Jamie_L

This is strictly a question for those who believe the NT and the Chritian religion in general is in no way connected to anything supernatural (i.e. the Christian God does not exist, etc.).

Is there a prevailing theory among those who think this way as to what motivated those who created Christianity? Did they actually believe what they were inventing? Was it done with ulterior motives by people who knew they were creating a fabrication? Some combination of both (exaggeration by believers, etc.)

I'm not a biblical scholar by any stretch, so I was just curious.

Jamie

Radcliffe Emerson

I think Jesus was a great humanist, and his teachings about respecting women and other races were so revolutionary his followers thought he had to be divine. They were so crushed by his death they had to keep him going somehow, so the stories emerged.

RyanS2

And of course, the orthodox story that Jesus was the divine Son of God sent here by his Father, (and himself), to save mankind from ourselves by confessing a belief in him.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

I doubt that the question is answerable. On the other hand, two points come to mind:

• In 1692, Newton's Principia had been in print for half a decade, Galileo had been dead for half a century, and Copernicus had been dead for 99 years -- 1692 was the year of the Salem Witch Trials. I think it extremely difficult for us to fully appreciate the pervasive character of superstition 16 centuries earlier. It was a world of gnostics, mystics, and magicians where people "actually believed" virtually anything.
• The category "those who created Christianity" is more problematic than most would think. Are you talking about the Christianity of the winners, or should we include the Christian Gnostics, the Greek and Armenian Orthodox, the Copts, the Syriacs, etc.?

I think it absurd to suggest that today's Christianity is entirely the result of some clever, over-arching conspiracy. But that leaves plenty of room for extreme gullibility, mysticism, superstition, interpolation, honest error, fabrication, minor conspiracy, and massive political maneuvers.

MortalWombat

I dunno. Why did the Heaven's Gate guy create his religion? Why did David Koresh create his? Both of these groups had fervent believers (as shown by their willingness to die for their beliefs). I would guess that most people think that both of these groups were wrong, yet no one doubts their sincerity.

Toto

The general theory is that Christianity started as a Jewish version of the pagan mysteries, and was a ritual of psychological healing or what we now call personal growth. The stories about Jesus were the "outer mysteries" which were revealed as allegories to the initiates when they had advanced far enough.

However, around the second century, the church decided it needed to enforce discipline and establish its legitimacy, and it did this by enforcing the view that Jesus was a real person as described in the Gospels, and inventing the apostolic succession, so it could claim descent from Jesus through his apostles.

Later, the Roman Empire needed a unifying ideology to hold its people together. Christianity fit its needs, because it was relatively democratic (compared to Mithraism) and had roles for slaves and women, and was relatively simple (just say you believe, no deeper understanding needed or wanted.) Christianity was molded by the needs of the Roman Empire. (Protestants later tried to reverse this process and get back to an "original" Christianity, but it is doubtful if they have succeeded.)

<a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=704" target="_blank">The Jesus Mysteries</a> is a readable summary of early church history, with a strong pagan bias.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

boneyard bill

Toto writes:

The political element is crucial. The question isn't really whether people believed in it. There were all kinds of religions out there, and we have no reason to believe their practitioners were insincere. But Christianity prevailed because of Constantine. It wasn't the largest religion in the Empire when Constantine adopted it and he himself didn't convert until his death bed. Buddhism had the same advantage. It was actively promoted by Ashoka in India. In China it was actively promoted by the Mongols who saw its claims of the equality of all individuals as advantageous for a foreign conqueror.

Islam, of course, was political from the outset.

Of the world's largest religions, only Hinduism was not promoted politically. But Hinduism has never spread significantly beyond India, and it's not even clear that Hinduism is a single religion or maybe a number of different religions by our standards.

Sojourner553

Jamie
________________________________________________
Is there a prevailing theory among those who think this way as to what motivated those who created Christianity? Did they actually believe what they were inventing? Was it done with ulterior motives by people who knew they were creating a fabrication? Some combination of both (exaggeration by believers, etc.)
_____________________________________________

There were a large number of Jewish miracle-workers/prophets operating in Palestine during the times of Jesus -- as the people hoped for a supernatural leader to throw out the Roman conquerors.

* Josephus's writings have been analyzed to show who Jesus probably really was and the actual reaction to it.
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JOSEPHUS.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JOSEPHUS.TXT</a>

* the "real" operations of the Jewish Christians are shown here.
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JERCHRIS.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JERCHRIS.TXT</a>


Toto is right on the mark that the life of Jesus became "interpreted" within the popular Greek mystery religions. Here is where the ideas of a heaven; virgin births; resurrection after three days originate. That is -- none of this is original to Christianity.

* Jump down to the second half of the text for a description of the mystery religions:
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK.TXT</a>

* Also see this link for a discussion of Mithraism, which was the biggest competitor to Christianity during the second century AD:
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK3.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK3.TXT</a>

*Paul is the guy who fused the historical Jesus with the mystery religions.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/PAUL.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/PAUL.TXT</a>

If you want to know the history of how Christianity took hold of Europe (it was done forcefully by the Orthodox/Catholics through persecutions, temple razings etc) -- nothing peaceful here.

*Here is the general site:
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

You want Section V. Chapter 1-5. Chapter 4 will give you a flavor of this though.

Sojourner

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Toto

This is a very interesting site, but it appears to credit a Slavonic version of Josephus that most scholars reject as a forgery.

There is no need to assume the existence of anyone like Jesus to explain the rise of Christianity.

Sojourner553

Good comment! Out of three texts discussed -- only the last one is the Slavonic Greek version.

And it is noted that the WHOLE text is obviously not authentic -- and indeed there are a lot of very heavy interpolations! But what is interesting are the references to the "revolutionary activity" in Palestine during this time against the Romans-- which most early Christians usually wanted to have struck from the record. (That is the Christians were embarassed that their leader might be portrayed as a revolutionary leader against then the most powerful empire in the world -- the Roman Empire.)

Here is the quote from the site on this:
___________________________________________
"Some interpolations seem obvious: For example, if Jesus could cure Pilate's
wife "when she was at the point of death" it seems strange that a mere bribe
could convince him to later have Jesus crucified. It is also interesting to
note the heavy references to revolutionary activity: The Jewish authorities
are concerned that THEY will be punished by the Romans if Jesus' activity
stirs up the people into a revolt--Josephus also mentions how Pilate was
known to "butcher" the common people in the interests of keeping the peace"
___________________________________________


Tell me more of your objections of this source. It takes its analysis from Joseph Hoffman, a well respected biblical scholar.

Sojourner