Most people know only the Big-C Christianity-Christ, Constantine, Christendom, Calvin, and Christian America-but there is another one, linked to a biblical parable of a wounded man's rescue by a stranger.'
Christians assume they know their story, but in reality they have only vague notions of what happened after Jesus. Over the years student papers revealed a popular understanding of church history, admittedly not very sophisticated, but a story that still possesses some cultural resonance. The usual story is that of "Big-C" Christianity-Christ, Constantine, Christendom, Calvin, and Christian America.
The tale runs thus:
Jesus came to the earth to save us, but he founded the church instead. That church suffered under Roman persecution until the emperor Constantine made Christianity legal. With its new status, the Christian religion spread throughout Europe, where popes and kings formed a society they called Christendom, which was run by the Catholic Church and was constantly threatened by Muslims, witches, and heretics. There were wars and inquisitions. When people had had enough, they rebelled and became Protestants, their main leader being John Calvin, who was a great theologian but a killjoy. Eventually Calvin's heirs, the Puritans, left Europe to set up a Christian society in the New World. The United States of America then became the most important Christian nation in the world, a beacon of faith and democracy.
Big-C Christianity is militant Christianity. It is not necessary conservative religion, for there exist liberal versions of it as well. Rather, it is a theological disposition that interprets Christianity as an us-against-them morality tale of a suffering church that is vindicated by God through its global victory over other worldviews, religions, or political systems. Militant Christianity tolerates (and often encourages) schisms, crusades, inquisitions, and warfare as means-metaphorical if not actual-to the righteous end of establishing God's will on Earth.
Elements of this story form American public discourse; politicians and preachers regularly refer to it. It is, of course, a bastardization of an old storyline, a triumphal tale of Protestant superiority and Christian manifest destiny. Journalist Jeff Sharlet refers to this story as "providential history." As far as I can discover, Cotton Mather composed the first version of it in 1702 as the Magnalia Christi Americana, or "The Great Deeds of Christ in America." From then until now some form of this church history has informed American culture. Atheist Sam Harris and evangelical activist James Dobson both believe it, and they attack or defend Christianity on the basis of it. Many people have doubted and rejected Christianity on the basis of this story. In a very real way, the Big-C story has been Christian history.
Having learned a softer, more sophisticated version of it in seminary, I believed it too. So did my friend. As she challenged me, I began to wonder if there was a different story to tell. If I could have admitted it to her at the time, I would have said that the Big-C story angered me too. Was there another side to the story? What would Christianity look like from another perspective?
As I ruminated on this I realized that believing the usual story is one thing. In recent years, however, something else has happened. Many no longer remember. For vast numbers of people, including Christians, history has ceased to exist...
The Not-So-Usual Story
This book is about memory found and the ways in which Christian history tethers contemporary faith to ancient wisdom. However cloudy their memory, post-traditional people still hanker for spiritual inspiration; wanting to hear stories that strengthen our connection with God and with our neighbors.
The Big-C story, the tale of Western Christianity's triumphal spread, has largely failed to speak to these contemporary longings. But that does not mean the Christian faith has failed. There exists a different story-one that people want to hear-of folks like themselves who struggled to live as Jesus told them to, loving God and doing right. It is not a militant story. Rather, it is a story of generative Christianity, a kind of faith that births new possibilities of God's love into the world. Whereas militant Christianity triumphs over all, generative Christianity transforms the world through humble service to all. It is not about victory; it is about following Christ in order to seed human community with grace.
I think of this generative story as Great Command Christianity. In Luke 10:25-27, a lawyer approached Jesus and asked him, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus responded, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart... and love your neighbor as yourself." Immediately following this command, Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan, the parable of a wounded man's rescue by a stranger, as an example of saving faith. "Go and do likewise," Jesus told the lawyer.
In these words from the Gospel of Luke begins A People's History of Christianity. Jesus's story is not only a good story, it is also the first step on a journey through Christian tradition, the history of Christian people who embrace the Great Command and follow Jesus's instruction to "go and do likewise." Unlike formalized church tradition, something that often appears as an approved list of what to believe and how to act, this is open-ended history. Great Command Christianity invites us to participate in a living tradition, to reconsider faith as a community of people who practice God's love and mercy through time.
As such, A People's History of Christianity makes two interrelated claims. First, lived Christianity cannot be understood in terms of the Big-C story; rather, it is best experienced as a community that remembers the ways in which Christian people have enacted the Great Command in different times and places. This history is less a magisterial narrative and more like a collection of campfire tales-discrete stories that embody Christian character, virtue, suffering, and commitment as people "go and do likewise." Friends swapping stories.
The second, and maybe more surprising, claim is that after decades of struggle, moderate and liberal Christianity is experiencing an unexpected renewal in North America. Many people now refer to this energized cluster as "progressive" or "emerging" Christianity. I have come to think of it as beyond existing categories of conservative-moderate-liberal. Instead, I refer to it as generative Christianity. In congregations and as individuals, people have stumbled into meaningful spiritual practices and a renewed sense of social justice without knowing, perhaps, that these new discoveries have long histories in the Christian tradition. Without a sense of history, progressive Christianity remains unmoored, lacking the deep confidence that comes from being part of a community overtime. What progressive Christians need to understand is that "emerging" Christianity has a story. Their faith is not new; the generative faith of Great Command Christianity is a reemerging tradition that has always been the beating heart of Christian history.
To read more from A People's History of Christianity, click here.
Interesting Concept...
Not so sure it stands a chance though...
I mean...
-- The Christian Community of Servitude...
Versus...
-- The Conquering Armies of Christ...?
Is that Christians will NOT EVER recognize or entertain the obvious clues about the Gospels' Jesus Christ stories.
You can present the evidence and virtually rub their faces into it and they'll simply go "dead" on you with internal revulsion and denial. Later, they carry on as if they never ever encountered anything counter to their beliefs.
We know for a fact and without any guessing or speculation that ...
- the accounts of each Gospel are VERY different. Matthew has Jesus born during the time of Herod the Great and depends on his existence and participation in order to work in the 3 wise men tale and Herod's slaughter of the innocents ...with Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus needing to go to Egypt to fulfill OTestament prophecy. Luke has Jesus born 10+ years later, completely eliminating any need to work Herod or his son into the story and thus, totally circumventing the 3 wise men or Herod's involvement. The same is true of these 2 Gospels' accounts of Jesus resurrection and instructions for going to Galilee (Matt.) or staying in Jerusalem (Luke). These obvious contradictions exist between these two Gospel accounts and yet BOTH of them prolifically QUOTE words of people involved in their stories. This is utterly impossible in a real life scenario: if the authors know intricate details of what happened, who was involved and quote their exact statements, they also HAVE to know the setting in which the event took place and not disagree by 10 or more years.
- We know that there is no secular historical material evidence that supports the Gospels' Jesus Christ. This too, is literally impossible. If a real Jesus Christ had lived, around whom such a plethora of strange and miraculous occurrences had rotated, there is no question that it would have been noticed and noted by other writers of the time.
- We know that none of the epistles or even the book of Revelation show ANY familiarity whatsoever with the Gospel stories of Jesus Christ. They appeal exclusively to OTestament material and rely on the "more sure" words of "prophecy" for supporting arguments concerning Jesus Christ. Even the book of Acts -while starting OUT with a continuation of Luke's Gospel- then diverges into the story of Peter standing up and stating that Jesus was killed by Jews and hung on a tree .... and then relates the story of Stephen the deacon being stoned for his faith. Stephen -in his extremely lengthy discourse- never once mentions the Gospels' Jesus Christ but speaks exclusively on OTestament matters. It's quite evident that he isn't being stoned for believing in a Gospel Jesus but for something else.
- We know that the church fathers never cited any Gospel material reference for about 150 years (150 AD) ....... and then suddenly they began to and quickly it became the standard practice. We know that the Gospel of Luke (and the book of Acts) were written for or addressed to a "Theophilus" and we know that the first prominent Theophilus in Christian history was a bishop of Antioch circa 160 AD. We also know that the writer of these two works specifically stated that he was writing down his accounts on the basis of what they "most certainly BELIEVED" and that he was doing it so that Theophilus could be assured of it too. Thus, we know that Luke wasn't relating his stories from personal experience but rather, was COMPILING his account from third party source(s).
- We KNOW that the first 3 Gospels use identical wording in MANY many places and yet .... the accounts they relate from those identical intros ... then veer off into completely different versions or pieces of stories about Jesus' activities. This is totally impossible if any of these writers HAD been eye-witnesses to the events.
- It is therefore absolutely evident that the Gospel accounts were recompiled from other sources and frequently from the same source material. Not a ONE of them was an eye-witness account from any of these 4 writers. The writers tailored their own versions to reflect their own beliefs and maybe to support the already existing beliefs of their respective audiences. (Different churches, perhaps?)
- We KNOW that none of the epistles (with the exception of Hebrews) ever spoke of Jesus Christ's RETURNING .... but always only of his APPEARING. In fact, in 2 Peter, we read of believers becoming disillusioned with waiting for his appearance and beginning to turn away. In the small John epistles as well, we read, "every spirit that confesses NOT that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." Here too, we witness signs of disillusionment over the failure of Jesus Christ to show up materially as a live person and turning away from the movement.
Clearly then, with ALL of the above facts at our disposal, it should become absolutely clear that the Gospels were written in response to a need for some kind of "proof" that Jesus Christ HAD actually showed up already (and everyone had just missed recognizing his arrival). The Christian churches had a real problem on their hands because their expectancy and their predictions were NOT coming to pass and so they needed something to make it seem as though it actually had already happened. I mean, the evidence is overwhelming. It's a "preponderance of evidence" and not just a few little isolated problems here and there that might find some unique solution (as Christian apologists constantly attempt to do with each item as it's brought up).
Once it's firmly established in one's mind that the Gospels were constructed in response to such a need, the next question is: Did they just make it up then?
No, they didn't just make it up because the first 3 Gospels shared the same source material in so many instances. Thus, it was a case of copying from some older source material for the "skeleton" and then each individual writer 'fleshing' out his own story version according to his own beliefs. Thus, the "source man" or the 'seed man' for these stories could and would have existed quite some time BEFORE the events of the epistles were written.
So-o .... if they commonly focused on the SAME individual whom the source material described and quoted ... THIS INDIVIDUAL was quite obviously NOT someone who had previously been recognized as being a Messiah. That means, this individual didn't see HIMSELF as being the messiah of the Christian-belief world. Thus, this person's quotes would have been "conditioned" to reflect Christian belief by the Gospel writers ... but... weren't, in fact, intended for such support by the person making those statements in the first place ...(which were later quoted in the 3 synoptic Gospels).
The "seed man" then (around whom the synoptic Gospels were built) did NOT necessarily say everything "correctly" according to Christian belief ABOUT Jesus Christ the Messiah ... because he wasn't aware of such a need. This seed man evidently was focused on becoming a king of the Jews! His methods may have been rather unique and unorthodox (and fitting in with Christian methods and principles -like "loving" enemies and turning the other cheek etc.), but he also made a couple of other statements that happened to slip into the original text which ....don't ... fit the proper image of such a benevolent universal savior figure! He frequently spoke of dividing wheat from chaff ....... sheep from goats ...... and BURNING or punishing the useless stuff! (This is where Christians get their concept of hell in the after-life). He advised his followers to sell their clothes and get swords. (Luke 22:36). He alluded to what would occur AFTER he seized power in Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
And so ............ if Christians would ONLY come to grips with the evidence and finally ADMIT that the Gospels' Jesus Christ was a construction based on an individual who never had a CLUE that HE would become the Christian icon ........ the Christian faith might have some real good, useful potential!
If Christians could SEE that the TRUE Gospel lies in the Epistles and is based on FAITH and HOPE of a connection with God through spiritual means alone and on a cosmic Christ figure ........ and does NOT, EVER support violence or punishment as a means to promote or motivate this belief and that the belief is entirely voluntary (with no punishment meted out for questioning or rejecting it) ................ Christianity might become something entirely useful.
As it sits now, there is just too much potential for abuse ...and promoting this religious belief -as it is- is NOT a good thing to do.
What one finds when using Strong's concordance with a Greek Lexicon, to find the meanings of certain translated words used in the English translations of the Bible. You begin to see a very pronounced pattern of translations MASKING the true meanings of words in order to preserve the developed Christian doctrines. I don't know if this was intentionally done or whether the translators just figured that the meanings weren't clear (in relation to their own perceptions/beliefs) and used alternate words to more accurately reflect accepted Christian doctrines and beliefs.
(Jump past the following introductory italicized text if you want to get to the gist of my post).
Now I've held the belief for some time now, that the Gospels' Jesus Christ is essentially a hoax. It wasn't intentionally done originally; it was done in order to fill a particular need of developed churches way back in the early history of the "church," before it ever became the universal church.
According to my theory, the earliest Christians were essentially gnostics who relied heavily on revelations from the holy spirit, visions, inner knowledge and developed mysteries (of the workings of the Theos ... or the "god-corporation"). THEIR Jesus Christ was a figure who lived or was conceived ... in another plane, a cosmic "heavenly" plane ..... where the God-head dwelt. (The English word "God" in the New Testament is always translated from the Greek word "Theos" and Theos was a complete government made up of different layers of authority ... much like our earthly governments and systems work).
So, to the gnostics -and these include ALL of the New Testament Epistles and maybe the book of Revelation as well- Jesus Christ was a figure who HAD been crucified in the heavenlies by his rivals and HAD triumphed by coming back to life ....... and would show up on earth in an earthly human form, in the very near future ........ because everything on earth is a "reflection" of the heavens. They badly needed a Messiah on earth to straighten out the political messes and also to bring them a true solid Hebrew Kingdom once again. At that time the Hebrews HAD a king -(Herod the Great)- but he was not considered to be a true or pure king; rather, he was a self-serving puppet of the Romans.
These earliest pioneers then, decided (or were led) to get everything READY for the arrival of their earthly Jesus Christ counterpart. They "prepared the way" so that the transition of power would be easier and smoother. They shaped their lives to become more conducive to this new righteous kingdom and kept assuring each other that he would show up (APPEAR), ANY TIME now.
But he didn't show up. Over 100 years went by and the entire thing was in danger of coming apart at the seams from this major failure. The church HAD to do something if it was going to survive. (Remember: once a large organization is established, it will always do its utmost to keep surviving ... no matter how small the need for it remains).
So they adopted a relatively popular cult figure -Joshua ben Pandera- (whom the Jews themselves had stoned for blasphemey around 70 BC for claiming to represent God ... and then hung on a tree for a day and buried and/but his followers had -over time- spun the story that he had RISEN from the dead) ... and turned HIM into their expected Messiah.
Well, at THAT time there was no problem with believers KNOWING what had happened. Perhaps some of them wouldn't buy this story but those who stayed with Christian belief DID accept this as the way it 'must have been.' Since Pandera had lived such a long time before, no one could really verify exactly what HAD happened to him or with his body.
So the writers of the Gospels took the stories and writings and quotes from this Pandera fellow and recompiled their own story versions to create the Gospels that we have today. They also dressed him up some by adding on Eastern religious attributes and lots of miracles so that ...... they had a messiah that was absolutely equal to and excelling ..... all the other religions around them! They were in competition, after all and needed to have as much as possible in order to win converts to THEIR cause.
Ok, so, I HAVE this theory about Gospel Jesus being Joshua ben Pandera. It could be true, it could be partly true, it could be right out to lunch (without some major corroborating evidence to back it).
Christian doctrine states that Jesus Christ came to do some teaching and then to die on the cross, rise from the dead and thereby give "eternal life" in heaven for all people who believe in him. Those who don't accept Jesus as their personal saviour will go to an eternal tormenting place called hell. We have the very words of Jesus in the Gospels to prove it. Or do we?
If Joshua ben Pandera was quoted in the Gospels (which I believe he was -not ALL of the Gospels' material was fabricated), and if this guy had NO IDEA that he was one day going to be turned into a universal savior of the world ...then obviously SOME of his quotes would belie that fact.
Probably the pillar of Christian belief lies in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." These words were spoken by Jesus himself (aka Joshua ben Pandera ... if my theory is correct).
If Joshua ben Pandera SAID this, exactly WHAT did he mean?
Well now we get into some interesting stuff. If I was to simply take that verse apart and apply Strong's numbers and the Greek Lexicon, I could quickly show that this verse meant something entirely different than what it appears to mean in English ...... but then I would be accused of "twisting" and "taking out of context" and of trying to "do away with the real true meaning" ....so that I could "justify" my own "unbelief".
So I'll leave that for a moment and go into something else.
Jesus came to save souls, right? He came to save them from hell, right? I mean, if he wasn't saving souls from hell, what the heck ELSE could he be saving anyone to or from?
So we go into what Jesus said about hell. He spoke on only three occasions about hades and on three occasions about a place called "gehenna" (which is translated as "hell" in the English Bibles). It turns out that what Jesus said about hades is found in the following 3 passages...
[Matthew 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: (hades)
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell (hades) shall not prevail against it.
Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.]
This is ALL Jesus ever said about the tormenting place or place of the dead, which could be considered to be the hell of modern perception.
In all other instances Jesus spoke of a garbage dump outside of the city of Jerusalem!! This place was called "gehenna" and was the place where garbage was continually being burned. The fires never stopped completely but smoldered endlessly. The word "Gehenna" itself, meant the 'valley of Hinnom' and the 'valley of lamentation' and was likely tied to the alter of Topheth which was in the valley of Hinnom in which children were sacrificed by throwing them live, into a cauldron of fire, to appease the god Molech.
So Jesus CONSISTENTLY referred to gehenna when he spoke of warnings and of losing one's soul.
Jesus NEVER ONCE stated that he came to SAVE anyone from "hell" but he warned people about losing themselves in gehenna -the garbage dump. Very, very strange if his mission was actually to save souls from hell.
Then we examine the word "soul" to see exactly what THAT word meant in the original Greek. Well, we find that a "soul" appears to be the life of a person. It's the 'breath of life'. Nowhere can we find any evidence that a soul survives death because the end of a soul IS death! What's more, we look for places where the Greek word "psuche" -(which is usually translated into "soul" in English)- is translated into the word "life" in the English translations and we come up with the following...
[Matthew 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your soul,
Matthew 10:39 He that findeth his soul shall lose it: and he that loseth his soul for my sake shall find it.
Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his soul shall lose it:
Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his soul a ransom for many.
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own soul also, he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 17:33 Whosoever shall seek to save his soul shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose himself shall preserve it.
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his soul for the sheep.
John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my soul, that I might take it again.
John 12:25 He that loveth his soul shall lose it; and he that hateth his soul in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
John 13:37 Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my soul for thy sake.
John 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy soul for my sake?
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his soul for his friends.
Acts 20:10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his soul is in him.
Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my soul dear unto myself
Romans 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my soul.
Romans 16:4 Who have for my soul laid down their own necks:
1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his soul for us: and we ought to lay down our souls for the brethren.
Revelation 8:9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had soul, died; ]
Thus it becomes VERY apparent that "soul" simply refers to the essence of one's life! If anything will be preserved or continue on into an afterlife, it's the SPIRIT of a person or persons. There is substantial backing for the concept of spirits living on in the afterlife, to be found in the New Testament but not for resurrecting souls.
But "Jesus" never spoke of saving spirits; he warned of losing one's soul. Obviously, since soul is psuche (from which the English word "psyche" is derived), soul meant a bit more than just being alive; it also represented the drive for living and the ego of life. But it DEFINITELY is NOT what the New Testament supports as an everlasting or eternal entity. In fact, the soul could better be equated with carnality. It was the "spirit which quickens" and not the soul.
So we see evidence here of (a rather "carnal") Joshua ben Pandera, who wanted to become King of the Jews ..... giving rallies and pep talks to followers to abandon their personal ambitions and egos, in order to support him and his cause and to warn them about losing their lives in a garbage dump if they wouldn't catch his vision and believe in him.
All right, and then we come to that word "eternal/everlasting". They're exactly the same word in Greek. The word is "aionios" and means ...
[ 166 aiwniov aionios ahee-o-nee-os
from 165; TDNT-1:208,31; adj
AV-eternal 42, everlasting 25, the world began + 5550 2, since the world began + 5550 1, for ever 1; 71
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting
*****************************************
from 165
165 aiwn aion ahee-ohn
from the same as 104; TDNT-1:197,31; n m
AV-ever 71, world 38, never + 3364 + 1519 + 3588 6, evermore 4, age 2, eternal 2, misc 5; 128
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age ]
If something is without beginning or end, how can it have a start or be "created for the devil and his angels" or be a period of time or an age?
The only way it can happen is if it's a loop. Like an eternal combustion engine ... one pop drives to the next pop and the next and the next and it never ends. It is perpetual/self-sustaining, once started and never stops until it is shut off.
We can see that essence of meaning brought out in the following verses...
[ Luke 16:9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. (perpetually).
Mark 15:8 And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever <104> done unto them.
Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always <104> resist the Holy Ghost:
Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway <104> liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always <104> to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: ]
Well, that sure knocks the socks off of a lot of "everlasting" and "eternal" references in the words of Jesus then, doesn't it?! Where he meant perpetual, continual, stable ... we 20th century folks have always thought he meant a flat line into the future with no end to it .... ever. Since that could ONLY happen in "heaven" ...... he would have HAD to be talking about heaven and -well- hell too.
Ok so ...... in view of these findings, we take a look at John 3:16 and put it into the perspective of someone who wanted to be a king and was recruiting followers ...
For the Theos was so fond of the inhabitants of our world that it provided from itself a single, one of a kind, unique representative so that whosoEVER puts their trust into him, perishes not but has continual/perpetual/uninterrupted .......what?
Ah, here's the last strange anomaly.
Since we ALREADY covered the soul and said that soul meant the essence of life .... it would only stand to reason that if Jesus promised "everlasting life" in the hereafter after death, he would have used the word "soul" (psuche) ........ right? Because psuche was 'the life'.
But nope. He used another word completely! He used the word "zoe". <2222>
[ 2222 zwh zoe dzo-ay
from 2198; TDNT-2:832,290; n f
AV-life 133, lifetime 1; 134
1) life
1a) the state of one who is possessed of vitality or is animate
1b) every living soul
2) life
2a) of the absolute fulness of life, both essential and ethical, which belongs to God, and through him both to the hypostatic "logos" and to Christ in whom the "logos" put on human nature
2b) life real and genuine, a life active and vigorous, devoted to God, blessed, in the portion even in this world of those who put their trust in Christ, but after the resurrection to be consummated by new accessions (among them a more perfect body), and to last for ever. ]
The above definition is slightly "elevated" to include some Christian apologeticism but you can see through that, if you try to get the gist of what "zoe" meant. It would be similar to our English word "zest".
Thus, finishing off John 3:16 in the way that Joshua ben Pandera would have said it .....
For the Theos was so fond of the inhabitants of our world that it provided from itself a single, one of a kind, unique representative so that everybody who puts their trust into him, perishes not but has continual/perpetual/uninterrupted zesty life.
There are a number of statements made by Jesus which kind of raise the eyebrows a bit because they seem totally out of character for a pacifist lover of humanity. He spoke a LOT about gathering the chaff and the tares and burning them, but of course, this is usually thought to refer to hellfire in an after-life. But he ALSO made some statements about getting swords and about bringing enemies before him so they could be killed in front of his eyes. He railed endlessly at the scribes and Pharisees, calling them names and he once even called Herod "that fox"(when the Pharisees tried to help him by warning him about Herod) ... which all seems a wee bit odd. His final fatal act, it would appear, was to do a triumphal entry into Jerusalem and then waltz into the temple with a whip and drive out money changers and empty their cash drawers out onto the floor.
In short, Jesus of the Gospels did NOT act like a wise all-knowing, all-righteous, all-loving, international God figure. He sounds pretty regular human, mostly. Well, that's probably because he WAS just that! He was pretty much like all the other Jewish wanna-be Messiahs who got killed. He merely became a victim of deification.
... that there, Vince, is definitely worth much hmm-ing.
[Such also scratches a nagging itch I've had in my mind of late regarding the sometimes humorous flight paths thoughts can take when one is at rest, but all of that is another story for another time, I suppose.]
May I ask you a rather "point blank" question? For those having eyes that see and ears that hear, it is clear that the initial "Jesus Movement" seems to have as its root some kind of Natural Philosophy which, sadly, instead of being more generally or universally socialized to improve living conditions here on Earth, was politicized by a small group of self-aggrandized, wanna-be gods (i.e., "mighty ones" or "powers that be", the ruling class or social elite, etc.) ... as has been done among humans (regardless of ethnic or "tribal" affiliation) seemingly from time immemorial with nearly every genre of "social reform". [Whew! Sorry for that, uh, tad lengthy of an "introductory" sentence there.]
Anyway, disregarding designations of a "Jewish" or "Gentile" nature, as such truly seem to not apply to the contents of the Bible's "New Testament" (or even its Old Testament, for that matter), do you see any hope of recovering the true message contained therein? Or do you think the "Light of the World" has been, as the story of Jesus seems to paint it, snuffed out and forever lost to Humanity, being so badly abused and damaged ("raped and pillaged" as it were) by the dirty dancing that Government and Religion ("kings and priests") have continued to engage in over the millennia?
Oh, and have you ever noticed the difference a lone comma can make in how something can be read? For example, look at what happens when that itty-bitty punctuation mark comes between a certain Son that ... well, here, read it for yourself: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes ... " (John 3:16).
God so loved ... what? That which He bestowed upon or gifted to His only begotten Son? The "celestial body" and not "me and my family and friends", its parasitic inhabitants?
Quite a difference, huh? Especially for those heaven-bound "spirits" who so arrogantly ignore Earthly matters and those diamond-studded "souls" who so greedily trash Her true riches ... seemingly one and the same really, for the one forms for the "self" a golden halo and the other a golden crown ... to reflect the wearers' "godliness" to lowly folk apparently. (Okay, I've drifted off topic, but given your "theory" of somebody being a victim of deification, I couldn't help but think of how super easy it can be to misread what someone says, even when what he or she says happens to be spelled out in writing.)
-----
"But, but ... [burrrrp] ... I didn't know, ociffer, I swear it on my, no, your ... hey, look, nobuh-uhddy tol' me I wuz s'posed tuh be one of them ... [burp] ... s'cuz me, one of those uh ... whatcha-callits ... one uhv'em Groundskeeper 'Sociation of the Universe freaks, um, people. Hah! And you prolly thought I couldn't say it."
"Mm-hmm. Okay, buddy, let's go; time to step off the chariot and onto the real world."
-----
Don (wanders about some mound of dirt and an "un-tooled" house of adoration and prayer)
I personally have a lot of respect for the earliest Christians. I believe they were sincere and honest enough in their efforts. But gee whizz, they didn't expect their "religion" to go on living for the next 2K years either or they might have been more careful in how they crafted and preserved it.
It was the later embezzlers who remolded it as needed to keep on using it for their own ambitions. And boy, all that "hellfire" stuff sure paid off handsomely too! I bet the competing religions looked on with envy for not having thought of it first.
Is primarily a Greek idea of an underworld where souls can get lost. I personally don't think Jesus taught that concept. I don't think it is consistent with his other teachings about the nature of man and God and their relationship... nor is it part of his philosophy of love and unity among mankind.
He was talking to his followers and warning them about throwing their lives away into the dumpster.
I have a hunch that his reference to gehenna was a bit more than the garbage dump itself though. I think he was alluding to the child sacrificing that went on in that valley, to the god Molech. What a horrible experience it must have been, for the Jews to come to a realization that there was no actual POWER in Molech and that they had sacrificed their children for nothing. I think Jesus was warning about that ... in addition to warning about throwing their lives away because of unbelief in their own worth.
