Encarta pretty much has it right. Biblical canon (that is, the selection of books in the modern Bible) was not decided upon until a century or so after the time of Constantine. The way the Christians tell the story, Constantine saw a sign in the sky and converted from paganism to Christianity, and then made Christianity the official state religion. Well, on a simplistic level that's true but the actual truth (which is never obvious) is that rather than it being a simple matter of pagans converting to Christianity, what happened was that paganism and Christianity sort of melded into this new religion that consisted of a little of both and not a significant majority of either. This is why Christians still observe pagan holidays (Christmas/Winter solstice, with Christmas tree, holly, etc. and Easter/Spring fertility festival, with bunnies, eggs, lillies and other symbols of fertility). So now a century or so goes by and they start to think about which books and writings to canonize (make part of the official Bible). Now bear in mind that there was no separation of church and state - it was all the same - and government always wants to control people, make them pay taxes/titles/tribute, and make them have as many children as possible as an investment in the future. So which books would they want to include in the Bible? Well, the ones that emphasized rules, and punishments for breaking the rules (both now and in the hereafter). Books that encouraged people to have families, unless they planned to enter the religious life. Books that emphasized h**l stayed, books that talked about reincarnation mostly went (although there are still hints of it in the New Testament). The esteemed (in his time) church father Origen, and his teachings, were branded anathema to the church three centuries later (you could be tortured and put to death for even having a copy of his writings!) and all because he believed that people (souls) exist before and after their life in human form (it was the "before" part the paganized church objected to). The guy they really loved was the so-called "Apostle" Paul, who was not declared an apostle by Jesus, but rather selected by the other Apostles after Jesus death. Paul was supposedly a "reformed" Pharisee. Well, he was reformed in that he wasn't going around killing Christians anymore, but he still had the very legalistic outlook on life that came with being a devout Pharisee. His writings are full of control and legalism, in some cases almost the opposite of what Jesus taught (depending on the mood he was in when he wrote a particular epistle). And if Paul was too soft on any point, there was always plenty of opportunity for revision (and later on, mistranslation and misinterpretation - ever seen a preacher pull isolated verses and passages from several books, in order to prove a dubious point?). So Paul got a good chunk of the space in the New Testament, and if you count actual teachings I think he certainly got a lot more space than Jesus (much of the four gospels, which by the way were written many years after Jesus' death, deals with the stories of Jesus life - in a red letter Bible, only the words in red are Jesus' teaching and sayings, whereas close to 100% of the epistles of Paul are his teachings and sayings). Jesus taught love and forgiveness, Paul taught rules and certain judgment for transgressors. It's no wonder the religious/government leaders loved him, and discarded many other books and in many cases attempted to wipe their existence off the face of the earth. Now, you should realize that not all Christians believe the same way - some do believe that some of the overlooked and "banned" books have as much to teach us (if not more) than those approved by the paganized church, which was probably at least 150 years removed from the last vestige of original Christianity. But unfortunately, organized religion is very slow to change. That is why so many are leaving organized religion - as new discoveries are made (particularly starting about the time the Nag Hammadi library was discovered), it's becoming more and more apparent that organized religion has been holding out on us. It's even possible that they haven't told us the real reason Jesus came - not for "pie in the sky when you die", but to help people achieve what today we might call a state of enlightenment (or if that sounds too "new agey", let's just say he wanted people to love each other and to have the abilities that he had to heal the sick, comfort the afflicted, etc. - and I'm not talking about the fake healings that some preachers try to pull off in various churches. By the way, don't forget that belief itself is a powerful thing — you could be the world's biggest con artist but if you could convince people that you have the power to heal, some would get better, at least for a little while, after you laid hands on them. I am absolutely NOT saying or implying that Jesus was a con artist, but I believe many today that say they are working in his name are outright frauds). For a bit more in-depth discussion of what went wrong, I recommend this web page from back in 1998 (surprisingly it's still online): bswett.com/1998-05Church300.html
Report (2) (1) |
12 years, 7 month(s) ago