Marcus Caelius Posted November 24, 2006 Report Share Posted November 24, 2006 But if we accept this, we have to ask how Christianity did begin. Something or someone, or some group began it. Examining 'why' it began would, to my way of thinking, be far more interesting as a topic. I would agree. I think it safe to begin by placing the primary initial responsibility on Saul/Paul of Tarsus. As to how he managed to elevate a small Jewish sect into an internationally dominant religion, I'll leave the historical explanation to those more knowledgeable. I, personally, am much more comfortable in using modern examples to show that and how such a thing can be done. For this post, I'll just mention that it can be surprisingly, indeed appallingly, easy to convince modern, college-educated people to enthusiastically accept new religions based on the most fantastic and/or obscure claims, ideas and philosophies. I've seen a documentary, and read a number of things suggesting that Jesus went to Tibet during his missing years (13-30) and studied Buddhism, as is mentioned in Buddhist texts. Sounds far fetched but who knows? And the Mormons believe Jesus came to North America to preach to the Indians, who are in reality the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel. Sounds far-fetched, but who knows? Thor Heyerdahl has proved the possibility of crossing the Atlantic in those days. (Note to self: Remove tongue from cheek.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted November 25, 2006 Report Share Posted November 25, 2006 And the Mormons believe Jesus came to North America to preach to the Indians, who are in reality the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel. Sounds far-fetched, but who knows? Thor Heyerdahl has proved the possibility of crossing the Atlantic in those days. Like I said - sounds far fetched, but who knows - certainly not you or I. Although I know which I think is more likely, I have no need to sway anyone else in my direction though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poetoftheLord3 Posted November 25, 2006 Report Share Posted November 25, 2006 Christianity was never followed by its founder, christ, and yet it is based on his teachings, so you must draw the conclusion that it came from previous religions (jewdaism). The core of the religion is the bible, and that is half Jewish, and the new testiment was not completed within a life-time of christ.In the original quote the word "invented" is used to describe a personality (i can only understand this as the personality of Jesus, correct me if i'm wrong) but as i undersatnd and belive (although im no christian), Jesus existed and even if he didnt perform miracles, he did have a "winning" personality. Christianity was Judaeism changed by Jesus, and changed again by the writers of the bible, not something invented in a lifetime. Chistianity was never started by Jesus, he never once broke any Jewish law to do so would have nullified his teachings to the Jews that followed him. To teach anything not from the scriptures, they would have killed him as soon as he spoke out about the hippocracy of the religious leaders of the time. He did not teach to change from Judeaism. Others after him did, he taught a way of faith not of tradition. It was origionally simply the way. People after him turned it into a religion in order to bring the masses under control, to exploit it for monetary gain etc. Constantine did it to get the Christians, who were oppressed & killed for many years, to fight for him. The crusaders did it for land and power. To whether or not he really existed even the Jews believed it and did everything in their power to disprove and discredit his teachings even to teach unto this day that his followers robbed the grave and started the religion. whether or not he existed and was the Son of God or not if more people followed his teaching of love, forgiveness, feeding the poor caring for the sick and infirm, the elderly in stead of building more churches and arguing which brand of religion is the true one the world would be amuch better place. His teachings did take on many of the better aspects of other philosophys and other religions does it really matter if itteaches us a better way? James who is traditionally thought to be Jesus' brother said " pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this to visit the orphans and widows in their trouble and to keep oneself unspotted from the world" a philosophy no one seems to get, to help one another thats all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted November 25, 2006 Report Share Posted November 25, 2006 The Western experience aside, can we not find a variety of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Caelius Posted November 26, 2006 Report Share Posted November 26, 2006 Like I said - sounds far fetched, but who knows - certainly not you or I. Although I know which I think is more likely, I have no need to sway anyone else in my direction though. There are all kinds of possibilities; the idea is to rank them into probabilities and to throw out those that have absolutely no evidentiary corroboration. As to the need to do so, I'm no "Soldier of Truth." At the same time, I'm not ignorant of the dangers of unchecked pseudo-history/medicine/news/whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Caelius Posted November 26, 2006 Report Share Posted November 26, 2006 (edited) To whether or not he really existed even the Jews believed it and did everything in their power to disprove and discredit his teachings... The purported fact of Jesus' existence and the existence of certain ideas are two separate things. The attribution of those ideas to Jesus is a third. Certainly, the ideas, as well as other ideas, existed; the other ideas were why the Romans needed troops in the area. The Romans acquiesced in Jesus' execution because those other ideas had also been attributed to him. If one set of ideas can be wrongly attributed to someone, why not another? "Jesus" could have been a single personification for two philosophies. Personally, I think Jesus may well have been nothing more than an itinerant rabbi who kept himself fed by repairing furniture, or such. A sort of religious Traveller. What he did to get an anti-Roman message attributed to him is anyone's guess. Maybe he really was an anti-Roman rabble-rouser with two separate messages. Thing is, because the Council of Nicaea cherry-picked what went into the Bible (ie, the Church sat down and got its story straightened out, intentionally discarding everything that didn't fit the picture it wanted to present), it's difficult for the average person to find out what else was attributed to Jesus. BTW, in a modern court, the actions of the Council of Nicaea would be seen as illegal, and would probably earn the council members a prison term. Edited November 26, 2006 by Marcus Caelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted November 26, 2006 Report Share Posted November 26, 2006 BTW, in a modern court, the actions of the Council of Nicaea would be seen as illegal, and would probably earn the council members a prison term. The sensibilities of the modern world would impugn most things in Roman history, not just this. I am not disagreeing with your overall assessment of the Council of Nicea. But if we start using (post)modern values as a benchmark to judge the Romans, what would be left to us? Different times, different standards, different realities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Caelius Posted November 26, 2006 Report Share Posted November 26, 2006 (edited) I am not disagreeing with your overall assessment of the Council of Nicea. But if we start using (post)modern values as a benchmark to judge the Romans, what would be left to us? Different times, different standards, different realities. I'm not judging them by our standards, I'm pointing out the inconsistency of ordering our lives and our views of the universe according to their standards. As you say, "Different times, different standards, different realities." We know more now than they did then; our knowledge has certainly increased to the point where Credulity should be* considered as big a sin as they considered Blasphemy to be. *Subjunctive - reflecting a case other than present reality. Edited November 26, 2006 by Marcus Caelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted November 26, 2006 Report Share Posted November 26, 2006 There are all kinds of possibilities; the idea is to rank them into probabilities and to throw out those that have absolutely no evidentiary corroboration. True. I just read a comprehensive de-bunking of the "evidence" for the Jesus was a Buddhist myth. The similarity between what the bible claims he says and Buddhist thought is probably no more than a pleasant co-incidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman wargamer Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 Chistianity was never started by Jesus, In the Gospel according to Matthew, Christ said; "And I tell you...I will build my church...and the power of dearh shall not prevail against it." Mt. 16:18 Bible Constantine did it to get the Christians, who were oppressed & killed for many years, to fight for him. they grab the church leadership under the very whims of Emperor Constatine imperial power. so it is basically a novel idea... "if you can not deafeat them, joint them concept" when the christian church could not be defeated by persecution and stop by constant massacre. they change everything that it could no longer be compare with the pure and original Church of Christ. after the Council of Nicaea, the western Roman Curiae emerge so trumphant that obliterated the eastern group leadership in an emperor instigated christiam church leadership "coup d tat." after this event...the persecuted church become the persecutor...killing all who oppose their leadership. The eclipse of the true and original christian ( first century church ) was slowly and gradually dawned by the new professing paganized and romanized christian under the Roman Curiae. at last the Roman Curiae invented a new state and universal religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Caelius Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 at last the Roman Curiae invented a new state and universal religion. Are you saying this is a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman wargamer Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 at last the Roman Curiae invented a new state and universal religion. Are you saying this is a good thing? it defends on timeline and point of view if you are a member of the elite Patrician and a Romanus Senator in their time, yes, it is the best solutions against the christians. for the pagan Roman Empire. but for religious reason, today; it is a different things for me. for you can never truly compare the pagan belief to true christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted November 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 Christianity was never followed by its founder, christ, and yet it is based on his teachings, so you must draw the conclusion that it came from previous religions Exactly, & to set the record straight, that is exactly what I was driving at. The quote that I posted from Durant in my original post seemingly undermines the historian's own point. While he seems to be attempting to defend Christianity and the veracity of Christ, he ends up failing to see that Jesus or the Disciples (if we use the caveat that he/they existed) obviously got the idea for his ministry from many pre-existing non-Judaic sources and in doing so did indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts