So it’s quite ironic if there was a version of Jesus that was embracing and retelling some of those ‘heretical’ ideas.
Sure, but also there are definitely things Jesus is said in the Bible to have taught and done that the church itself later condemned, rejected, or- if I’m feeling generous—creatively reinterpreted. This would be one more example, based on a related but different set of sources and arguments.
Christianity seems to me in general to be much less tolerant of its own inherent ambiguity than many other religions. Not that other faiths don’t have plenty of extremist, absolutist adherents and sects—they clearly do. Still, it seems more common (though there’s a lot of exposure bias here for me) for Christians to decide that not only is there one true law, but humans are supposed to intuit what it is, and carry it out—even when the explicit doctrines of the faith they claim to uphold say the opposite.
Oh for sure. One of my favorite examples is how across all the Synoptics Jesus goes “don’t carry a purse” (which would have made monetary collections during ministering impossible).
But then at the last supper in Luke he’s all like “remember when I said not to carry a purse? Let’s 180° that.”
But that reversal is missing in Marcion’s copy of Luke, such that it may have been a later addition (and it does seem abruptly inserted into the context).
These are exactly the kind of details that makes this a fun field to study though. There’s so much revealed in the nuances.
For example, ever notice that both times Paul (who argued for monetary collection with preexisting bias against it in 1 Cor 9) mentions a different gospel in the Epistles he within the same chapter abruptly swears he’s not lying? It’s an interesting coincidence, especially as someone that has spent years looking into the other versions of Jesus he was telling people to ignore or assuring that alternatives didn’t even exist.
Sure, but also there are definitely things Jesus is said in the Bible to have taught and done that the church itself later condemned, rejected, or- if I’m feeling generous—creatively reinterpreted. This would be one more example, based on a related but different set of sources and arguments.
Christianity seems to me in general to be much less tolerant of its own inherent ambiguity than many other religions. Not that other faiths don’t have plenty of extremist, absolutist adherents and sects—they clearly do. Still, it seems more common (though there’s a lot of exposure bias here for me) for Christians to decide that not only is there one true law, but humans are supposed to intuit what it is, and carry it out—even when the explicit doctrines of the faith they claim to uphold say the opposite.
Oh for sure. One of my favorite examples is how across all the Synoptics Jesus goes “don’t carry a purse” (which would have made monetary collections during ministering impossible).
But then at the last supper in Luke he’s all like “remember when I said not to carry a purse? Let’s 180° that.”
But that reversal is missing in Marcion’s copy of Luke, such that it may have been a later addition (and it does seem abruptly inserted into the context).
These are exactly the kind of details that makes this a fun field to study though. There’s so much revealed in the nuances.
For example, ever notice that both times Paul (who argued for monetary collection with preexisting bias against it in 1 Cor 9) mentions a different gospel in the Epistles he within the same chapter abruptly swears he’s not lying? It’s an interesting coincidence, especially as someone that has spent years looking into the other versions of Jesus he was telling people to ignore or assuring that alternatives didn’t even exist.