11410

As I read this, I kept going back and forth on whether you’re serious or not. You’ll have to enlighten me.

Tom’s right that Jesus wasn’t a Christian. If Christianity claimed he was just an awesome dude with some nice words for everyone, then you could maybe say Jesus was a Christian, the same way that Mohammed was a Muslim (the first and presumably best). But given the claims of Christianity, saying Jesus is a Christian is as silly as saying Allah is a Muslim.

11411

How long after the alleged life of Jesus did Christianity actually begin?

11412

please don’t call these folks Christians- call them schismatics or heretics.

11413

Depends on your definitions, really.

A reasonable argument could be made for when Paul converted and began his evangelism, which is traditionally held to have been around 36 CE or thereabouts, IIRC. That definition would be a hold that’s when the shift from being a sect of Judaism to a distinct religion began, and would be a reasonable early bound for such.

A more “as seen in hindsight” definition would be that Christianity began when Christian tradition says he rose from the dead. That is, when his followers were no longer following a living Jewish Rabbi, but rather Jesus as risen Lord. That would put the origin at somewhere in the ballpark of 30-33 CE (depending on the date you put as when Jesus was crucified). Note that this definition mostly would be help by Christians themselves, as it requires projecting back onto the immediate post-crucifixion disciples a theology that didn’t come about until later (90CE or so at the earliest) according to historical records.

Personally, I prefer a definition that focuses more on when a Christian doctrine that most believers and observers today would find more recognizable, and that would be the Council of Nicea (thus, the Nicean Creed) in 325 CE. I doubt you’ll find many Christian would would accept that answer, though.

11414

Sorry, I really wasn’t intending snark. It’s just hard sometimes to prize the actual person of Jesus from out of the trappings of religious identification. Just reaffirming what you said: he was an illiterate Jewish peasant, an itinerant preacher, a sometimes firebrand and agitator in the same way MLK Jr was. He wasn’t Christian in any sense, even though Christianity is founded on his person and on the teachings of his followers.

11415

The conversations contained within the last handful of posts is what makes “Life of Brian” still hilarious to this day.

11416

I’m just basing what I said on Jesus’ own words as recorded by the synoptic gospels. (John is problematic for any historical understanding of Jesus’ person–it was written much later than the others and is based on a theological understanding of Jesus that clearly emerged later.) There’s nothing in the early Christian writings (Paul’s letters and the synoptic gospels) that indicates Jesus understood himself to be divine. He wasn’t on a divine mission to save humanity. He was a charismatic and popular speaker, a peddler of miracles, an advocate for the poor, and an agitator against the Jewish religious authorities.

11417

What? How can that be? Wasn’t he sent to Earth by His Father? God? How could he not know?

11418

Ice and water aren’t on speaking terms.

11419

Are you sure? Because in Matthew Jesus refers to sins against the Holy Spirit, and says to baptize others in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He says he’ll build his church upon the rock of Peter. He directly tells some of those he heals that their sins are forgiven (an indication of divinity that everyone present seems to recognize as such and Jesus doesn’t deny). It came up in another thread, but Jesus multiple times talks about souls condemned to eternal fire and those that find eternal life.

You seem to be presenting the Jesus Seminar version of Jesus, which is a “historical” Jesus that was “found” by carving away parts of the synoptics that the Seminar members just decided on their own whim must be ahistorical. E.g., “Oh, long stories couldn’t be maintained in an oral culture, so any long and involved stories were probably made up later.” “Oh, Jesus wouldn’t have talked about himself.” “Oh, if Jesus refers to a ‘church,’ that has to be an insertion by the later community because they cared about churches, Jesus didn’t.”

Sure, Jesus was an itinerant preacher, a healer, and advocate for the poor. And doctrines like the Trinity and the nature of Jesus’ divinity came much later as Christians tried to make sense of his life and death and resurrection. But if you’re reading the synoptics, he’s a much stranger and more troublesome figure than the anodyne version that certain “historical Jesus” scholars will allow. They just decide the strange stuff can’t be true (when in fact, the strangest stuff is probably most likely to be authentic, because why else would it have even occurred to anyone?) And if the synoptics are your criteria, you should include Acts–written as a companion to a synoptic gospel, and full of pretty clear statements about what Jesus’ life was about by those who lived it alongside him.

11420

Worth noting is that there are a number of passages in the Gospels that were added by the early Catholic Church, particularly those using trinitarian language.

If memory serves, Christ is called the son of god over 60x in the New Testament, not God the son as the trinity requires. I’m agnostic so I don’t really care, but from an academic perspective it’s probably fairly safe to say that the trinity doctrine was not a view held by early Christians but rather one that emerged and subsequently evolved into official church dogma over the course of 3+ centuries following Jesus’ death.

11421

Would it be possible to make a “debate the deep intricacies of comparative religion” thread? It seems to be a topic several people are interested in debating, which is cool and all, but it keeps bumping reply counts in political threads.

11422

This part I don’t understand. He was well versed life the Laws and traditions of the time, and at several points argued with the Pharisees. My understanding is that people of the time considered him rather scholarly. So, I’m not sure why you would claim he was illiterate.

As for being a peasant… well, I don’t think he rented land for cultivation, so that is just a gross misuse of the term.

11423

@tomchick is right and apologies to @Tortilla, @Nightgaunt and @legowarrio: sorry for derailing this thread and being an intolerable boor.

11424

No need to apologize to me man, I don’t have a stance on the topic one way or another. I just wanted to politely request a dedicated thread if people wanted to discuss this stuff.

11425

Maybe we could call it something like “Deep, Esoteric Theological Debate”?

11426

I felt a great disturbance in the force when i finally understood on an emotional level that the reality (scriptural or otherwise) of the origins of a modern religions beliefs aren’t really relevant at all. Certainly as a history nerd this is up my alley, but in the end even if one was to prove that everything that a modern Christian (or Muslim ect) believes is not founded on correct interpretation of scripture, it doesn’t really matter at all as to how it exists alive in the contemporary moment.

To put it another way, what if the modern form of illiterate evangelical Christianity becomes the primary version of Christianity in 100 years? Then there won’t be a “real” Christianity and a “corrupted” Christianity - that version of Christianity would be Christianity at that point. On some level it literally doesn’t matter what Jesus (or Muhammad or whoever) actually taught or believed or what whatever primary source says. If the majority believe and practice X, than X is what the religion actually is.

Even if everything Bart Ehrman says is true, it still kinda doesn’t mean that it matters - unless you take these primary sources as being of existential importance to society at large.

11427

Here’s a hint - it NEVER mattered in the first place. Religion was always a social construct and game of telephone.There never was “one true” interpretation to begin with & believing that one exists is a fundamental problem of, well, fundamentalism.

11428

The end is the beginning of the end. That is the theme of Virgo.

11429