Clivedurdle

Many christians - especially those from Protestant Churches, claim they are returning to an original "Bible based" version of xianity.

There are all sorts of assumptions about Jesus and the disciples being relatively unsophisticated from a backwater of the Roman Empire.

Does this assumption of simplicity have any validity at all?

What if xianity was born in an intellectual hotbed of religious thought and argument, with very close links to all the sophistication of several powerful empires and kingdoms?

Remember, Caesar and Cleopatra happened just down the road!

Jeremy Pallant

That's an interesting thought, actually. Now some Christians like to claim that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, which, given that they had to be literate, might argue against simplicity. To be literate, might imply an education, which right there starts to argue against simplicity. After all, the more educated a person is, the less simple their views will be. Hopefully. I guess it depends on how broad that education is/was.

Secondly, how unsophisticated a backwater of the Roman Empire was it really? Alexander the Great passed through the region like a dose of salts about 350 years previously, so it seems to me that the region would have been exposed to Greek, and then Roman civilization to some extent for several hundred years. Earlier than that you have their exposure to neighboring civilizations as a result of the first and second diaspora, and surely would have been influenced by them. Israel must have had dealings with their neighbours through its history, unless they were remarkably xenophobic, to the extent the Japanese were during the their three hundred years of isolation from the rest of the world.

Just a few thoughts.

Diogenes the Cynic

According to John Crossan, 95-98% of the Palestinian state was illiterate during the time of Jesus. That was especially true among the peasant and sub-peasant classes of Jesus and his primary audience.

No part of the New Testament was written by an eyewitness and we have no solid idea of what Jesus' initial movement was really like or what its goals were. It's not even a lead pipe cinch that Jesus existed at all (although I personally think he did).

The material that we do have was written in Hellenistic Christian communities long after the crucifixion by people who never met Jesus and probably never met anyone else who ever met Jesus. The Gospels and the letters of Paul are already inextricably influenced and informed by Greco-Roman thought, interpretation, iconography and ritual so in that sense, the Christianity of the Bible- that is the specific literary tradition of the NT as opposed to a virtually irrecoverable initial historical movement- could accurately be said to be a product of Greco-Roman erudition and education...but it probably has little to do with HJ or the apostles.

Chili

Indeed they are and the answer is right here: "Let me solemly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you." They responded with "this sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone take it seriously?"

Later, in verse 66 these sophisticated christians left to be on their own. Yes it does in the invitation to the banquet parable.

I like Nietzsche's parable best. Humans are like camels that set out to reach an oasis but must become like a lion to reach it. If we load to much bagage on our camel identity we will not be able to act like a lion to reach this oasis. Education is baggage here much like it is in the parable of the rich man who needed to sell all his belongings and give it to the poor.

Exactly. You would have another Billy Graham foundation that is looking for the poor man's loyalty and support to change the world from the outside in, instead of their own life from the inside out.

Nothing has changed and that is why there is apostolic tradition on the anathema side of the Catholic church right back to Jn.6:66.

offa

Diogenes the Cynic,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


`According to John Crossan, 95-98% of the Palestinian state was illiterate
during the time of Jesus. That was especially true among the peasant and sub-
peasant classes of Jesus and his primary audience. No part of the New
Testament was written by an eyewitness and we have no solid idea of what Jesus'
initial movement was really like or what its goals were. It's not even a lead
pipe cinch that Jesus existed at all (although I personally think he did). The
material that we do have was written in Hellenistic Christian communities long
after the crucifixion by people who never met Jesus and probably never met
anyone else who ever met Jesus. The Gospels and the letters of Paul are already
inextricably influenced and informed by Greco-Roman thought, interpretation,
iconography and ritual so in that sense, the Christianity of the Bible- that is
the specific literary tradition of the NT as opposed to a virtually
irrecoverable initial historical movement- could accurately be said to be a
product of Greco-Roman erudition and education...but it probably has little to
do with HJ or the apostles.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, sir, I beg to differ. Yes, schooling would be for those and only those of
a classification of the learned. However, the New Testament was written by eye-
witnesses. We have assumed logics on this board that are a majority and we have
those of us who disagree (whether or not we believe in GOD is irrelevant.)

Here is my take:
Jesus was a real person, just as real as Abraham Lincoln. The he was born
of a Virgin (A Virgin .... not virgin .... is a daughter of a Samaritan, a
Samaritan is from a region near Qumran and not from our Samaria). Paul is a
real person and belongs to the Herodian family. He is probably a descendant of
Herod's sister Salome and her husband Costobar.
Those of the Herodian family will be schooled. My personal belief is that
Peter, for instance and for the sake of argument, was a Herodian. Peter was not
crucified upside down. He died long before Nero. Peter was the son of Herod
by a woman called 'Cleopatra of Jerusalem'. Peter divorced Herodias. He was
born before 20 b.c.e. and was too old to be involved with Nero. Peter was not
illiterate.
When people on this board realize the historicalness of the Gospels they
will get a life.

Offa

Weltall

Zarathustra I take it, Part I Section 1. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think you missed the point. He was arguing against ignorance and belief in outdated values. Arguing against the old values of 'Thou Shalt' and turning to the new 'I Will'. Therefore I'm not sure how this connects to the subject at hand.

Weltall

Unsupported assertion. Please explain why the earliest datings of the gospels are far after the death of the Jesus character and show your evidence.
Most people probably would agree that there is a historical figure or a conglomeration of figures around which the myth was created, but that doesn't mean we think that the Jesus of the bible was a real person. One would think that if such an individual had existed the writers of the times might have noticed him (hint: Josephus).
When believers finally read the actual research that has been done on the gospels and accept that they are anything but historical, they will finally begin to live in the 21st century and not the 1st.

Toto

And hell will freeze over.

(Sorry, couldn't resist).

offa

Toto, please define Hell and give me references.

You know, you guys all the time write un-substantianated crap, assuming that it is correct. When a true infidel, like myself, posts our views, we get crapped on ... get a life Toto.

And, sirs, thank you very much for your critical reviews.

offa

Toto

Sorry, offa. I was comparing the likelihood of some of us ever getting a life to the likelihood of a non-existant place that is supposed to be hot actually freezing over. It was not meant to be serious.