rlogan

Hi Folks. I had written a manuscript in the Philippines that unfortunately was lost in a computer crash. I have re-written a core part of it here without some of the more extensive citation it had originally.

Nowhere near as good but I had meant to throw it out here some time ago for consideration.

The Religious Logic and Worldly Justice of Christ Crucified

To the modern skeptic, the whole story of Jesus Christ makes no logical sense. In short, God sends himself to sacrifice himself to himself in order to “save” imperfect humans he created himself from himself. It is so convoluted on the face of it that it seems to require impaired thinking to accept. Were God logical, there would be no need for this convolution. There also doesn’t seem to be much in the way of human justice to this story.

But Christ Crucified is a concept created by man that is logical given the context in which it was created. The core motivation for creating Christ in terms of justice was to intervene in the religious and state authorities’ confiscatory taxation of the commoners through the sacrificial hoaxes being conducted in the first century.

The reason why the Christ cult spread like wildfire was its elimination of the obligation to turn the product of your sweat and labor to the central authorities. The fascinating but tragic history of Christianity is that in the long run, because the central authority could not stamp out Christianity it chose instead to co-opt Christianity and redirect it to its own ends. It wasn’t until the 4th century that this transformation was complete, but when it happened the primary features of the original Christianity had been completely reversed.

First Century Religious Theory and Obligations

It is not necessary that Christianity originates from Jewish origins. While it is true that most, if not all, of the Christian prophecies about Jesus are lifted from the Hebrew Bible (most heavily from Isaiah) they are taken out of context. Jesus Christ fails as the Jewish Messiah on a number of points, but this is unimportant to the understanding of the theory involved in Christ.

Christ indeed overturns a number of Jewish religious principles and practices, but Christ also overturns all of the other existing religious principles and practices of the time as well. That is rather the point of Christ. It is most importantly a rejection of central authority and control of the people, along with the principle of keeping the fruits of one’s labor to themselves.

The Roman Empire ruled the “civilized” world in the first century, with its own plethora of Gods, but it allowed the Jewish religion to survive in Judea so long as Roman civil authority was unchallenged and taxes remitted. The Emperor too was held as a God, under penalty of law for failure to worship his image.
But regardless of which religion one followed, the tendency for all of them was expiation of sins or unworthiness through sacrifice to the Gods. In the modern Christian religion, this concept of the “fall of man” through the “original sin” of Adam and Eve is still followed.

Nothing can be more ridiculous in terms of justice than penalizing the unborn in perpetuity for a mistake someone made a thousand years before – but nevertheless we have to accept that this was and still is the prevailing theory of man’s perpetual obligation to God. Likewise with other Roman Gods, even without Adam and Eve’s original sin, sacrifice to the Gods was an essential element of the religious theory in that age.

A whole sacrificial industry evolved around these practices. Not everyone had lambs, doves, or first fruits of wheat harvests and the like to turn over to the religious authorities. That which could not be provided had to be purchased or exchanged for. The parable of Jesus overturning the tables of the money changers was not a statement about commerce, but about the obligations upon the commoners and profits made from them in this sacrificial industry.

To understand the burden this represented to the common people, one only need look at the ornate wealth of the temple authority in Jerusalem for example, in contrast to the living standard of the commoners. Much the same is true if one travels in the third world today where the Catholic churches stand in regal splendor, made of giant stone, fine timbers, and exquisite glass while the peasants worshipping there live in dirt and scrap wood or bamboo hovels.

Doesn’t it seem unjust that Gods who do no work, need no sustenance, and who have unlimited power to conjure up whatever they need even if they did instead take the first fruits of the harvest, the first born of animals, and the hard-earned coin of the laboring class? Of course! This injustice can only be perpetrated when the peasants remain convinced their salvation and eternal life depends upon this act of fealty.

How the Innovation of Christ Crucified Frees us from Obligation

If one looks into early Christianity and most importantly the way it is described in the correspondence between Pliny and the Emperor Trajan in 112 CE, one can see the Genius in the logic of Christ given the context in which it arose.

Pliny explains to Emperor Trajan that a secret society has arisen, and the Emperor has outlawed secret societies. The practice of this secret society was to meet before dawn and also to perform what we refer to as the Eucharist, and worship a Christ as if a God.

Pliny relates no story of a human Jesus who walked upon the earth performing miracles, and who is crucified by Pilate. Instead the followers of this early Christianity have forsaken the whole temple sacrificial industry and are eating a communal meal together. They are pledging not to bear false witness, against fraud and banditry, and be faithful in all their affairs – Pliny can find no fault with their practices other than the fact that they are a secret society and the temple sacrificial industry is suffering on account of it.

It is important to understand that the original Eucharist is not a tiny stale wafer and an ounce of grape juice taken in the grand office of the central authority built upon the backs of the people. It is an entire meal, as in the last supper, taken in the homes of the people themselves. Instead of the produce being given over to the central authorities, it is consumed by the worshippers themselves. Instead of laboring to build the authorities' imperial house, we labor to build our own houses.

The principle of Christ Crucified is revolutionary because it kills the enemy of the people: the obligation to labor and suffer for the central authorities, who claim to represent God. If God loves us, then why must we toil for them?
Now the genius of Christ Crucified can be seen: God so loves us that he makes the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. The ultimate sacrifice. We shall no longer toil for the rich, but we shall toil for ourselves.

There doesn’t need to be a historical Jesus for this religious revolution to occur. Christ Crucified can be a concept or a historical figure – either way the point is to consume the “body of Christ” and the “blood of Christ” during this sacrificial Eucharist instead of letting someone else who didn’t earn it consume it.

Pliny informs Trajan that after his interrogations of Christians and the imposition of the death penalty for those who will not recant and who continue to follow their new rituals that “there is no doubt that the people have begun to throng to the temples, which had been almost entirely abandoned for a long time. And the sacred rites that had been allowed to lapse are again being performed, and the flesh of sacrificial meat is on sale everywhere, though until recently hardly anyone was buying it.”

From this correspondence with the Emperor Trajan, the importance of the sacrificial economy and the vested interests of the religious authorities should not be underestimated. What Christianity represented was an enormous loss to the central religious authorities. Christ Crucified was a means of eliminating the obligation of the peasantry to toil in the interests of the enriched class: to nourish and house themselves by their own hands instead, and to live just lives. One can also see how such a belief system would represent a threat to an Imperial State.

Co-Opting the Christian Breakthrough

What Pliny did with the death penalty for practitioners of Christianity, the Roman Empire did in the long run through co-option. Christianity emptied the grand buildings of the central religious authorities, emptied their pockets, and returned the people to their own homes and the fruits of their own labor.

The death penalty did a lot towards re-populating the temples and restoring the sacrificial industry economy, as Pliny relates to us. But over time Christianity could not be stopped. The only way to defeat Christianity in the long run, apparently, was to co-opt it.

Consider the irony of the Eucharist after Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire. The Eucharist was no longer a meal eaten in the homes of the people, but instead a pathetic ritual performed in the great houses of the religious authorities - the very thing Christianity had worked to defeat in the first Century.

The Parable of the Roman Coin with Caesar upon it is an excellent example of how the religious authorities and state authorities ultimately existed as a perfect symbiotic pair of parasites upon the people too. The State would allow the co-opted church to represent the vain eternal hopes of the people while the wealthy church power elite would support the State in its political dictatorship over the people.

What logic is there in Jesus pointing to the image of Caesar on the coin and concluding it demonstrates an obligation to pay taxes? There is no more logic than there is an obligation to Mrs. Butterworth because her figure is on pancake syrup or to a horse because its figure is on an automobile. Whoever earned the coin owns it, regardless of whose image is upon it.

But logic was not permitted to prevail, for challenging the official version of Christianity became a criminal offense after the 4th century in the same way observance of the original Christianity was in the first century. The ultimate objective – centralization of authority and collection of tribute from the masses – was served for millennia after Christianity was co-opted.

Originally, Christianity represented a rebellion against central authority and tribute paid by the masses. It was punishable by the State with the death penalty. Over time, Christianity BECAME centralized authority and tribute by the masses and it was enforced by the State with the death penalty. What tremendous irony!

For a period of time, Christianity did represent a logical genius in the context in which it arose. If one must begin from the premise of original sin and the obligation to sacrifice, then the sacrifice of Christ makes perfect sense in overturning the injustice of punishing the innocent for crimes of a thousand years’ past. In practical terms of justice, it comes down to eating your own food instead of giving it to someone else that does not deserve it.

You don’t even have to point out the inherent injustice in the old system vs. the inherent justice in the new one. When people accustomed to the slavery of the old ask about the religious rituals of this new Christianity one can imagine how it went: “Oh no – there’s no buying of sacrificial animals and offerings and no attendance at the temple. We just eat a big meal at home amongst ourselves and promise to be good to one another…” Sure, there is the mystical aspect of Christ Crucified people seem to need with spirituality, but as a practical matter as well as principles of interpersonal human justice it is no wonder early Christianity was unstoppable.

From our perspectives of science and rationality we would reject the “logic” of original sin to begin with. So there is no necessity of coming up with something else to defeat the resulting injustices, such as enriching the priestly class. But if you accept the premise of original sin, plus the inconsistent premise of a loving God, then you make the two consistent with one another by having God do something that seems to us equally stupid – sacrificing himself to himself – in order to reconcile them. Nothing is more just than eating your own food so this logic had a powerful motivation for followers as a practical matter.

That is both the original logic and the worldly justice of Christ Crucified as practiced by the first Christians, but one which eventually became perverted by the central authorities to their own ends.

ApostateAbe

Merry Christmas, rlogan. I hope all is well in your parts. I think you did a fine job of your article.

A lot of people have built grand theories about how Christianity became the most popular religion in the world. It is tempting to shape one's theory according to one's prejudices and whatnot. In order for such theories to hold at least some weight with the masses who don't share your prejudices, it needs at least some cited evidence. For example, your claim that:

"The reason why the Christ cult spread like wildfire was its elimination of the obligation to turn the product of your sweat and labor to the central authorities."

It really needs evidence, because, on the face of it, that is contrary to what the earliest Christian scriptures advocate.

And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him. - Mark 12:17.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; - Romans 13:1-3.

Your evidence should compare forcefully against these passages, but I think it will be difficult. You may want to adjust your theory.

Any explanation for how Christianity became predominant should draw distinctions between Christianity and all of its closest competition. From my own diverse observations of the Christian religion and study of the scriptures, it seems to me that the best explanation is the convergence of many of the best persuasive methods of ideologies. Christianity has centralized authoritarianism, scriptural traditionalism, benevolent underclass morality, heaven, hell, apocalypticism, and spiritual emotionalism. All of those elements were present in the first century to create a near-perfect religion, and the evidence for each stated element can be found in the New Testament canon.

In order to make sense of how Christians can seriously believe that "God sends himself to sacrifice himself to himself in order to 'save' imperfect humans he created himself from himself," it would be best not to phrase it like that. Christians believe in a God that demands punishment for sin, as justice is a right principle, and this punishment can be substitutionally atoned through the execution of his son. It makes more sense in the context of traditional Jewish religion where animals were sacrificed to atone for sin. You don't need an unusual explanation to account for such a belief, because Christians do not have the ridiculous phrasing in mind.

Doug Shaver

Spoilsport.

rlogan

Merry Christmas to you and everyone else. Things could not be better for us.

The most important evidence was cited, and the importance of it has been overlooked by most.

Pliny's letter to Trajan in 112 CE was quoted by me, and the most important part of that letter is that the temples had been emptied for a long time and the sacrificial animal industry had been driven into nonexistance because of Christianity's meteoric rise.

That is extrabiblical evidence of the most extraordinary nature. The degree to which Christianity has gutted the ecomomics of temple industry is striking, and extremely important.

What you have cited from Mark is much later, after Mark has been written and to the satisfaction of the Roman authorities who have suppressed and persecuted anything not in comportment with official Roman rule.

I realize of course that apologetic sources try to date various gospels into the first century, and the anchor to all of that seems to be Jesus' alleged prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. Since the temple was destroyed in 70 CE, they pretend to be somewhat reasonable skeptics by saying prophecies of course are not real and therefore the gospels were written immediately after the destruction of the temple.

The problem with that of course is that no historian of the time, most especially Josephus takes any note of Christians whatsoever. It was important to me in locating an extrabiblical source that unambiguosly does so, and it is what I have cited: the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan.

This is where the first trail of Christianity can actually be discerned, and it is a Christianity absent any Jesus who walked the earth performing miracles and being crucified by Pilate.

Pliny did extensive interrogation of these Christians with trials personally. He even had "deaconesses" tortured in trying to obtain information and other adherents. There are no documents whatsoever that he uncovers, and this would have been of singular importance in understanding Christians, their beliefs, and potential danger to the Roman Dictatorship.

This correspondence is by far the most important insight into early Christianity that exists. Far undervalued, and I think in large part this has to do with people's vested interests in placing Christianity much earlier into the first century than is factual.

It's funny that you quoted them after I specifically did so myself. I already have dealt with this matter.

It is clear that the Romans did not permit circulation of anything subversive to Roman authorities. They executed you for doing so. It is circular logic then to say "look how Christianity, once finally appearing in a published form for open circulation amongst the populace under the State Dictatorship Censoring machine - look how it does not oppose the State Dictatorship".

Well of course. It could not be published and circulated otherwise. But it does not represent the Christianity which arose and spread like wildfire at the time Pliny conducts his trials in 112 CE. Those Christians certainly learned important lessons, under penalty of death.

I find it humorous to be quoting the legendary Paul's letter to the Roman church as evidence of anything significant existing in Rome at this time in light of the fact the Emperor Trajan is being informed about Christians by Pliny. Trajan responds to Pliny not as someone who has conducted trials of Christians in Rome and who knows of any Christians there - but instead as an Emperor who thanks his representative in Judea for how he has handled this new secret society.

Early Christianity was a secret society. They were meeting in homes and eating communal meals together. There was no literature in circulation, or else Pliny and all of the other historians of the time such as Josephus would have mentioned it. By 112 CE it had gotten far too big to escape the Roman authorities' attention, and it is at that time we finally have information on it that does not pretend to date itself a century earlier.

Spin (don't know if he is still around) dates Mark to the 130's CE and I think that's pretty good dating. It certainly is after this Pliny-Trajan correspondence.


I'm not familiar enough with your version of events, but it is clear enough to me that any reliance upon the bible for information on early Christianity is bankrupt as an approach to scholarship on it.

What is very clear is that in the fourth Century Eusebius was under orders by the Emperor Constantine to fabricate an official history of Christianity with exactly that title, along with a censorship of materials not consistent with that fabricated history.

It had to merge the legendary Pauline material, fabricated by Marcion, with the approved gospel material of which Mark is the earliest and least embellished. But the interesting thing about Mark is that the original ending has to explain why nobody had ever heard of any miraculous resurrection of a crucified savior:

"They told no-one for they were afraid". That is the explanation for why it is the gospel of Mark that first tells of any historical Jesus, and why such a story is not discovered by Pliny or anyone else by 112 CE. There is instead another reason altogether why Christianity exists.

You are re-phrasing exactly what I have said. So I am glad that you are in agreement, but you have pretended to make it appear as a disagreement.

Jesus Christ's sacrifice is illogical to someone that does not believe in original sin.

It is only "logical" to someone that believes in original sin (or generally the obligation to sacrifice for atonement) and therefore needs a counter-premise to alleviate the heavy burden of mandatory offerings and sacrifice to the religious authorities.

Cheers and warm solstice wishes.

lovesilentdeath

rlogan
Not the way I see it, Christianity is a system where ideological fear replaces real fear; this decentralized authority and was the foundation of Feudalism. Christianity and Feudalism are politically linked and lasted 1000 years.

What we have today, may be called 'Christianity' but it is not the same, it is not an estate, nor, in the same manner, a cultural institution. Today, it is dialectical discourse, which did not exist prior to end of Feudalism.

BTW: I doubt it was grape juice, as it would not keep and this was one main reason for wine, despite what some modern christians think.

mountainman

Good Day rlogan,

Glad to hear all is well. Thanks for recreating these observations about the religious logic etc of Christ Crucified. What if Pliny's Letter is a later fabrication? Would the irony still hold? I agree with many of your arguments, but I am not convinced of your chronology for the appearance of the first Christians. Where does science fit in, perhaps in answer to questions like ... who were other religious groups within the Roman Empire at that time between the 1st and the 4th century? How did they fare? Perhaps start with what the archaeologists tell us about the religious culture based about the temples and shrines to Asclepius, son of Apollo, son of Zeus. How did the early christians and the followers of Aclepius interact in the sense of The Religious Logic and Worldly Justice of Christ Crucified ? Stories about Asclepius report that he had to promise to stop resurrecting people (perhaps resurrection from death was not the justice apperceived by Zeus?), such a good healer was He.

Best wishes,



Pete

aa5874

Well, you have ACTUALLY EXPOSED the Pliny letters to Trajan about "Christians" as FORGERIES.

A cult CANNOT make a METEORIC RISE and had GUTTED the economics of the Temple industry OVERNIGHT and was unknown to Rome. Bithynia was hundreds of miles from Judea or Rome and "Christianity" could not have SPREAD all over the Roman Empire in complete secrecy.

Justin Martyr in his search for the "truth" demonstrated that there was NO METEROIC rise in the Jesus cult. Justin Martyr did not name or talk to a SINGLE publicly known member of the Jesus cult or go to any Jesus cult Church before he met a mysterious OLD man.

Now, AFTER torture in the Pliny letter, NONE of the so-called Christians MENTIONED a character called JESUS.

And again, Justin Martyr demonstrated that there were CHRISTIANS who BLASPHEMED the name of Christ and did NOT worship JESUS .

This is Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho" XXXV
It is CLEAR that the forger ASSUMED in ERROR that there were not any Christians who CURSED the Christ of the Jesus cult.

It is CLEAR that the forger of the Pliny letters ASSUMED in ERROR that ALL Christians worshiped Christ and it is clear that the forger ASSUMED in ERROR that "Christ" originated with Jesus.

The forger did NOT realize or did NOT remember that there were NUMEROUS Christian cults in Antiquity who worshiped ALL sorts of "CHRISTS" not at all related to Jesus of the NT.

"Christ" SIMPLY means "anointed",or "anointed with oil".

This is Theophilus of Antioch in "To Autolycus" 12
1. The Pliny letters to Trajan about Christians did NOT mention any character called Jesus even after TORTURE.

2. Pliny did not even know what the "Christians" believe up to the beginning of the 2nd century.

3. PLINY did not KNOW that there were CHRISTIANS who CURSED the Christ of the Jesus cult.

4. The "Christians" of the Pliny letters to Trajan are NOT at all identified since so-called Heretics worshiped some other "Christs".

5. Even Irenaeus in "Against Heretics", Tertullian in "Prescription for the Heretics" and Hippolytus in "Refutation Against All Heresies" ALL show that there were CHRISTIANS who did not believe in the "Christ" of the Jesus cult.

The Pliny letters to Trajan about "Christians" are forgeries.

The forgeries have been EXPOSED by the incompetence and lack of knowledge of the forger about the NUMEROUS beliefs of "Christians" in Antiquity.

judge

I have come to not dissimilar conclusions myself.
But the central authorities not only exercised an economic control but also a far more sinister one, over his psyche.
In that culture there was a central priesthood that mediated between man and the "divine". Access to the "divine" and its blessings came via the priesthood.
This kind of set up and thinking can IMHO inhibit man from his own so called "divine" attributes and the centralised authority and morality, impede him from assuming his own authority in life.

But all that is quite big subject.

mountainman

As an afterthought rlogan, the information in this article - Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire Mises Daily: Monday, September 07, 2009 by Joseph R. Peden is quite relevant in the attempt at getting a handle on the economic conditions of the 1st to the 4th centuries. I think this data is more realistic than what we might think we find in Pliny.

I would be interested to hear whether you find it interesting.

Compliments of the season man.

spamandham

It's an interesting idea. I've long thought 'christ crucified' is best understood as "there ain't no fuckin' messiah, so quit contributing to those god damned Pharisees". i.e., it's the death not of an earthly messiah, but of the entire concept of a messiah.