepted, Jesus and all his followers were Jews) and even the ressurrection story itself.

earliest Jews that affirmed Jesus as the messiah viewed him as a man (prophet) that was raised (ressurection) from death on the cross.

latter the "myth of Christ" - over years grew as more than a man prior to his death/ressurection.

first:

born not from man - as Mark says (Mark is an adoptionist view - which conforms to Judaic thought and why the Ebionites only valued this gospel). - but born from God via him having intercourse with Mary (Matt/Luke).

to God himself (John). with pre-existance prior to his birth via Mary (which Matt/Luke do not affirm).

It wasn't until much, much later in the 3rd-5th century that the Roman Catholic Church along with the Roman Emperor, decided what is "right" and "wrong" and condemned everyone who disagree, heretics.

yep.

That the corner stone of Christianity is the ressurrection of Jesus, is what all Christians agree on, is only true from the 5th century onwards.
Before the 5th century, and even amongst some Gnostic Christians in The Middle Ages, Christians could disagree on wether or not Jesus was resurrected..

no, you are wrong here.

the first christians were all about the Ressurection (not the Gnostic though!!!!!!!!!!! - and they date to as early as "regular christians" - they allways denied the ressurection - they claimed that Jesus was never killed - another "body was placed in the cross and died").

and WRT to "Regular" Christians today - it take FAR more than just a belief in Jesus' Ressurection to be a christian!!!!!!!!!!! (Christian Jews (Ebionites beleived this!!!!!!!!!!!!) - NO, not since 150 AD was this "enough" in the view of "man on the street Christian" to be a Christian!

one must - since 250 AD or so - think that Jesus is God/Son of - born here on Earth via Mary - but pre-existing as God/God's son from beginning of time (prior to being born via mary on earth).

There is a gospel, the Gospel of Thomas which is a collection of a lot of "mystical sayings" by Jesus.

to note this work is independant from matt/luke - yet have same sayings that are attributed to Jesus - and so it is though this work too took much from "Q" and/or another earlier work - prob the same work that Matt/Luke took from

now lost.

Anyway, according to the Gospel of Thomas the important thing is not how Jesus died, or wether Jesus was resurrected.
The important thing is his sayings. His opinions about the world, his philosophy.

yes - per his sayings.

not so much per his philosphy, i think the latter is that of the author of the work's gnostic christian views.

Can a Christian be an Atheist/Atheist be a Christian - at the same time?

don't think so - anymore than to be a Jew or Hindu.

I'm an Athiest and deny YHWH/ or that he had a Son/ nor do i beleive in Vishnu.

I think one can. If we adopt the differences of theology once again, and become pluralists once again, like in the early history of the Jesus-movement (which gradually became Christianity), Atheists too can become Christians - as well as Christians can become Atheists - and keep their Christianity.

silly - not possible.


------------------------

might be off topic - but you noted above something about christianity for the jew only and that Saul included Gentiles.

not right - yes Judaism tends toward tribalism (today! - due to their trgic histroy of invasion/occupation over millinia) - but you can find the Universal thread in the olderst work prior to their sad history (Amos) - which is affirms universal salvation (YHWH is god to all poeples).

Jonah - a much later work (250 BC) - is also universal work (written by an author that dissliked Ezra's earlier tribal work (also in the OT))

also note that Jews have the Noahide Law theology - which they would not have if their religion had no thought for gentiles.

thanks for thread BTW

[gaffo]

If no God exists, and man is the supreme measurer, than man falls under the definition of God as supreme being. Christianity observes the premise of God as Man and corroborates with a very weak form of atheism.

I agree Jesus was human, a teacher of rightousness.

as were all the other old prophets.

I also agree that Jesus' teachings were resurrected.

um, sadly no.

christians since Sual's time - champion the "Being christ" over anything he had to say.

what Jesus actually said - is meager, and CAN be found in Thomas, and the Synopics (I ignore John myself as too new and removed from the time of Jesus to have anything about the man to matter in this regard).

He (very much like Ghandi) was a revolutionary, championed the poor and weak and a restoration of the Israeli State, and the restoration of God's Kingdom on earth.

romans would have nothing of it and so killed him for sedition.

But not the person of Jesus.

agreed, sadly.

[QuantumT]

Crazy as it sounds, in the simulation hypothesis, the resurrection of Jesus could have happened!
It did not make him divine however! But all is possible in a simulation! Even UFO's and ghosts and stuff!

[Eodnhoj7]

And what is the proof for the lab being the ultimate authority of truth?

Concur!

Hardcore physicalists are so up their own asses, that they even fail to see what's going on in their own labs!
They are so focused on the details, that they are totally blind to the whole picture. IMO they have failed as explorers of reality.

A paradox within science, and even logic and math occurs where the more accurate and detail one is one respect, the more obscure and undetailed they are about surrounding events.

For example, I can break down a basic fact into further facts and study every detail about the nature of "atomic facts" (or atoms in physics) while ignoring not just the framework of the argument itself but fundamentally the basis means that deduction is a form of individuation. The continuity of atoms says more about our technology than it does about the nature of the universe.

In simpler terms: Frameworks maintain results for that specific framework...the question occurs what is the appropriate framework?

I talked with one physicist here a few months ago about a brilliant experiment he was doing to prove the ether. The problem is that his framework of the ether, what the ether was fundamentally, consisted of high vibratory detectable movement. The problem occurs in the respect that the tools, and even the thoughts he had himself at the empirical level, are composed of that very same ether. So the ether, as a glue, would have to unglue itself fundamentally and cease to be the ether...however the ether cannot end, it is by nature an infinite glue so to speak.

Do you see where I am headed logically?

Most empiricists are very poor logicians and part of the fault lies with the logic they are taught. Don't get me wrong empirical evidence is a necessary part of truth...but it is a "part" not the whole truth.

[QuantumT]

Do you see where I am headed logically?

Ya. We should continue this in the "Why physicalism is wrong" thread, and not in this

[tbieter]

The New Testament is composed of several gospels, of which only few gospels remains in edited form in todays Bible.

Non-canonical gospels, like the gospel of Judas, Mary Magdalene amongst many others, were not canonized along with the gospel of Luke, Mark etc.

These gospels were edited from their original form, and the original Gospel of Mark does not end with Jeus' resurrection, it just ends with the discovery of an empty tomb. There is widespread consensus amongst modern scholars of the New Testament that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest gospel of the New Testament.

If we consider the vast detailed descriptions of the early "Christians" (which, btw. were not named Christians until much later in the 2. century), we see a diverse, scattered community disagreeing about... everything. Everything from wether or not non-Jews could be accepted in the Jesus-movement (it was because of Paul of Tarsus that gentiles would be accepted, Jesus and all his followers were Jews) and even the ressurrection story itself.

It wasn't until much, much later in the 3rd-5th century that the Roman Catholic Church along with the Roman Emperor, decided what is "right" and "wrong" and condemned everyone who disagree, heretics.

That the corner stone of Christianity is the ressurrection of Jesus, is what all Christians agree on, is only true from the 5th century onwards.
Before the 5th century, and even amongst some Gnostic Christians in The Middle Ages, Christians could disagree on wether or not Jesus was resurrected.

There is a gospel, the Gospel of Thomas which is a collection of a lot of "mystical sayings" by Jesus. But to 1st century people, these sayings were not mystical at all, because it is a language of symbols, ie. the lion was a symbol of something, the snake is a symol of another etc. Of course the symbolism varies from region to region, and I'm not sure wether it is the Greek or Egyptian mythology that was used here.

Anyway, according to the Gospel of Thomas the important thing is not how Jesus died, or wether Jesus was resurrected.
The important thing is his sayings. His opinions about the world, his philosophy.

Christianity comes from the Greek word, Christos, meaning savior. It doesn't mean "god".

From the late Ancient history to this day, nobody could question the orthodoxy of the Church, or any church at all.
Fortunately, no churches has absolute political power and people are free to believe whatever they wish.

This begs the question:

Can a Christian be an Atheist/Atheist be a Christian - at the same time?

I think one can. If we adopt the differences of theology once again, and become pluralists once again, like in the early history of the Jesus-movement (which gradually became Christianity), Atheists too can become Christians - as well as Christians can become Atheists - and keep their Christianity.

But WHY would an Atheist even consider becoming a Christian (or a Christian becoming an Atheist)?

First of all, Science push "God" further and further away. In ancient times, the gods lived in caves. When mankind found there was nobody home in the caves, the gods "elected" One God who moved to the sky.

Then the astronomers of the 16th and 17th century found God was not in the sky sitting on any cloud, and couldn't possibly live amongst the stars either, so God was moved once again into the realm of the unknowable.

I believe that instead of moving God further and further away, just keep Him down on Earth, in the minds of HUMANS.

There is a lot of beautiful art/music in Christianity. The architecture, the art, music - and of course the Ethics & Morality derived from (liberal) Christianity, I think that if you are living as a Christian - not neccessarily going to church, but live with its values, but don't subscribe to the belief in an omnipotent or omniscient but only omnibenevolent deity, you could call yourself an Atheist Christian (or Christian Atheist).

I'd like to get some feedback on this post. Please let me know of any inconsistencies, or other mistakes.

This thread reminded me of this essay from Jacque Maritain's book, The Range of Reason:
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/range08.htm