Why people choose Christianity from the very begining?
Hi, I am preparing my post-graduate entrance examination(philosophy), after I read the Chinese version of medieval philosophy of religion, our textbooks tend to explain the birth of Christianity in terms of class struggle, but I wanted to know the subtle reasons why people chose Christianity over other religions in the first place.
Comments (106)
Because they are taught it as children.
First, why are people attracted to religion and second, why Christianity?
The answers to these questions may be found in a book on psychology rather than in holy scriptures. If all the options (religions) are lies, truth can't be the reason for making a choice. Maybe we select the religion that, as some say, pull on our heart strings, hits the right buttons in a manner of speaking.
I think the idea that we are capable of “choosing” our beliefs is somewhat of a myth. For the most part, beliefs are ideas we’re attracted to, or ideas that contain something we value like truth or utility. I couldn’t just choose to believe in Christianity just because I wanted to. There are also many others who are aware of the same facts, arguments, etc. as I am, but simply cannot stop believing in Christianity. Beliefs are involuntary.
That's the Marxist explanation, isn't it? Do you think that might be tied to the culture you're studying in?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Christianity
As a first step this may give you some pointers. Don't forget that while Christianity may have endured for centuries, like Islam, the early faith is quite different to the faith it has become.
There is of course a huge library of materials pertaining to the spread of Christianity in Western history. As said above Wikipedia might be a starting point (although if you're in mainland China, I believe Wikipedia is blocked there.) But the Wikipedia article says in part:
The sources given in the Wikipedia article are as follows:
Burkett, Delbert (2002), An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-00720-7
Van Daalen, D. H., The Real Resurrection, London: Collins, 1972
Dunn, James D. G. (2009), Christianity in the Making: Beginning from Jerusalem, vol. 2, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, ISBN 978-0-8028-3932-9
Ehrman, Bart (2014), How Jesus became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Harper Collins
Grant, M. (1977), Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, New York: Scribner's
Mack, Burton L. (1995), Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth, HarperSan Francisco, ISBN 978-0-06-065517-4
Maier, P. L. (1975), "The Empty Tomb as History", Christianity Today
McGrath, Alister E. (2006), Christianity: An Introduction, Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 1-4051-0899-1
Vidmar (2005), The Catholic Church Through the Ages
In a general sense, the best approach is to try and select one or two books that express different perspectives and try to arrive at a balance of them. Good luck with it!
The short answer is that the Bible is a book which stands against the notion that might makes right. It is a book that holds even kings accountable and considers all as equals before God. It stands against the notion that the poor are low or that the disabled are inherently broken. Instead of worshipping nobleness or high birth or strength it affirms the fundamental dignity of all and reminds one that all will be judged by God after death.
All I can add is that "the subtle reason" is also (primarily?) historical: in the early centuries of the Common Era, Pauline Christianity had offered a more optimistic "by faith, not deeds" alternative to the non-Christian cults of "fate" which provided very little "hope" to the vast majority of people who were poor, sick, homeless, orphaned, women, prisoners and/or enslaved that they could be "saved" from their "fate". Christianity had promised "salvation" via "personal faith" (i.e. in the "hereafter" the oppressed would be rewarded with "Heaven" and their oppressors would be punished with "Hell") – in contrast to other popular, older cults which had sacralized "impersonal fate" (or fortune) – a genuine opium of the masses. :pray:
What began as a small circle of friends who knew Jesus grew and came to include people who had only heard about Jesus through the efforts of his disciples and Paul. The number of people who believed that Jesus was a prophet/savior/Son of God was at first very small. There was for the first decades no specific formal beliefs, no institution to speak of, no formalized ritual, no scripture.
Apparently the people who were first attracted to Jesus found his story very compelling. These first Christians are the people you should (if you could) ask "Why did you become a Christian?"
Eventually the church developed beyond the Jewish community and became large and well enough established that it began to need staff, organization, formalized ritual, specific beliefs, and scripture (foundational documents). By a century after Jesus' death, these elements were coming into being. The Christian Church became another among many competing religions. A major break came their way in 312 when the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and decreed it the official religion.
After Constantine, Christians didn't merely compete with other religions, they worked towards shutting them down, closing their temples, and demanding conversion. So, a lot of people converted because it was the safest course to follow.
Guanyun, where your question becomes cogent again is over the long history of Christianity when individuals have decided to leave their pagan beliefs behind and become Christian. There may be advantages available to converts, but apparently previously uninformed people still find the story of Jesus compelling.
You can ask the same question about Karl Marx: It's not surprising that many people in China think Karl Marx is very important. What is VERY surprising is that some Americans read Marx (who is very unpopular in the USA) and decide that he is right. Apparently they find his narrative compelling. The same can be said for people who adopt a belief that is very different than what they had previously believed. The new belief gives their life new meaning, more meaning.
Another answer to your question, why, is that when and where Christianity became the cultural norm, there was virtually no alternative to being Christianity. One was born into it. No decision was necessary.
Of course, there is no real consensus that much of this actually happened. While I am not a mythicist, it seems fairly clear there may have been some itinerant preachers who could have been repackaged as the putative Messiah over the years. We have no independent sources or real knowledge of events here and the gospels (some consider to be a kind of fan fiction) were written decades after the 'events' by anonymous writers.
We could ask why any religious tradition takes off - Islam, Zoroastrianism, Scientology, Falun Gong... It seems the case that humans are hard wired to worship and adore. Generally it's a mix of an attractive story and levels of state endorsement or persecution that drives the process.
You've heard of the Jesus Project? A group of scholars sifted through the gospels trying to nail down what, with certainty, could be attributed to Jesus. There wasn't a lot left when they finished. It isn't that they found the Sermon on the Mount of little value; it was just that there was little there that would connect it specifically to one particular man.
The Church needed foundational documents, and it produced them. Did Jesus say to Peter, "On this rock I will found my church"? I wasn't there, so I don't know. BUT if he didn't, it was inspired writing on some editor's part to put those words in Jesus' mouth. Peter, Paul, and the other disciples were long dead, so who would complain?
Well, be that as it may - Jesus apparently left pitifully few instructions after himself, so they had to do the best they could. Jesus might have originated the church, but it was de facto created by others quite long afterwards and when we think of Christianity we really do think of the church(es), not Jesus directly. Paul was the main begetter but even his thinking was profoundly reshaped by later church organs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Borg. Particularly cool scholarly member of that school.
Celsus (? 175, well versed in Judaism), commented on the zealous rivals, and Theodosius I (347-395) decreed them "demented lunatics" in 380 — except for the Roman Catholics of course, now rubber-stamped by the empire.
But, with the backing of the Roman empire, Catholicism eventually came out on top, and outlasted the empire.
By 1350 the Catholic church had eradicated the Cathars, for example.
Christian involvement in anti-Semitism is a matter of record, including the founder of Protestantism.
Today (for some time), Christianity (like Islam) primarily maintain numbers by enculturation and indoctrination.
(Why else would anyone believe that a Jewish carpenter supernaturally fed 5000 then 4000 with a handful of food?)
When the requisite religious creeds tell them to do so, there's an element of self-sustaining propagation involved.
If memory serves, Sunnism overtook Catholicism in numbers worldwide around the turn of the millennium, and Islam at large is projected to overtake Christianity at large in some decades.
[sup]• Christians remain world’s largest religious group, but they are declining in Europe (Pew Research Center; Apr 5, 2017)
• Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group (Pew Research Center; Apr 6, 2017)[/sup]
Worth remembering too that there are many Christians who see the Bible as a book of allegories, not to be taken literally. This was the Christian tradition I grew up in (amongst the Baptists and Anglicans). A most famous example of this form of progressive theology is Episcopalian Bishop, John Shelby Spong, who spent his professional life as a cleric working to rescue the Bible from fundamentalism.
I think the majority of the reasons already cited by others so far just about cover the op.
Especially @Wayfarer's quotes from Bart Ehrman etc.
I think there is also the fact that humans are social animals and 'need' or/and are compelled to join groups or unite in common cause.
This manifests in many interesting ways, including such as 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend,' or Glasgow Rangers and Glasgow Celtic fans, many of whom hate each other due to the sectarianism associated with each team, yet they will 'come together'/tolerate each other when they support the Scottish national football team, especially when they play against England.
Christianity is just another 'team,' that a human can adopt as a familial support system which offers them a sense of purpose and makes them feel they 'belong' to something important. I think all humans need this.
I place christians, or theists in general, in my personal list of 'teams' or 'groups' of 'duped fools.'
I have 'faith in,' or 'I trust in,' the intentions/tenets/actions of science and most scientists.
So in that sense, I have picked the team I support.
I find sports boring so I am glad there are 'other team types' out there you can affiliate to.
How many different sources do you think you need to consult before you will reach full understanding?
Quoting guanyun
If your aim is to pass exams and complete your degree, then you should probably stick to "the one answer that was put in front of you" or at least show that you prefer it.
This principle for academic success is the same everywhere.
By now, we can only speculate. The craving to feel special, to view oneself as morally superior to others (_eternally_ morally superior to others at that), the craving to see oneself as victorious over life likely played a part.
Quoting 180 Proof
IOW, yet another instance of the class war.
It's the one theme that persists throughout Christian history: Christians as the innocent victims, Christians as the martyrs, Christians as the righteous. The prospect of being in the gutter, and yet superior to others has got to be one of the strongest ego boosts there is.
A "narcotic to balm their despair" that resulted in world domination.
Quoting 180 Proof
In terms of motivations, it was class war. At first, they just didn't have the sticks and stones for it, so it might at first not look like much of a war at all, but they more than made up for it later on.
Just get over it.
So you turned this into a religion forum. Do you post on religion forums about epistemology?
Bye.
The basic reason is that it promised a heavenly reward to them for living a good life, and eternal punishment for those who oppressed them.
In sociologist Rodney Stark's book, "The Triumph of Christianity", he attributes much of the success to its having appeal to women - giving them an elevated status (vs the cultural status of the time). Convert a woman, and the family follows.
Well, a religion which one can profess and yet disregard so blithely, as most Christians do, is bound to be popular.
It is whatever you want it to be.
:smirk:
[quote=Lucifer]Father, I have sinned...[/quote]
:rofl:
With the NT you just gotta have faith, love, and if you break every rule in the rulebook just say it was done for Heaven and you should be basically in line with Jesus.
If certainty is our standard for reasonable belief then the field of history is in trouble. Jesus very likely existed; he can found mentioned in Jewish sources and in a Roman source. They mention his execution. I think we could doubt the historical certainty of a lot of figures in antiquity; we really just come to know them through records which could be lies or fiction. GEM Anscombe argues that we take figures like Caesar's existence as a historical benchmark, not as "we know Caesar exists because X, Y, and Z." What evidence is infallible or beyond doubt?
Awww.
Quoting baker
I'm picturing a cute, but very sad, Christian puppy or kitten with abnormally large eyes, too.
Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis.
I think the two main reasons Christianity spread was 1) because of Jesus and 2) (whether or not Christianity is “true” in the sense that Jesus rose from the dead) it speaks to the human condition/experience. I say this as a Christian.
Going a bit deeper, I think Christianity isn’t super restrictive or necessarily too vague, it’s somewhat in the middle. This means it has a core figure with basic principles, but it is easily adapted to different cultures and philosophical systems. Think of early church fathers like St Augustine, who were able to synthesize Christianity with Neo-Plantism. If he hadn’t done so successfully, there’s a chance (in my opinion) Christianity may not have survived. Then you have Thomas Aquinas, who was able to mostly reconcile Christianity and Aristotelianism.
If it was too vague, I think it would have died out. If it was too restrictive, it never would have spread or caught on. Also, it seems to me that most successful movements have a single “person” or figurehead at their center. For Christianity, this is Jesus. I believe this is because we as humans respond to other people/humans more than ideas/ideologies. Hence why countries have leaders/presidents, movements like the civil rights movement have people like MLK at the center, etc.
People opt for Christianity for a very simple reason viz. Jesus was persecuted - tortured horribly and then crucified in the deserts of the Levant (as per Bibilical sources). Connect the dots mon ami, connect the dots!
Then there's a more mundane reason - Christianity buys converts, at least in the poorer parts of the world.
How does Christianity "speak to the human condition/experience"?
I don't feel addressed by it at all.
Me as well. I never understood why a Jewish religion 2000 years ago is supposed to speak to me.
Quoting Jackson
Christianity has shown an extraordinary capacity to assimilate, defer to, and "work around" prevalent beliefs, customs, governments and cultures in those instances when it isn't possible to ignore them, or temporarily tolerate them or destroy them utterly. It will speak to you anyway it can, if it works. Ask and ye shall receive.
In recent times, there's been a tendency to disregard the less credible aspects of or stories about Jesus, for example. I think most Christian apologists these days would rather not address the story of the loaves and the fishies, for example, or the water into wine business. There were a good number of miracle working religious folk wandering about the Roman Empire back then (and lepers and ex-lepers), doing similar things, and my guess would be these stories are more a source of embarrassment than anything else now, or are treated as mere allegories.
Similarly, it's been useful for Jesus to be considered the Greek Logos, or Aristotle's First Mover, from time to time; useful for the Church to do deals with such as Mussolini or Napoleon; useful for them to don native garb in Japan--it's been a very pragmatic religion.
Dumb people gravitate to Christianity.
If you look at the core teachings of Jesus, you have things such as
Now these things may not resonate with you, but these teachings appeal to many people even outside of Christianity. Furthermore, there are many parallels to Jesus's teachings and the teachings of Buddha and other religions. Many scholars argue (secular) Humanism is simply a "rebranding" of Christian ethics/Christianity.
When I say Christianity speaks to the human experience, I mean that whenever people appeal to a "common humanity," they are usually doing so under the influence of Christianity, especially in western society. When (even atheist) philosophers end up believing objective moral values that "conveniently" align with Christian values, the argument seems to be these philosophers are either a) still under the cultural influence/indoctrination of Christianity, or b) Christian values and most secular versions of moral realism both have common ground that speaks to the human experience. Either way, the fact that these ideas are still around are either a testament to the influence of Christianity or a testament to how Jesus's insight/the teachings of Jesus do resonate with many, perhaps most, people on a fundamental level.
so why keep naming me?
I think this is fair. Not thinking of anyone in particular, but some people don't connect with ideas because of personal experiences and the merit of those ideas may be obscured by socialization. This certainly happens to me. Christianity for me is often associated with a kind of dowdy and obtuse earnestness.
Nevertheless, all the religious teachings I have read over the years, the one I keep coming back to is the Parable of the Good Samaritan. It resonates with me for some reason, probably because it makes all people our responsibility, even our enemies. The influence of Christianity is a problematic question as that influence has for centuries been enforced by the mighty and the powerful, who more or less inflicted the faith on people. For centuries (and even now in some places) one could not dissent or refuse to accept Jesus without ferocious repercussion. Christianity is not just about gentle Jesus, mild and meek, it is also the story of Empire; homicidal and rapacious.
And then there are those who argue Christianity is simply a kind of stew of pagan philosophy (particularly Stoicism), the pagan mystery cults and Judaism, with bits and pieces of the story of Apollonius of Tyana thrown in as a kind of seasoning.
Religion is just a form of experience, or a social form
I think that's actually how it should be: Dowdy and obtuse earnestness on the outside, lion on the inside. Jesus tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves (oh wait, that's Leviticus) but he also basically tells us that our physical bodies don't really matter and what matters is the soul. Martyrdom is a high virtue and the true Christian needs to be ready to lay down his life in the name of Christ.
Almost feels like the NT needs the OT to mellow it. It's funny how Christians sometimes attack the OT God for barbarism, but if you actually read the OT it's very much a guide on how to live, not how to die. Very little of it touches on the afterlife.
IMHO Christians need to read their old books, and it would do Jews well to read the NT.
I think a good case could be made for early Christianity adapting ideas (thus a "stew") from Cynicism, Stoicism, and Judaism (Stoicism in particular because Paul's writings draw on Stoic terms and ideas). In today's time, it even includes pieces of Aristotelianism, Platonism, (a very good fit IMO) and existentialism.
Considering how most historians date Philostratus's writing of the Life of Apollonius to around 220-225 AD, and the synoptic gospels being dated from 60-110 (with Pauline writings probably even earlier), its more likely that the story of Jesus (and perhaps its circulation among pegan audiences) influenced Apollonius than the other way around.
Does this really matter though? There's dozens of miracles associated with Jesus. We can disregard the miracles.
Jesus's teachings on salvation are actually brilliant because under Judaism salvation is achieved though deeds, so what's a very sinful Jew to do? Only Yahweh can remove one's sins, they just remain and will be tallied up against you on when one comes to account.
Jesus very directly promises that salvation comes at least in part through faith in him. He may or may not have performed miracles. His moral teachings seem sound. He is either a very good man/God or a very bad man/false prophet. The being knew what to say.
"Adapting ideas from Judaism" -- 77% of your religious cannon is Judaism. It is what Christ was/is and what he was reacting against in his teachings.
Sure you can mix it with whatever. You can mix it with Marxism if you like. I will say that if you only take the NT on its own you're not going to come away with a very nice impression of Jews, thus the need for the OT to gain a better perspective of those people. Lot of important lessons in the OT -- universally good ones especially towards the poor and disabled.
That may be, though Philostratus claimed to base his work in part on the memoirs of Apollonius' disciple, Damis, called Scraps from the Manger. Damis supposedly knew and travelled with Apollonius. If that's true, he knew far more of Apollonius than Paul did of Jesus.
It was a time when religion was inclusive, and different cults influenced one another. That was to change of course due to the relentlessly intolerant and exclusive religion Christianity became, but for a time we know that some inhabitants of the Roman Empire kept little statuettes of Jesus, Asclepius and other pagan gods together, honoring or at least seeking to placate them all. Christianity famously borrowed the birthday of Sol Invictus and Mithras (now known as December 25) and proclaimed it to be the day Jesus was born. Several gods were said to be born of a virgin. If we're to trust the angry comments of some of the Church Fathers, the Mithraic holy meal (sometimes depicted as including loaves or pieces of bread marked with crosses) preceded the Christian communion. The Fathers were reduced to claiming that demons, knowing the future, inspired the Mithraic ceremony to mock the coming sacrament.
But my little comment was intended to counter the claim that Secular Humanism is simply Christianity "rebranded." In fact, the ethical tenets of Humanism, and those of Christianity, were borrowed from ancient pagan philosophy. I've always been baffled by those who maintain, wrongly, that Judeo-Christian values are the product of those two Abrahamic religions.
We certainly can, but if we do we should ask ourselves whether we should disregard other claims made about what he did and said, or at least consider them questionable. That's not easy to do if you believe Jesus to be God and the authors of the Gospels, the Acts, etc. to be divinely inspired. How do we disregard the miracles and accept the Resurrection? If we disregard the Resurrection, why do we believe Jesus was God? Because he said wise things? Why did he say some of those living at the time he spoke would see the Kingdom of God on Earth? Are we to disregard that as well? Even that most sophistical of Christian apologists, C.S. Lewis, found those comments embarrassing.
I'd maintain we shouldn't think he's God because, in the Gospel of John, the latest of the Gospels, he claimed that nobody comes to the Father except through him, that he was the way, the truth and the light. I'm struck by how odd it is that, as far as I'm aware, none of the other Gospels mention this remarkable statement. Did their authors forget he said this, or consider it too unimportant to mention?
Quoting guanyun
Who's choosing Christianity and from what beginning?
Anyway.
In the West, people choose Christianity --of any of its variations-- because it is the prevalent religion. In Africa, Japan and other places in the world, people chose Christanity in places where it is established since the early missionaries, who were teaching not only religion, but language and all kinds of knowledge.
I the same way, Christian people choose --actually turn to-- Buddhism and other Eastern religions as their own.
In either case, the reason is simple: because the religion they choose appeals --in various ways-- more to them! :smile:
I could swear salvation through Jesus was mentioned in Matthew. It's mentioned in many parables. In any case, I regard what you've said as an important part of Jesus's teachings -- you must accept him as Lord and Savior to be saved. I know this sounds radical, but consider what he's reacting against: The Jewish God who purportedly judges by deeds.
But what's a repentant sinner to do after years of sin? What's a gentile to do who hasn't heard of the moral law? Now it's never made clear whether salvation is only through faith, but it is a necessary component according to Jesus. As far as I'm aware under Judaism only God can absolve sins so sinners are in a bit of trouble if they're worried for their salvation. The Talmud has records of Jesus commenting on this very matter.
Quoting Ciceronianus
All I meant to say was that we can disregard a few of the miracles and it does little to hurt the case of Jesus as the Gospels were not written by Jesus. If only one miracle happened I'm on board.
I can't answer all of your questions about Christianity because I am not a Christian. I am just a Jew reading the NT. I see how Jesus hits on certain sore spots in Judaism. He is either a very good man or a very bad one in the form of a charismatic cult leader. I think the Gospels could have been written in a less anti-Semitic way.
The Catholic Church always appealed to an illiterate population. From beginning to today.
I didn't know that. The official religion in my country (Greece) is Orthodoxy. It is the hard-core form of Christianity. The most radical and fanatic. And it certainy appeals most to the illiterate and semi-literate people. I always considered Catholicism much more "civilized" than Orthodoxy.
The mass originally was in Latin. They knew no one but the priest class understood latin.
Whose agenda would it suit most to create an antisemitic narrative after constantly fighting Jewish revolts since the days of the Maccabees? The Romans perhaps? The pontiff maximus (the pope) was a title used by all Roman emperors!
Do you give any credence to the proposal that Roman scribes or those under Roman control (such as Josephus, the Herods, the Egyptian Alexander family) are the sources of the gospels.
Even the word 'gospel' translates to 'good news of victory.'
Possibly? I'm not a historian or Christian. I'm just digging into the NT after reading the OT. My approach is more philosophical/theological rather than historical. I don't know the history behind these documents I'm just reading them for the first time.
If you have the notion, I would recommend 'Caesar's Messiah,' by Joseph Atwill and 'Creating Christ,' by James Valliant and Warren Fahy. These two books are very good counters to the old and new testaments. I think it's important to get as good an overview of both camps as you can and you have the time and the motivation.
These books look like they're great counters/additions to the New Testament. Christians will often read in Christ references in the OT but Jews have done without this for thousands of years. The OT is a brilliant book even if only for the moral insight, and for such a thing to be written in antiquity is quite a feat. We take much of this knowledge for granted today.
It's worth noting that we should be cautious of books which present tendentious accounts of early Christianity. The area is fraught with polemical half-truths, with an eye on best seller status. Some atheist scholars of Christianity, like Bart Ehrman, consider Atwill to be dubious. The funny thing about these kinds of books is that they are sometimes like secular counterparts to the conspiracy theories of theists. I say this only because we don't want to debunk one dodgy book (The Bible) with another...
Ahh yes, I realize I was being too loose with words in this case. Even Jesus is quoted as saying “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17). Saying Christianity "adopted" Ideas from Judaism is misleading. Some christians may say it "completes" it (I'd argue this is more rhetoric, but I understand the point), but it certainly doesn't nullify it in the traditional sense despite amending prevailing interpretations at the time.
Quoting Ciceronianus
I think its fair to say Judeo-Christain values are a product (of the tradition) of the two Abrahamic religions. After all, these particular values are written down in the religious texts in Judaism and Christianity that have clearly and directly influenced the ethical tenants of the west. Bringing it back to the original topic, you can also argue that Judeo-Christain traditions/values themselves are "borrowed" from ancient pagan philosophy. But I think this is a very difficult claim to support-how can you establish whether Jesus, NT or OT writers directly engaged with pagan philosophy, other than similarities in content (especially since the writers of the synoptic gospels were anonymous)?
Who knows, during Jesus's life before he started his public ministry he may have gone and studied pagan philosophy (once again, I'd argue this would be pure speculation, but perhaps a good case could be made for it). But in my opinion even if this was established wouldn't mean that Judeo-Christian values are somehow not a product of the Abrahamic religions. To me, this would establish them in a lineage of ideas similar to how Hagal influenced Kant who influenced Kierkegaard.
Your note of caution is a fair one for all literature that is thesis-based. As you suggest, irrefutable evidence on the historical existence of the biblical Jesus Christ does not exist, either way. Dr Richard Carrier is much more insulting towards Atwill and Valliant compared to Ehrman. Carrier also suggests that Christ is a made-up character but for different reasons than Atwill and Valliant. Dr Robert Price disagreed with Atwill for 10 years but now fully agrees with him.
Atwill is also supported by Dr Rod Blackhirst, Dr Robert Eisenman, Dr Harold Ellens, Dr Jan Koster.
These are all very learned people in the field of theology.
I am sure @Moses like yourself Tom is quite capable of making up his/her own mind, after reading the books. Carrier admits he has not read Atwill's book. I personally think that Carrier is the jealous one,Quoting Tom Storm
I personally found Atwill's thesis very compelling and it contains many points which are validated by other evidence. For example, the name Mary means 'rebellious woman,' so Atwill's suggestion that Roman soldiers used the name as a general one towards any female member of the Sicari Jews who rebelled against Rome is very reasonable. His suggestion that Judas Iscariot is a made-up character, taken from the name Sicari is also reasonable as is his overall suggestion that the gospels are a parody of the rebellious Jews (hence the built-in antisemitism) and the gospels are pure satire.
I have found that theists have a very hard time dealing with the many many points he raises in his book when I bring them up.
Not all Christians are banal, concrete minded literalists - many see the Bible as a series of allegories. Almost all the Jewish and Christian friends I have had - including priests, sisters and rabbis (sounds like a song by Leonard Cohen) have viewed the stories as a means to focus a spiritual life, but ususally not as actual events. I lack a sensus divinitatis, so I'm buggered if I can work out how this is done.
I appreciate your declaration of fatigue at the endless points, counterpoints made by both sides and I acknowledge the 'adjustments' that some (priests, sisters, rabbis, etc, who would have probably been fundamentalist theists in the past,) have made to tone down all of the religious dogma and the traditional threats towards apostates. But they have been forced to, in my opinion, due to the strength and reason behind the anti-theist/anti-religious doctrine, arguments.
I understand your frustration with ad Infinitum arguments about every aspect of theism down to the level of minutia but I think you should, despite all that, care deeply about this stuff.
I despair when you type Quoting Tom Storm
It should matter to you or you help dilute the 10,000 years of tears our species has gone through to combat the evil aspects of theism or more accurately, how the nefarious has used the god posit to subdue and control the many for the sake of the status, wealth and power of the few.
You know it's still happening today!
We all have a responsibility here!
No doubt.
The 'doesn't much matter comment' referred to the question of Jesus; real or fiction.
Ok :up:
Btw, I love the music of Leonard Cohen. I also find Adam Sandler a bad actor and as funny as toothache. :halo:
I know. The official language of the Catholic Church is Latin. In the Orthodox Church on the other hand we find Greek, Arabic, Russian, Georgian, Romanian, Serbian and Hebrew languages! One can easily undestand the inconsistency in the teachings among all these people and places.
Well, we certainly know that Greek culture greatly influenced the Jews, and indeed that Judaism became less exclusively Jewish after the Babylonian Exile. The book of the OT which probably is most appropriately considered philosophical, Ecclesiastes, is thought to have been written after the exile, sometime during the period from the 5th to the 2nd centuries B.C.E., and have been influenced by Persian and Greek thought. Hellenism impacted Jewish culture from at the latest the time of Alexander. Philo, of course, was profoundly influenced by Greek philosophy.
I think Paul was far more influential in the development of Christianity than Jesus, and Paul was quite aware of pagan philosophy. Whoever wrote the Gospel of John certainly was as well, borrowing the concept of the Logos.
He's identified as the messiah, and called the Son of God, but the messiah wasn't necessarily God, and there were quite a few sons of gods in antiquity. I don't think he was ever claimed to call himself God except in John
I've never found haggling over the exact definition of the messiah to be particularly fruitful. Even if we go to the Bible we get a number of different interpretations. Jesus very much implies that he is the messiah. I like some of the theological/philosophical points that he makes and how he seems to patch some of the holes in Pharisaic society. He points out areas where the Pharisees would deny that there's sin, but common morality would still point to it. At its most basic, the Christian case presents Jesus as the heart that is to be joined with the law of the Old Testament that is to "complete" Judaism. Judaism is a religion more focus on the external while Jesus stresses internal purity.
If we choose to believe in the miracles I'm certainly sold. I'm baffled by the position that claims "well sure Jesus performed miracles but who's the say he's the messiah!" I mean come on, what more are you asking for? That's religious stupidity right there. One genuine miracle is enough for me.
This is a bit odd to me. One genuine miracle? What is a genuine miracle? There are men all over India right now doing miracles. There are healers 'faith healing' people from illness from all kinds of cultures and religious traditions. I once watched a man throw a sword in the air which then vanished. He was a magician.
Why would being able to do magic tricks or 'miracles' be any evidence of a spiritual truth or divinity? There is no necessary connection. Human technology now would look like miracles to people 100 years ago. And then there's mythology more generally - Satan can do miracles too. Miracles are stunts and do not have much value.
Here's where we differ: Magic tricks have rational explanations, miracles by definition fall outside of the laws of nature. There are plenty of great magic tricks, but there's always an explanation behind them. Not the case for miracles.
If Jesus is just performing magic tricks and claiming them to be miracles then he is evil.
Quoting Tom Storm
I guess one could attribute Christ's miracles to the work of Satan but we're still within a religious framework where Christ is either the messiah or a false prophet sent by Satan/evil.
Think bigger - miracles may just be tricks which have not been explained rationally yet. Also, I have seen magic tricks that look to be defying the laws of nature. Good ones do. Hence my question what is a genuine miracle?
Quoting Moses
No. I said Satan can do miracles too. No attribution was made. This goes to your point:
Quoting Moses
In other words as I wrote, a miracle is no good evidence of divinity or goodness.
Quoting Tom Storm
This goes to your point:
Quoting Moses
One novel idea of Christianity that may have appealed to the upper classes as well as the downtrodden classes, was the hope for divine justice in an afterlife. Judaism, and most pagan religions, assumed that you only get one life to live. So, stoic acceptance of arbitrary Fate & Fortune was your best option, compared to depression & suicide.
Before Apostle Paul's version of Christianity, the only other alternative to One-Life Fatalism was the theory of Many-Life Karma (cycling souls). That theory-of-reward-for-good-works (work-out your own destiny) probably arose as a sort of philosophical observation that the world system (Nature) tended to balance polar extremes (e.g. hot vs cold) to result in a moderate environment where life can flourish. So, they reasoned that the undeniable natural & cultural injustices (Evils) should eventually balance-out. But, not necessarily in this life ; so maybe in a future time, place & body. Unfortunately, such postponed justice has little practical here & now effect, and only provided a glimmer of speculative hope, that good or bad behavior in this life would be rewarded or punished in the next -- even though you may not then know why you deserve it. And, like all prophecies of the future, that grain of hope had to be taken with a heaping-spoonful of Faith in the Seer or Storyteller or Mythmaker.
Judaism traditionally had no concept of a spiritual afterlife, with only a few exceptions, such as Elijah, who was taken directly up to heaven. However, after a remnant returned from Babylonian captivity, they tried to pick-up where they left-off, with a physical this-worldly materialistic temple-based religion. But, that came to an end when their second temple was destroyed by invading Greek overlords. Consequently, the Jews began to develop a more spiritual & other-worldly synagogue-based religion. They also spun-off some more radical & reclusive mystical groups (e.g. Essenes), which tended to interpret their official priestly scriptures from a spiritual (Holy) perspective rather than the traditional materialistic pragmatic view. They also developed novel notions of personal -- as opposed to collective (family, tribe, nation) -- Sin against God. Some even practiced symbolic baptism, as a visible metaphor for washing away invisible sins. And that graphically-illustrated innovation was gladly incorporated into Christianity, as a step-toward and sign-of personal salvation -- not in the body of another person or animal, but your own spiritual Soul.
Therefore, Christianity had several religious innovations that distinguished it from Pagan & Greek & Roman beliefs & practices. However, as a message of hope for the downtrodden classes, the expectation of a Utopian Afterlife, was hard to believe, so the necessity of Faith was emphasized. For One-Lifers though, "Justice Deferred is justice denied" (Gladstone). Yet, for After-lifers, future justice might be enough incentive to live stoically for now, and to expect to be rewarded for their long-suffering Faith in a glorious heavenly hereafter. So, perhaps the subtle reasoning of extolling spiritual Faith over mundane Works appealed to people desperate for relief from life's trials & tribulations. Those who were not so hopeless though, could find other "subtle reasons" to adopt a Religion of Personal Salvation, and to abandon their old Religions of Social Order. :smile:
Show me someone to whom those teachings "appeal", and I'll show you someone who expects, even demands, that _other_ people should behave in line with those teachings, while they themselves absolutely abhor being expected tobehave that way.
For most people, morality is all about how _other_ people should behave.
If I had more time, I'd take you up on this.
That's a claim that esp. Christians and those Christianity-adjacent people like to make, but a study of cultural history suggests otherwise. (As has been already addressed in this thread.)
Jesus brought the sword. Yeah, that really resonates with many many people, on a fundamental level.
What Jesus is said to have said is largely laudable. I simply don't think it unique.
Largely laudable, yes, but also a definite element of insanity/radicalness that frequently flies below the radar with modern Christians who use selective reading. Jesus says he's not here to bring peace, but division (book of Luke), the parables he uses to describe salvation are divisive and imho fairly terrifying like getting shut out of a narrow door and being left to suffer for eternity, the insane demands and self-abnegation he makes of his followers. I feel like this is lost on modern Christians but this man/God/whatever is genuinely terrifying. It's the contrast between the love he preaches and his other teachings. He is either very good or very bad.
Who else preaches what Jesus says in that time period? What's similar?
Particularly that bit about the rich and the eye of a needle.
Quoting Moses
I don't know who preached similar ideas, as "preach" has religious connotations. But the pagan philosophers taught the desirability of virtue, and to the extent Jesus did so he had many predecessors. Plato touted the four great virtues, Wisdom, Temperance, Justice and Courage. Aristotle's virtue of "generosity" is similar to the Christian concept of charity. Roman great men were expected to give benefits to the poor through public works. The Stoics taught the brotherhood of man, the common good, and love. According to Seneca, "No school has more goodness and gentleness; none has more love for human beings, nor more attention to the common good. (Seneca, On Clemency, 3.3) Friendship was valued by the Pythagoreans and Epicureans; Cicero believed it essential to good life.
He didn't talk much about virtue. His focus was on love and forgiveness.
That may be, but it strikes me a virtuous life would include loving and forgiving. I mentioned the Stoics refencing love. Both Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius thought highly of forgiveness, and recommended it as proper.
Why?
Quoting Ciceronianus
How could Jesus learn something from Marcus Aurelius?
You mean hatred and contempt?
Didn't say he did. I said the Stoics (and others), who were walking the Earth long before before the Holy Spirit or whoever it was magically impregnated Mary, taught values taught by Jesus centuries later.
There are some unique features to the kind of preaching Jesus did. He and others like him were probably connected to desert dwelling, apocalyptic Essenes. It can be seen as a response to a crisis within Judaism in Jerusalem. The message is about authenticity versus false spirituality (as shows up in the condemnation if the Pharisees.) It's a dramatic turn inward, away from society and whatever it holds to be virtuous to the love one finds in one's heart.
Christianity later absorbed every religious view in its domain. Don't let that cause you to overlook the beauty and profoundness of its purely Jewish origin.
Now that you mention it I'll have to give the Stoics another look. I haven't studied them in depth.
When I'm evaluating morality the central questions that I'm looking at is how a society deals with the poor and disabled. The Greeks do not have a stellar record on this; or rather I should say that they have the record that one would typically expect from an ancient civilization that prized certain ideal body forms and physical strength and skilled rhetoric. I'm not here to blame the Greeks or Romans for not being sufficently woke. Ancient life was tough and the strong survived.
The OT is actually insanely woke on these two issues -- so woke that I cannot pinpoint the source to anything in nature. Exodus 4:10-4:14 for instance directly addresses the issue of disability and I believe it is the most morally advanced position on disability to ever be written. The Greeks at their best will say that the disabled are just deficient (as opposed to cursed by the Gods) and in need of care & support; the OT will directly affirm their validity and deny that there is a deficiency for the deaf or blind or mute.... even today that position is radical. This is a statement by God. The OT is also amazingly consistent on caring not just for the poor but for the orphan, the widow, etc. IIRC they found a tablet from the 10th century BCE that had the aforementioned written on it.
As for Jesus he finds faults in a culture/society with a pretty strong moral track record by expanding their conception of sin and questioning their focus ("what about the sinners?") He calls for an externally facing society focused on duties and rituals to look inward. Hillel preaches something similar but Jesus goes past Hillel. The OT humbles kings and boosts the marginalized; Jesus focuses nearly exclusively on the marginalized and tells those in power behave like them -- thus, Christian humbleness/modesty. Money for the first time becomes a dirty word in the NT; that is a distinction from the OT, not that the OT idolizes money but it never carries that connotation.