The Rise Of Christianity

[Northern Neil]

Rome, with all due respects to its military prowess, was not able to affect or stir the human spirit in he way that Jesus Christ did. The spirit in man, once tapped by God, became the driving force of the movement.

 

This does little to explain, to me, why Rome's vitality dropped in direct proportion to its Christianisation, and why the Christian movement subsequently became very military and political indeed. By the time of Justinian, Rome had regained its vitality, in direct proportion to Christianity gaining its militancy and political role. It also found the need to exterminate paganism to a degree of efficiency that vastly outshone, in terms of human and cultural loss, the very brief Christian persecutions of some emperors.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Rameses the Great]

the very brief Christian persecutions of some emperors.

 

[Northern Neil]

the very brief Christian persecutions of some emperors.

 

Indeed. The times when Christians were persecuted solely for their religion amounts to about 6 years in the whole of Roman history, and occurred during the reigns of Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Decius and Diocletian, for brief spells of about 18 months each.

 

At other times Christians were rounded up and imprisoned or killed by various governors on account of the fact that at various times they committed crimes against the state, knowing full well they would be arrested and 'martyred'. In these instances, they were arrested not because they conformed to the Christian faith, but because at these particular times to be a Christian meant being a member of a criminal element.

 

To give a modern analogy, in the British Isles in the '80's IRA members were arrested for being members of the IRA. They were not arrested for being Irish nationalists, though - their IRA membership implied they were prepared to commit criminal acts, and it was that for which they were arrested.

 

The emperor Theodosius and other Christian writers greatly exagerated the nature and extent of the persecutions. This trend was further augmented by Victorian romanticism and hollywood films.

 

Interestingly enough, a group of Christians sometime in the third century approached the governor of Bithynia et Pontus, stating that, as they were Christians, they begged to be put to death to effect their martyrdom. The governor replied that he was too busy, but there were cliffs and ropes in abundance throughout the province if they wanted to do it themselves.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

IMHO three things apply:

 

A spectacular record of healing in the first 300 years - this diminished thereafter;

 

It was a mystery religeon when such things were fashionable;

 

It admitted women - which rival cults such as Mithraism did not.

 

Phil

 

There were other mystery cults which allowed women Like Isis which were popular as well weren't there?

 

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

Theodora

 

Re: The Popularity and Rise of Christianity

 

Dr. Robert Eisenman, in his book, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1992, Element Books,UK), highlights one of the texts found in the Qumran corpus entitled,

[Gaius Octavius]

Gladius xx, you have to alert the Pope and sundry others!

[Theodora]

IMHO three things apply:

 

A spectacular record of healing in the first 300 years - this diminished thereafter;

 

It was a mystery religeon when such things were fashionable;

 

It admitted women - which rival cults such as Mithraism did not.

 

Phil

 

There were other mystery cults which allowed women Like Isis which were popular as well weren't there?

 

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

Theodora

 

Re: The Popularity and Rise of Christianity

 

Dr. Robert Eisenman, in his book, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1992, Element Books,UK), highlights one of the texts found in the Qumran corpus entitled,

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

A few things you will learn from reading Eisenman's books:

There was no reconciliation between Paul and the rest of the disciples. That is just a Pauline misinformation. Quite the opposite. The movement started by Jesus did acknowledge him as the Messiah, but their idea of a messiah was very different from the man-god or son of god idea propagated by Paul. The messiah that was expected by the Jews was a sacred figure that was supposed to deliver them from the alien yoke, and the Kingdom of God that he promised was a theocratic rule based on justice here in this world.

What Pauline Christianity did was to distort this image and advocate a man-god like Apollo or Dionysius that died for the sins of mankind and whose sacrifice would atone for humanities sins.

You are right. Jesus never went against the Law. He conscientiously practiced it and so did his disciples. They kept the Sabbath, kept the dietary laws, and worshipped in the Temple. On top of everything, they were anti Herodian and anti Roman.

Paul, on the other hand, tried to ingratiate his ideology with the Greco Roman world by turning Jesus into a deity, something that would have scandalized Jesus himself, and by trying to whitewash his image as a non-political figure, which he certainly was not. It would simply not do to deify a rebel against the empire.

After the upheaval of the 60s CE and thereafter, this repackaged form of Christianity survived because of it's apolitical nature while the immediate following of Jesus which was Apocalyptic and Messianic in the true Judaic sense of the word, did not, and for obvious reasons.

Anyway this is the gist of Dr. Eisenman's arguments presented in his various works. Agree with it or not, it has many valid points and does rely on thorough research and profound scholarship.

Theodora, if you have not the time to go through all his books (I know they are a hard slog) just Google Robert Eisenman and you will get a synopsis of his works and ideas

Edited January 21, 2007 by Gladius xx

[Theodora]

He conscientiously practiced it and so did his disciples. They kept the Sabbath, kept the dietary laws, and worshipped in the Temple. On top of everything, they were anti Herodian and anti Roman.

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

To Gladius xx

From Theodora:

Re: He conscientiously practiced it and so did his disciples. They kept the Sabbath, kept the dietary laws, and worshipped in the Temple. On top of everything, they were anti Herodian and anti Roman.

Acts Chapter11, describes how the apostle Peter, a strict law-abiding Jew, underwent a profound change in attitude toward eating that which was formerly called

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

To my learned friend Theodora:

Note that Eusebius, as you probably know, was a later Church father or the Pauline mould and hence his testimony regarding the reconciliation between Paul and James is not reliable. Of course he is going to show that there was a reconciliation, that is precisely what Acts of the Apostles tries to do. Pauline writers took great pains to show that their mission was not incompatible with what was taught by Jesus and his immediate following. The fact is that Paul was summoned at least twice before the council presided over by James the Just in order to give an account of himself because what he was preaching in Gentile lands did not even remotely resemble the original message of Jesus. Thereafter there was an irreconcilable split which is not totally attested to in the New Testament but does survive in remains of apocryphal works that were banned by the Church establishment.

In fact if Dr. Eisenman's hypothesis about the Qumran community being Proto- Christian is true, then those Dead Sea Scroll writings do mention a certain unnamed person, known variously as the Enemy, the Spouter of Lies, and the Deceiver, that supposedly infiltrated the community outwardly professing their faith and inwardly working to undermine it by misrepresenting it to the Gentile community at large.

I don't think it takes much second guessing to figure out who this person was

Also, if Eusebius does "rely heavily" on Josephus, where in Josephus is there a mention of a reconciliation between the Jerusalem Church and Paul?. I don't even remember Josephus even mentioning Paul in any of his works

Edited January 23, 2007 by Gladius xx

[Gaius Octavius]

Gladius xx, one is left with the conclusion that a conspiracy exists within the Roman and Orthodox Churches?

To what end? What are they trying to keep from the hungry, ignorant masses?

Edited January 23, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Gladius xx, one is left with the conclusion that a conspiracy exists within the Roman and Orthodox Churches?

To what end? What are they trying to keep from the hungry, ignorant masses?

That Jesus did NOT start a new religion, he was a pious Jew

That his followers were not just otherworldly, they earnestly desired a Divine Kingdom in Judea rid of Romans and their Herodian puppets

That Jesus did not claim to be God, just a worshipper

That the word Messiah did not imply Son of God, it was a simple Hebrew word - Ha Mashiach- meaning the anointed, or chosen, one. Even Cyrus is known as Messiah in the Old Testament

That Jesus's royal bloodline was a physical threat to Roman rule in Judea that had to be dealt with mercilessly, which it was

That Jesus was not put to death for blasphemy, in fact he never blasphemed. If the problem was blasphemy the Jews could have dealt with him themselves

The whole story of the Jews turning Jesus over to Pilate for execution is just a cock-and-bull story that attempted to shift blame away from the Roman administration and foist it on the Jews, with the horrendous results that we have witnessed these last 2,000 years

That Paul of Tarsus was the true founder of what we know as Christianity, and it was an amalgamation of Judaism, Hellenistic faiths, and Middle Eastern mystery cults

That Jesus's immediate family and followers, and their descendents, were hunted down and exterminated ruthlessly

[Northern Neil]

Gladius xx, one is left with the conclusion that a conspiracy exists within the Roman and Orthodox Churches?

To what end? What are they trying to keep from the hungry, ignorant masses?

Like all people in a position of control, they do not want to be regarded as fallible. For the Church to admit that their religion was fasioned and repackaged by the Roman state to achieve political ends, would mean the end of Christianity. For 1600 years christians have become 'used' to the current form of the religion, and it is now to late to adopt the original form of the religion - whatever form that took.

 

That is why the church burnt heretics in the middle ages, and now buys up and supresses christian writings that opposes the accepted doctrine.

[Theodora]

To my learned friend Theodora:

Note that Eusebius, as you probably know, was a later Church father or the Pauline mould and hence his testimony regarding the reconciliation between Paul and James is not reliable. Of course he is going to show that there was a reconciliation, that is precisely what Acts of the Apostles tries to do. Pauline writers took great pains to show that their mission was not incompatible with what was taught by Jesus and his immediate following. The fact is that Paul was summoned at least twice before the council presided over by James the Just in order to give an account of himself because what he was preaching in Gentile lands did not even remotely resemble the original message of Jesus. Thereafter there was an irreconcilable split which is not totally attested to in the New Testament but does survive in remains of apocryphal works that were banned by the Church establishment.

In fact if Dr. Eisenman's hypothesis about the Qumran community being Proto- Christian is true, then those Dead Sea Scroll writings do mention a certain unnamed person, known variously as the Enemy, the Spouter of Lies, and the Deceiver, that supposedly infiltrated the community outwardly professing their faith and inwardly working to undermine it by misrepresenting it to the Gentile community at large.

I don't think it takes much second guessing to figure out who this person was

Also, if Eusebius does "rely heavily" on Josephus, where in Josephus is there a mention of a reconciliation between the Jerusalem Church and Paul?. I don't even remember Josephus even mentioning Paul in any of his works

 

 

to Gladius xx:

 

I did reread Dr. Eisenman

[Gaius Octavius]

Gladius xx, one is left with the conclusion that a conspiracy exists within the Roman and Orthodox Churches?

To what end? What are they trying to keep from the hungry, ignorant masses?

Like all people in a position of control, they do not want to be regarded as fallible. For the Church to admit that their religion was fasioned and repackaged by the Roman state to achieve political ends, would mean the end of Christianity. For 1600 years christians have become 'used' to the current form of the religion, and it is now to late to adopt the original form of the religion - whatever form that took.

 

That is why the church burnt heretics in the middle ages, and now buys up and supresses christian writings that opposes the accepted doctrine.

 

You seem to imply that there was an ongoing conspiracy for (at least) some four hundred years! Quite a feat.

 

If we don't know "whatever form that took", how do we know that the present Christianity is a fraud?

 

To buy up all the "opposes" would be quite a success story. Missed Marx and Nietzsche. And a whole crock of others.

 

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Well, I for one, have no doubts about "whatever form that took".

Jesus and his followers worshipped in the Temple, kept the Sabbath, kept the Passover, kept the Festival of the Tabernacles, kept the dietary laws of the Torah, observed the circumcision, said the Kiddush before a meal etc., in other words they were ORTHODOX JEWS. That, to answer your question, Gaius, is how we know how to define the modern following of Jesus, which is an aberration of everything he taught, and this is what I was emphasising earlier - neither Jesus nor his succesor James the Just nor anyone who knew and followed him while he was alive ever wanted to start a new religion. In fact they would have been appalled at the very thought, regarding it as a horrific blasphemy.

All this is not speculation. If you read Jesus's words and study the activities of the early Jerusalem "Church" you would come to the same inescapable conclusions.

Acts tries cleverly to obfuscate the fact that there was an underlying tension between Paul and the Apostles, but the evidence is there.

By the way Gaius, the conspiracy was not ongoing for four hundred years, it only needed for Pauline Christianity to gain an acceptance in the Greco Roman world and then it had a momentum of it's own, and that momentum is carried on to this day

Edited January 23, 2007 by Gladius xx