Speaking as a participant in a number of somewhat "modern" Christian traditions, I think one factor is that we have changed quite a lot and then some strands of the faith have decided to go back into the past and seek what we lost from the early days. One example being certain rock'n'roll churches where people stick their hands up in the air while singing and praying: I heard one pastor defend this as being "this is not a new form of prayer, this is what Jewish people were doing hundreds/thousands of years ago and now we're bringing it back". (See the rather-ancient Book of Exodus, for example. No electric guitars or drum kits there[0], but Moses is definitely described as holding his hands up in prayer, sometimes with the help of Joshua when his arms got tired).
[0] though I'm afraid to admit there is at least one actual tambourine...
Thing is, Christianity is (should be? idk) based on the teachings of Jesus which separated from Judaism; on prayer and worship, the New Testament has teachings like:
> Matthew 6:5-14
> 5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
That is, he teaches a humble, private, and not-showy way of praying, as opposed to the Jews of their time. But this is causing tension and schisms in Christian churches everywhere. I grew up in a fairly conservative one - grey suits, quiet / low energy services, nothing too outlandish. But family of mine ended up in more Evangelical churches, with live music and the like. Then there's Catholics where opulence and grandeur is apparent in their cathedrals, and while I can appreciate them for their architecture and atmosphere and the like, I don't think that's in line with Jesus' teachings of humility and helping the poor etc, especially not given how much money goes and went around in the church.
> I don't think that's in line with Jesus' teachings of humility and helping the poor etc, especially not given how much money goes and went around in the church.
Hmm, but in the Exodus, the ark of the covenant was glided in gold with cherubs on the four corners. Same with the Jewish Temple, it was probably decked out in marble. Unlike Protestants, Catholicism have arts, choral music and statues and architecture not because they are "worshipping it" but because these things are supposed to direct the mind upwards towards God.
I think the Catholic Mass is the ancient form of worship by the early Church. There's multiple references to the Real Presence in the Eucharist in New Testament (ie. the road to Eramus and the breaking of bread, and in John 6:53*) and the Sanctus is still in the Eucharistic Prayer, and besides, its an obvious break with the Jews who did burnt offerings in the Temple.
John 6:53–58, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
The Old Testament can't be used to counter Jesus - Jesus is the counter to the Old Testament. He is the reason it's "Old" - humility, loving all without conditions, forgivenes, turning the other cheek - The Greatest Commandment, none of them are ignored or "misinterpreted" in any justified way, even if that way is quoting scripture from Exodus.
That's a very unusual context for me, in my tradition (reformed Presbyterian) we definitely don't view things that we way in general, the God of the old testament is the God of the new and Jesus didn't wholesale make the old testament invalid, only the parts of the law that he had already satisfied. (Eg no need for more animal sacrifices, we've already sacrificed enough via Jesus) (Notably, the moral law and parts of the ceremonial law are still valid)
It is interesting to think about why it's ok to differ from the old temple. Granted of course some of it is cultural differences, we're not the same people and it's 1000s of years later, and perhaps it was different because we're not the theocratic state of ancient Israel.
But something for me to think about why this component is no longer needed (my church is very classic boring protestant architecture)
“All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.”
The reason the ceremonial law is abrogated is because it pointed forward to Christ who was to come. But since Christ has come, retaining the ceremonial law is tantamount to denying Christ (see full text of WCF 19.3 and book of Hebrews).
If you were thinking of the link between baptism and circumcision, remember that God gave the covenant promise and sign to Abraham 430 years before Moses (Gen 17, Gal 3:17), so circumcision predates the law.
All the law was ended by Jesus and replaced by The Greatest Commandment, as it is the only law that we need.
To follow every law within the Bible except that one is to fail to follow Jesus - to follow only that law and none of the others is fine by him according to his own words.
Speaking any law as higher than the law laid down by the Son of God himself is denying Christ.
Exactly right. One way to know the Sabbath is moral rather than ceremonial is the Sabbath was established in Genesis 2:1-3. That means the Sabbath pre-dates the Law, and even pre-dates sin. So Adam and Eve would have kept the Sabbath before the Fall, and so would have all their posterity if they had never fallen.
As confirmation of that idea, Exodus 20:11 states that the reason God gives the fourth commandment is because the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, and by implication is therefore moral.
Adam and Eve had no conception of the Sabbath - they never worked or labored for anything prior to leaving the garden. God walked and talked with them daily, whenever apparently - what need for their to be to recognize that which is accessible and available all the days.
What purpose would a God have at all for the life inside his creations to set aside 1/7 of their time "for him" anyways?
You are a believer I take it - did he not split the veil?
Why do you think you can pick and chose what he invalidates and what he doesn't? He left one - ONE rule with two parts, it's very simple, even children have the ability to understand.
Every Christian I speak always says something like this - "a common misconception" " not my understanding" "according to the church fathers" - so many quite not Jesus at to counter me quoting Jesus, the man who is the basis of all your beliefs.
He did not say we could make exceptions, in fact, to use the OT as appropriate - to support Jesus and his teachings, the rule/divine laws that we were given, of which there was only 10 was VERY CLEAR about our taking liberties with interpretation.
Thou Shall Not Judge. No exceptions for this one either - this morally, ethically, legally, socially, none.
Next time you read the Bible - Jesus was frustrated as fuck with the "Church" of his time - he very strongly disliked them as much as a man that claims to be the Son of God can.
He said we are the church - US, the believers, not a building, not a congregation, not a fellowship - US.
He said that in an attempt to prevent the church from becoming as it is now - nothing remotely like him or his teachings, beliefs or values.
The shape of the modern church frustrates me to no end.
I consider myself a believer, but every time I look at a Christian organization I find their foundational document to be "The Book of Common Prayer" or some other 16th century nonsense.
Do we really need to have each member give 10% of their income so we can pay one guy upwards of six figures to give a 30-minute motivational speech once a week? That was probably useful when he was the only person that knew how to read, but today I find that the kind of person who takes that job is completely detached from the lives of ordinary people who go to work for a living.
The attitude many believers treat non-believers with is also appalling. The baseline I've seen is "you should be friends with non-believers because you can convert them". The worst I've seen is borderline xenophobia and encouraging to only consume media from approved christian-aligned sources. My younger sister attended a christian high school, and the student that spoke at her graduation gave a speech I can only describe as "we must retake the culture from our enemies, deus vult". I was appalled, but many of the adults in attendance ate it up. I don't remember Jesus warning people about enemies. I do remember him warning people about being curt towards their neighbors. Do modern christians not know what a Samaritan means?
The alignment of politics with evangelicalism has been awful, and I'm not looking forward to where it will lead.
A Samaritan was essentially the enemy of the Jew which is what makes the story so poignant.
As for how to interact with non believers, Paul talks about this in his letters to the Romans and the church in Corinth.
1 Corinthians 2:14 NIV
[14] The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
1 Corinthians 5:11-13 NIV
[11] But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. [12] What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? [13] God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you"
Romans 8:7-8 NIV
[7] The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. [8] Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
The reason Christians are encouraged to bring the gospel to non believers is commonly referred to as the great commission. However this should be given and not forced .
Luke 9:5 NIV
[5] If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.”
2 Timothy 2:24-26 NIV
[24] And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. [25] Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, [26] and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Even so, Christians should expect to be hated
John 15:18-19 NIV
[18] “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. [19] If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
> The reason Christians are encouraged to bring the gospel to non believers is commonly referred to as the great commission. However this should be given and not forced .
I'm familiar, but it's tangential to what I'm saying. I'm referring to the belief that you should only engage with non-believers because it represents a recruitment opportunity. It's not a belief that I see preached (often), but it's definitely one that I see people practice. The view that relationships with non-believers is inherently adversarial is one that I don't appreciate.
The context above that verse is important. It's not that Christians shouldn't associate with non believers, but avoid believers "brothers and sisters" that are basically fake.
1 Corinthians 5:9-10 NIV
[9] I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— [10] not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
The pastors and priests I know do much more than 30 minutes of work a week. In addition to the sermon, they provide counseling, perform weddings, funerals, attend each if not leading, visit the sick and homebound, attend to church business, help coordinate activities, help solve conflicts, represent the church, do Bible studies during the week, help with children's programs and so on.
I don't think I would have the stomach to deal with the types of things they deal with. The amount of suffering and grief alone would be hard.
There are definitely sects that take the job much more seriously than others. I personally have known too many that basically end up coordinating a group of volunteer assistant pastors and deacons to nearly all of the work. Frequent month-long vacations as well (they're called "sabbaticles" because it sounds biblical).
They also frequently run into some moral scandal (plagiarism, adultery, theft), plead for forgiveness (because reporting them to the denomination heads would leave them jobless), and then move states to repeat the playbook elsewhere.
Some of the kindest, most thoughtful people I've met were pastors too, though, so I won't say that the entire profession is evil. The monetary and social status incentives that the position grants also attracts some of the worst people, though.
Yeah, that is sad. The biggest mistake I think is made in modern Christianity is forgetting that all fall short and that somehow Christians are somehow better humans than others.
Well yeah, opulent temples are in line with Jewish traditions but the other poster is suggesting that's not in line with the teaching of the new testament specifically?
Not necessarily but like much interpretations differ. An old retired pastor friend once described the story of Mary anointing Christ with the expensive oil and being chastised by Judas as a “waste” with Jesus correcting Judas (John 12). He expressed that story as possibly symbolic of how we should regard Christ as the glorious king of kings and despite His servant humility, He is still deserving of the finest we have including opulence in His houses of worship.
We had this conversation while I was struggling as a member of the church over a remodel of our sanctuary and what I felt were excessive expenses that were more for beauty than function. Essentially “a waste”. I asked his opinion
Always kind of thought provoking when an octogenarian pastor makes you realize that you identified with Judas’s attitude.
It does seem like an odd attitude for a messiah who commands his followers to give up their entire identity for a life of extreme poverty and charity - who took a whip to the moneychangers in the temple and denounced the rich as unworthy of heaven - to insist on opulence and luxury for himself. I think Judas had a point.
It's bc it's added later to justify this bs - that's why it's Judas being corrected bc the person making the addition or changes already knew he was the bad guy.
Judas - the Betrayer who trades his divine friend with like tons of followers and influence for silver pieces, 30 of them I think, Judas speaks to materialism as unnecessary and Jesus corrects him as "well for me and my Dad, expensive is appropriate" - the guy who gets to town and is all like, "where the tax collectors and prostitutes be at?" They were the most controversial figures in that society...
Today, were Jesus to show up today, already having been born to some woman immaculately a fews back, he wouldn't step foot into a Church with his name on it - you'd be far more likely to find him hanging out with Trans people, homeless - he tended to have a thing for broken people, something about improving them and whatnot.
No more or less than any story from that time period. What is in the Bible is literal, historical, metaphorical, philosophical…etc. So could it be true? Sure. Could it be an illustrative fiction? Sure. Could it be false or mistranslated? Sure. Could the message require a contemporary contextual understanding that we don’t have in 2024? Sure.
> Today, were Jesus to show up today, already having been born to some woman immaculately a fews back, he wouldn't step foot into a Church with his name on it
It’s always funny to me when someone (anyone…from any side or spectrum of the theological debate) seems so confident that they know how “Jesus today” would behave, when apparently from the accounts written near to when he was present on the earth even his closest disciples and friends who were with him at the time were often surprised by his behavior. To make the claim that He would shun His houses today doesn’t seem to be rooted in the historical understanding about Him that we do we have. He apparently wasn’t too happy with what was happening in the Temple at that time, but still set foot in it, if only to make a point.
> you'd be far more likely to find him hanging out with Trans people, homeless - he tended to have a thing for broken people, something about improving them and whatnot
Back then He sought out the rich, the poor, the right, the wrong, the clean and unclean, the nobility, the nobodies, the religious, the Jews, the gentiles—basically all folks of all types that were milling about in Judea in that time period. Would that somehow be different in 2024 and He would just gravitate to marginalized people? Doesn’t seem to be in character with what He did then.
As somebody outside of religions (thank you both parents, probably the greatest gift one can give to one's kids - freedom of faith and self determination, something almost impossible as adult if indoctrinated young), these kind of discussions are funny to me.
Why? They are present in every corner of the world, every religion. And all you need is to take few steps back and stop taking everything literally, trying to find some universal life guidance in bronze age texts. Not that its not there completely, some things are universal, but so are half the self-help books for example or literally any other serious text. Frank Herbert's Dune series is way more appealing and worthy to me for example and truths in it way more universal, yet I am not basing my whole life and morals on it, nor do I feel the need to push it on rest of the world.
Those were stories, no moral value greater than old greek (or persian, hindu etc.) tales which always had some strong message beyond story on the surface. Stories made up by men, hundreds of years after christ, which were retold probably 20x before somebody wrote them down (and then 20x translated between various slangs, languages and targeted meanings). Current bible has little to do with original story, its simply not technically possible for complex stories to be preserved 100% for hundreds of years by just retelling them.
You realize that say sunni vs shia muslims are, when reduced to few words, a conflict between which member of the family was the truest believer and whose words are more important, while having 0 reference to actually decide so? Yet conflicts between those are numerous and victims of those in hundreds of millions.
Every time I see people desperately looking for specific truths, there is some deeper underlying problem and inability/unwillingness to decide something rather trivial for oneself. Like which sort of music should be happening where - what the heck does this have to do with actual faith in your god(s)? Do you also consult religious text when picking up Sunday sweater color? Deities are not that petty, not even in those bronze age tales, its just showing human flaws and fears.
that's all brave and probably well intentioned, but there is another side to it. The Bible was specifically "a single agreed upon text" so that groups of people in real life could stop fighting about theology points, big and small. It still exists today. "The Bible is the Truth" end of statement. It is not because you personally cannot find new meaning in non-Bible things.. it is specifically to get groups of people "on the same page" .. that phrase is used today. The written nature of it also tends toward stability.
Perhaps in an unsatisfying way to an adolescent, the answer is there already, and you personally find your place in the order that is established by your ancestors and lead you life. Mostly the whole exercise is opposite of adolescent exploration. IMHO this is neither bad nor good. It is boring and meant to be boring, to prevent deadly conflict, wasted efforts, petty differences etc.
Based on this boring interpretation, Christians went on to build massive, mighty buildings, large civilized empires and vast written knowledge available to literate citizens. Those things did not have to happen at all. The triumph is that they did happen. In modern times we mostly dont even regard these things, since they are "obvious."
Please note that I am not saying this is the only one True Path at all, just describing things.
Not disagreeing per se, but what you write about as the goal was not achieved, far from it just look around and look at history. Its probably due to human flaws rather than anything else but that doesn't matter at the end. Look at all the sects of christianity, they can't agree on even basic things. There used to be wars killing tens of millions between those sects.
Again, human flaws, but that's the whole point - we can't escape them, no 'absolute truth' fixing anything. And that 'absolute truth' doesn't stand test of time, or should we be really killing gays on spot and also brides that aren't virgins?
Christianity doesn't throw away its hebrew origins (old testament) - which is properly schizophrenic experience to have those 2 books next to each other and attempting to say you believe in both. Its a fatal flaw of christianity that it wasn't started from scratch - basic secondary school logic will fail it very easily since those are really 2 distinct religions. Because you basically believe in 2 gods, 2 versions of events, 2 distinct set of morals which can't be merged together. You can't claim its fine to be psychotic petty mass murderer and preach love and forgiveness for everybody at the same time, thats just desperate self-lie to maintain unmaintainable. I see folks doing it all the time just to be clear, but its always a desperate house of cards and they very quickly shy away from any deeper discussion in fear of questioning a pillar of their existence.
Which goes back to first sentences of my previous post - thankful to my parents they didn't do this to me. I am doing the same to my kids, they can decide what they want in their adulthood, not a second earlier.
> probably the greatest gift one can give to one's kids - freedom of faith and self determination, something almost impossible as adult if indoctrinated young
This really isn't possible to give someone. Your cultural upbringing will flavor your core beliefs, whether religiously or non-religiously
Not sure I understand. My father is catholic. Mother is protestant/evangelical. Both decided in their adulthood to stop practicing it and not push a single speck of it in me, consciously, without caring 'what others will say'. They didn't push me into some religious schools (unlike my wife who has rest of her life to deal with maybe well-meant but massive trauma of strict religious upbringing, psychologists can only help so much). My parents literally defined my cultural upbringing, more than anybody/anything else combined.
Anybody strong enough can do that, but lets be honest here, most people are not that strong and rather will go the path of least friction and most comfort and not the best long term path.
As said, I am eternally thankful to them for this since when looking back I clearly see choices they've made.
While your reference talks about prayer which is distinct from worship, I think that the instructions around prayer and worship are related. However, I dont think the message is to be reserved, but instead be honest. I understand this verse to mean don't be fake, God knows your heart. Be real. Here are a few examples that reinforce why I think this.
When talking to the Samaritan woman at the well Jesus talks about worship being true and of the spirit.
John 4:23-24 NIV
[23] Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. [24] God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.
A reminder to forgive and seek forgiveness from those you have wronged (as reinforced in Matthew 6:14-15, Leviticus 19:18, Proverbs 17:9 ) before asking for forgiveness and before worshipping God:
Matthew 5:23-24 NIV
[23] “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, [24] leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.
Showing that fake worship means little:
Matthew 15 8:9 (NIV) quoting Isaiah 29:13
[8] “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [9] They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ ”
> Then there's Catholics where opulence and grandeur is apparent in their cathedrals, and while I can appreciate them for their architecture and atmosphere and the like, I don't think that's in line with Jesus' teachings of humility and helping the poor etc,
I think it depends on the motivation. If it is to elevate people's minds it is fine, if it is to show wealth and power it is not.
> especially not given how much money goes and went around in the church.
The church does actually use a lot of its income for the poor. It mostly does this in third world countries so its not evident in rich countries. Its not that long ago (20 or 30 years) that the church was the largest operator of AIDS clinics in the world - mostly in Africa where the need was great but the money was lacking. The same is true of other large Christian churches. They also tend to follow the rules of doing good quietly so they do not do PR to let everyone know what they are doing like secular philanthropists.
Its something you can verify. Some bits of the Catholic church (I recall finding a Vatican statement of income and expenditure a while back) make accounts public, and I think many other churches must do too.
It's a catastrophe, not just esthetically but spiritually as well. It has nothing to do with austerity or wealth. Some of the churches no longer seek to express holiness ("having been set aside for God") and support the numinous and eternal nature of the divine liturgy that takes place in them.
One of the most breathtaking pictures I've ever seen in this regard is of Mass in a German church completely destroyed during WW2.
Exactly. Sacred architecture flows necessarily from essence (what church is) through substance (can't be accident or easy-to-vary) into form (matter receiving truth). Regrettably, accidents get commonly confused for substance like mistaking material poverty for spiritual authenticity, or adorning for corruption. Poor churches in middle ages still had a golden chalice (for literal God), cruciform layout (or other hard-to-vary forms in orthodox churches), eastern orientation, and an elevated altar. Why would a church built in A.D. 2024 have less?
No. You are wrong. No fine stuff necessary for Jesus or his Dad.
Does God need an altar to be elevated? Who does that altar actually elevate exactly? Who most benefits from the splendor and opulence?
We cannot create anything so nice that it would be more than a 4 year olds drawing for the fridge - God created all things but is super impressed by Gold chalice, sees that as a show of sincerity rather than action and belief and faith - uh huh, sure he does - you kno what they say about rich people at the gates of heaven right??
Yes. You are right. "My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise." It would not be good to create religious beauty to "impress" God in a boastful way. All that is good in creation exists in God in supereminent fashion.
But we don't do things to impress God in that sense. By supernatural grace our broken spirit begins to heal and we become like God, from the inside out, in a way appropriate to our finite created nature. From grace comes our (sometimes clumsy...) imitation of Jesus and, why not, a taste for sacred art and beauty. By grace all of creation will be transformed.
Since you ask: what is elevated on the Catholic (and Orthodox) altars is the Son, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. It does not come from us, we did nothing to deserve it, and yet it was given to us so we can offer it to God. As the Lamb is elevated and we look up to it, we desire to add what little is in us. One expression of this desire is to have everything involved, from the building to the sacred vessels, express the sanctity of what is taking place. It may be clumsy, it may be mixed up with impure motives and false piety. Who knows, it may really have been a bit much at times. But in itself, it is good and appropriate. It does not exclude other expressions of grace. In fact, to suppress it completely strikes me as joyless, misanthropic, deeply unbiblical and likewise potentially mixed up with impure motives and false piety.
What I think is wrong in your reply, is that you seem to confuse the art and golden vessels found in churches (which is a growing heritage serving public and religious purposes) with privately owned wealth and a life dedicated to self-indulgence (like the rich man from Lazarus).
Finally, as a father I am always happy with the drawings of my kids, especially if I know that they really put effort in it. It is amazing to see that these little human beings I helped to come into existence have such creativity in and of themselves. Would this same joy not exist in our Heavenly Father in a supereminent way?
There's loads of artisans that can expertly sculpt/carve marble, wood, etc. It's just if you want to hire someone (or a team of people) to create such things it could cost more than the building itself.
Much cheaper to adorn your church with mass-manufactured statues made from molds and they give you that same air of creepiness for a tenth or 100th the price :thumbsup:.
Yeah... and it's for God and the King that he so divinely ordained rule over all of us bc that is how that was, the church and the palace had all the money and they supported each other for thousands of years
That's because Yahweh was a sky god and lived high up in the clouds. So raising your hands, standing on mountain tops, etc, reduces your distance to him. Raising your hands while praying doesn't make as much sense anymore since Heaven is a metaphysical concept and not a place in the skies.
Are you asking about the scriptural basis from ancient times that they use to justify their modern practices? (i.e. the immediate topic at hand) Or are you looking for theological and/or scientific opinions on whether the claims they make are true, for at least some meaning of the word “true”?
There is nothing in the Bible that describes the practice they promote. Sure, there is a claim that people who are filled with the Holy Spirit will not die if bitten by snakes, but no description of it being used as a ritual practice and you could claim it contradicts “do not put the Lord God to the test”.
I have no idea if there is extra-biblical evidence for people doing that in early churches, and whether those churches were considered orthodox or heretical at the time, or perhaps the 1st century equivalent of “we don’t know yet, we’re just trying stuff out to see what works”.
Im going to cite (slightly shorten) Wikipedia. I have no competency to understand the sources and fact check but I though it’s quite interesting.
> In the 2nd century the Ophites reportedly handled snakes during their services, and also worshipped the serpent.
> The Ophites […] were a Christian Gnostic sect.
> Gnosticism […] is a collection of religious ideas and systems that coalesced in the late 1st century AD among Jewish and early Christian sects. These diverse groups emphasized personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) above the proto-orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of religious institutions.
Seems very reasonable sects to me but it’s understandable "authorities of religious institutions" didn’t like it.
Indeed extra biblical gospel from Luke and Mark:
> Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
> And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
IMHO Gospels are comparable with the Bible as a source of history.
Gnosticism is a bit of a catchall - the Ophites were a sect or branch and not by any means the standard - it's difficult to say there is an established "Standard Gnostic Theology" as there really isn't, there are some common deviations from modern Christianity that rendered them more similar thru a modern lens than they may be, tho they are some common Gnostic themes, like self awareness but snake charming isn't one.
That said, snakes have been widely deified thru out history by various cultures and beliefs.
Prior to Christianity the god Tiamet would have been widely known and had been so for hundreds of years. It is common practice for a religion to take the previous god and render them the "bad guy" in their new religion - that could also have been done to the Ophites as the Gnostics were essentially erased by the Church and what little remains the establishment said about them has been rendered sus by what we have found recently of OG Gnostic texts.
You have to realize, by 400 - saying someone handles snakes during their church service was a kin to saying they are a satanic cult.
That said - Gnostics would handle snakes if they wanted or needed to and they would be fine bc that is the faith they preached, a faith of action. Step onto the water - you will not sink of you do and have faith already, no more is needed in the moment, no assistance from Priest or higher power.
Christianity adopted the faith of Paul - the apostle not chosen by Christ, and became people that wait in their beliefs, faithfully waiting for God.
yes agree and .. there are branches of Christianity across the world that did not lose the connection to warfare. There are plenty of people who fight fiercely (in real life) that espouse Christ deeply.. a current Japan martial arts cage fighting champion from Brazil dedicated his whole victory speech to Christ recently, for example.
We are not supposed to do what we kno kno is bad - nothing is set in set in stone anymore, that's the Greatest Commandment actually, God saying you kno well enough to do this on your own without these rules I etched into stone for you, just follow this one rule and you will be fine - as if all of did follow the greatest Commandment we would remake this work out the broken thing it is now and into the Kingdom of Heaven - bc that was very clearly stated to be WITHIN US.
God will only bring his house down after we fix the place up a little bit, WE must save ourselves this time.
It's not wrong to violently beat up a man in a ring for money if that money has agreed to it - I don't think it's ideal per say, so it will come with consequences and over time, if it isn't what God wants us doing, those consequences will become very costly. That's how all of this works - we can do whatever's we want but we will face the consequences and there will always be them, eventually we will learn that even tho we can do anything we want, we shouldn't, we should just follow that Greatest Commandment - that truly is the easiest thing to do.
Tbh if you think about it at all, the whole idea of mortal, unforgivable, hellfire worthy sin - it all falls down when you consider that God made this reality and is there y responsible for all that he allows to occur within it, the exact same way if I make a violent sexual game for kids, its my fault, not the children for playing it.
Thou shall not judge. BC we can't - we don't have any ideas what is worthy of judgement or not and we can't fr our current point of view.
[0] though I'm afraid to admit there is at least one actual tambourine...