The Rise Of Christianity

[Rameses the Great]

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.

 

Jesus was a Jew, meaning to fulfill the prophesies of the prophets. He said to the Jews, "I'm not hear to destroy the Torah, rather than fulfill it."

 

The apostles were the ones responsible for spreading what we call today 'Christianity.' The thing is Jesus did not tell them to spread 'Christianity,' but the word, the word of God. As they preached many learned about Jesus and his teachings. As time progressed Greeks called this religion Cristos or the annointed one. Many of the disciples believed that the people who would accept this knew teaching would have to become Jews first such as James and Peter. However Paul thought that to know Jesus works would be important above all else. It has been confirmed in a council that Paul was right.

 

Jesus has dispelled many other Jewish traditions. He abolished the policy of 'eye for an eye tooth for a tooth,' instead using the policy of, 'turn the other cheek.' One out of many new things that shows a lean away from Judaism.

 

So, how do we know that Jesus was out there to start a new religion? He calimed himself the Messiah and the Jews did not believe him thinking Christ has not yet come. God said of the Jews, "I came to my people and they rejected me."

Edited January 23, 2007 by Rameses the Great

[Gaius Octavius]

Yay! Ramses.

[caldrail]

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

Correct. He started a personality cult based around himself to secure support for an attempt at political power.

 

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

Well ok there must have been plenty of people in judaea who didn't like the romans. Not everyone who flocked to his sermons would have been a devout worshipper. Some were casual worshippers, others simply bored or curious.

 

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

True, he didn't. But he did associate himself as a prophet of the said god and quite possibly got carried away with his own success. People sometimes suggested they had divine ancestory. Julius caesar did. It was either for self-aggrandisement or self-delusion.

 

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

The word messiah might have a strict meaning but it definitely did imply 'son of god' status. Remember that adoption in the ancient world was a less formal matter than today. To be chosen by god - the 'father' - was to imply the chosen was his son.

 

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

No arguement there!

 

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

Thats a matter of opinion. The local priests weren't happy about this upstart jesus riding into town, kicking over tables, drawing large crowds, proclaiming he was chosen.... The romans of course had no intention of letting jesus have a crown. Mundane or spiritual. Not good for public order and in any case it was a little insulting to roman eyes.

 

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

It wasn't the jews as a whole, but rather those who liked the status quo and didn't want this jesus ruining it for them. I don't know if the early romans wrote of this tale as we understand it now, but by the early middle ages the general belief was that the jews were responsible and the first crusade attacked jewish communities on their way to the holy land.

 

 

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

Correct. He never met jesus and used him as a figurehead for his own related cult, one of many. His teachings formed the foundation for much of the later religion that was brought together from these independent christian cults from constantine onwards.

 

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

I've not heard that, but it does suggest that the roman influence wanted to ensure that jesus's family did not produce another pretender for the judaean throne.

Edited January 24, 2007 by caldrail

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

The local priests weren't happy about this upstart jesus riding into town, kicking over tables, drawing large crowds, proclaiming he was chosen.... The romans of course had no intention of letting jesus have a crown. Mundane or spiritual. Not good for public order and in any case it was a little insulting to roman eyes.

Which is precisely why the Romans wanted him dead. If the charge against Jesus was just blasphemy, the Jews could have stoned him themselves instead of disturbing Pilate at an unearthly hour of the night on the eve of the most important festival in Judaism

As time progressed Greeks called this religion Cristos or the annointed one

Wrong. Christos is the Greek translation for Messiah. Messiah was a word the Jews used for "anointed one". It did not mean the same thing to them as it does to Christians. Otherwise explain to me why Cyrus is also called Messiah. Does that imply that Cyrus was a god and started his own religion?

Jesus was a Jew, meaning to fulfill the prophesies of the prophets. He said to the Jews, "I'm not hear to destroy the Torah, rather than fulfill it."

Precisely. He was a devout follower of the Torah. Paul, on the other hand, threw the Law out lock, stock, and barrel. So make up your mind, who is right, Jesus or Paul? You cannot have it both ways

The word messiah might have a strict meaning but it definitely did imply 'son of god' status.

Really? In that case God has sons BY THE TON in the bible. Adam is called son of god, and so is David or Solomon, can't remember which. There is even a verse "I say to ye, that ye are all sons of God". Does that mean all of us are Messiahs? Messiah was a purely mundane title, it denoted the chosen one of God who was to deliver Israel from the Pagan yoke. Therefore it did not mean Son of God, at least not the way Christains understand it

Edited January 25, 2007 by Gladius xx

[Gaius Octavius]

Religiously, aren't all 'children of God'? It's the context in which it is used. That is why the meaning of the Bible is left to scholars.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Religiously, aren't all 'children of God'? It's the context in which it is used. That is why the meaning of the Bible is left to scholars.

Yes, in Judaism, the term meant something figurative, not the "Only begotten son of God" that you find in Christianity

[caldrail]

The local priests weren't happy about this upstart jesus riding into town, kicking over tables, drawing large crowds, proclaiming he was chosen.... The romans of course had no intention of letting jesus have a crown. Mundane or spiritual. Not good for public order and in any case it was a little insulting to roman eyes.

Which is precisely why the Romans wanted him dead. If the charge against Jesus was just blasphemy, the Jews could have stoned him themselves instead of disturbing Pilate at an unearthly hour of the night on the eve of the most important festival in Judaism

Yep.... Full agreement there.

 

As time progressed Greeks called this religion Cristos or the annointed one

Wrong. Christos is the Greek translation for Messiah. Messiah was a word the Jews used for "anointed one". It did not mean the same thing to them as it does to Christians. Otherwise explain to me why Cyrus is also called Messiah. Does that imply that Cyrus was a god and started his own religion?

The definition of messiah isn't disputed. But there's no way the jews of that time were going to call any tom dick or harry a messiah. To be anointed meant something special, an honour, something of religious significance. Does that imply that Cyrus was a god and started his own religion? No, but it might imply he started his own cult. Belief is what you hold to be true. Religion is what someone tells you to believe. A cult is religion without societies approval. Anyone calling themselves a messiah is a suspect of some seriously whacky behaviour. Being called a messiah by someone else invites disaster at some point because invariably you're not. What happened to Cyrus by the way?

 

The word messiah might have a strict meaning but it definitely did imply 'son of god' status.

Really? In that case God has sons BY THE TON in the bible. Adam is called son of god, and so is David or Solomon, can't remember which. There is even a verse "I say to ye, that ye are all sons of God". Does that mean all of us are Messiahs? Messiah was a purely mundane title, it denoted the chosen one of God who was to deliver Israel from the Pagan yoke. Therefore it did not mean Son of God, at least not the way Christains understand it

As I siad, the concept of father and son has evolved since these times. These days the defintion is very strict. The people of those times used the phrase in a wider sense. I stand by what I said earlier. To be a messiah means that god has chosen you for this mission in life - you are 'adopted' as his son.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Caldrail I think you and I are actually in agreement with what people regarded as "son of God" in those days. It was used in a more generic sense, but that is not how Pauline Christianity sees it. The Catechism says very clearly, "begotten, not made". That is hardly a Judaic concept you have to agree. The late Reverend Billy Graham illustrated this more vividly in front of a crowd in South Africa by waving a finger in the air and saying "The Holy Spirit Impregnated Mary".

This is more akin to pagan legends like Zeus impregnating Olympias in the form of a snake to give birth to Alexander and other such myths prevalent in that area at that time.

If by Messiah we mean son of God in a figurative sense then that is within the framework of Judaism but that is certainly not how Pauline Christianity sees it.

Jesus, by the way, was no Tom, Dick and Harry. He was a very learned sage, and a very remarkable character, and a great human being. That is something people that followed him did recognize and that is why they followed him. But that does not imply they thought of him as a Deity nor does it imply that he and his followers intended to start a new religion

Edited January 25, 2007 by Gladius xx

[Gaius Octavius]

Keep in mind that Christianity is not Judaism. How do we know that Jesus was a great Person? If it is from the New Testament, then why is the rest of the Testament not to be accepted?

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Keep in mind that Christianity is not Judaism. How do we know that Jesus was a great Person? If it is from the New Testament, then why is the rest of the Testament not to be accepted?

We know that Jesus was a great person because of the devotion showed by his following and from the fact that he was willing to lay down his life for a cause.

Just because some parts of the NT are plausible, it does not logically follow that the rest of is automatically plausible too. What school of logic is that? The Josh McDowell School of Logic for Bible Thumpers?

Many parts of many other ancient manuscripts are shown to be partly plausible and partly implausible

And I know that Christianity is not Judaism. You're not telling me anything new. That is my point. Jesus was a devout follower of Judaism. His modern day worshippers are followers of the pagan aberration known as Christianity

Edited January 25, 2007 by Gladius xx

[Theodora]

From Theodora

 

Quote:

Edited January 25, 2007 by Theodora

[Caesar CXXXVII]

That is my point. Jesus was a devout follower of Judaism

 

Correct . Yet he was a reformator . Ironically Judaism after 70 became much more close to his preaching than it was in his days . No more sacrificing of animals , no more priests etc' .

[Gaius Octavius]

Keep in mind that Christianity is not Judaism. How do we know that Jesus was a great Person? If it is from the New Testament, then why is the rest of the Testament not to be accepted?

We know that Jesus was a great person because of the devotion showed by his following and from the fact that he was willing to lay down his life for a cause. (That comes from the Bible, no?)

Just because some parts of the NT are plausible, it does not logically follow that the rest of is automatically plausible too. (WHO said that it did?) What school of logic is that? The Josh McDowell School of Logic for Bible Thumpers? [We get a little personal here. Questions are not syllogisms. (No charge.) Perhaps YOU are a practitioner of the flush rimflower retarded school of logic.]

Many parts of many other ancient manuscripts are shown to be partly plausible and partly implausible (A Revelation of Biblical, nay historic, import!)

And I know that Christianity is not Judaism. You're not telling me anything new. (I am orgulic!) That is my point. Jesus was a devout follower of Judaism. (Did I say he wasn't?) His modern day worshippers are followers of the pagan aberration known as Christianity (Aha!, a conclusion without premises, or a middle! This equals road apples.)

 

Edited January 26, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[caldrail]

Keep in mind that Christianity is not Judaism. How do we know that Jesus was a great Person? If it is from the New Testament, then why is the rest of the Testament not to be accepted?

 

Thats the problem. Our view of jesus comes from the teachings of christianity which understandably give the man a golden aura. I don't think he was great at all. He was the Jew Who Would Be King. The romans sussed it, and stopped him dead. The talk of miracles are either exaggerations or quaint tales intended to bolster this 'son of god' image. If he was such a great man, why was there no uprising in judaea at this time? I get the impression that many jews regarded him as a trouble-maker. Of course, having been bumped off made him something of a martyr in later decades. One of the central claims in christianity is that 'Jesus died for us'. Paul was absolutely shameless in the way he promoted this image. Jesus died for his own ambition whatever the new testament says.

[Rameses the Great]

Thats the problem. Our view of jesus comes from the teachings of christianity which understandably give the man a golden aura. I don't think he was great at all. He was the Jew Who Would Be King. The romans sussed it, and stopped him dead. The talk of miracles are either exaggerations or quaint tales intended to bolster this 'son of god' image. If he was such a great man, why was there no uprising in judaea at this time? I get the impression that many jews regarded him as a trouble-maker. Of course, having been bumped off made him something of a martyr in later decades. One of the central claims in christianity is that 'Jesus died for us'. Paul was absolutely shameless in the way he promoted this image. Jesus died for his own ambition whatever the new testament says.

 

Caldrail,

 

do you realize Jesus wanted to also teach humility and how to be humble? Did he have to be born in a manger? No, he could have been born in Jerusalem or a nicer city such as Athens, Rome, heck he could have been born in a lavish court in Alexandria! No, he was humble and was born in a manger in Nazareth with humble beginnings and a humble life. Always showing respect to the Romans, Jews, and gentiles the people that hated him.

 

He fulfilled every bit of the prophesy and died for man. There were no longer supposed to be any Jews, but they did not believe.

 

BTW, if there was an uprising in Judea Jesus would take it upon himself to stop it.