On Early Christianity

[Rival]

Roman slaves were rather different to most others, before or since.
For the most part they were more like indentured servants. who after a time were freed and became Roman citizens them selves. Many rose in society to be come traders, skilled crafts masters and even senators and generals.

You may want to look into Hebrew slaves of Hebrew owners.

 

[blü 2]

1. Why did some of Yeshua’s people (Jews) – over and against their better judgment as to what they knew about the Messiah – choose to believe in Him? Even a few Pharisees, maybe some Sadducees, as well. They were waiting for a king, not a carpenter.

The origins of Christianity before Paul are obscure, known only from Paul's few statements about such people, and some pre-Pauline lines he quotes or which are quoted in gospels, canonical or extracanonical. Although it's the prevailing view that an historical Jesus existed (my own view is that there's no clincher either way), if he did then very little is known about him either. There's only one biography of Jesus, namely the gospel of Mark, and that can be mapped onto passages in the Tanakh ie doesn't need an historical Jesus to exist. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are amended and edited copies of Mark, and John is also based on Mark, but not as closely.

2. As to Gentiles who believed (specifically Greeks and Romans), they were polytheistic.

And they constituted early Christianity. It was never the case that a significant proportion of Judaism took to Christianity.

They worshipped many gods. Heck, the Romans had a god or goddess each for, literally, every thing underneath the sun, with statues out the ***! Yet had decided to forsake all of those, for only one: The G-d of Israel. A god they couldn’t see with their eyes, a god that one wasn’t supposed to even utter the name of! Why? What caused this?

Christianity steadily gained in popularity, but until it became an official Roman religion under Constantine, it was not in a dominant position. It owes that political success to its popularity with parts of the establishment of the Roman Empire. Constantine's mother was a Christian convert, and it's generally said that Constantine himself was a deathbed convert; but he was first and foremost a master politician.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You may want to look into Hebrew slaves of Hebrew owners.

True the Hebrews had a very complex code regarding slaves. and Hebrew slaves of Hebrews should be released after 6 years or at a jubilee year.

However a roman slave had every expectation of freedom, provided he was not enslaved as a punishment for action against the state or Roman laws. Such slaves were treated very harshly.

 

[Vouthon]

You can't use the NT to prove the NT...

I often find myself wondering what people mean when they refer to 'proving' or indeed 'disproving' a religion. I can't say, "hey, just like evolutionary biology and general relativity, the hypothesis of theism has produced xyz testable predictions that have been experimentally.....", uhhhhh, no.

By their very nature, most religious claims are unfalsifiable in principle. None of these revelatory claims can actually be empirically "tested". As inherently unfalsifiable as they are, there is no quantifiable proof for any of them (including my own) - they are, by their nature, outside the realm of scientific enquiry. It is quite frankly hubristic in my mind to believe that there are 'proofs' strong enough to convince skeptics or practitioners of the other faiths ipso facto in and of themselves.

Every speculative philosophical and religious idea deriving from divine revelation typically falls into that category: it may be true, it may be out there, it may have happened or not - but we generally can't prove it other than through personal worldview, aesthetic sensibility or personal spiritual experiences. But such means only provide proof for the individual - they cannot be used to convince others to believe in things that are inherently untestable.

Ultimately, if a person is drawn to any of these supramundane claims and subscribes to a religion - it's because they are taking a philosophical (speculative) stance / making an aesthetic judgement about the nature of reality, which may be true or untrue but they can't "prove it".

Since "nothing" positive or definitive can be affirmed indisputably about the existence of a supreme, unconditioned Creator Being - for instance - there just seems no point to me in a religious person (or anyone, including atheists) being 'absolutist' about something beyond scientific enquiry to prove or test.

I guess I just, fundamentally, don't understand this approach to the pursuit metaphysical or speculative truth (or indeed to interpreting religious scripture and deciding that a given faith is worthy of belief or indeed the reverse).

....BTW sorry for the rant, it's not directed at you or even the other poster, I just wanted to vent a bit of spleen about this I guess, because its something that rather grates me

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

"The Flood" is a GLOBAL MYTH and it has nothing to do with a "divine revenge" on all on humans.

This Flood is a scholarly confusion for the ancient description of the Milky Way River which "runs" all OVER and AROUND the Earth and not ON the Earth. Ancient people resembled the whitish contours of the Milky Way as, amongst other names, a "river in the Sky".

The scholarly idea of a "divine revenge" derives partly from a perception of factual flooding and especially from the simple lack of mythical/astronomical insights.

I am sure you have plenty of mythical/astromonical insights. And there is no scholarly confusion in what you know.

 

[halbhh]

Since I’ve been studying early Christian history, I’ve become quite sympathetic towards it. Although, for various theological reasons (not least of which being my theistic orientation), I couldn’t identify as one. I’ve grown to understand what makes Christianity Christianity.

Though, I still have a two-part question that intrigues me:

1. Why did some of Yeshua’s people (Jews) – over and against their better judgment as to what they knew about the Messiah – choose to believe in Him? Even a few Pharisees, maybe some Sadducees, as well. They were waiting for a king, not a carpenter.

2. As to Gentiles who believed (specifically Greeks and Romans), they were polytheistic. They worshipped many gods. Heck, the Romans had a god or goddess each for, literally, every thing underneath the sun, with statues out the ***! Yet had decided to forsake all of those, for only one: The G-d of Israel. A god they couldn’t see with their eyes, a god that one wasn’t supposed to even utter the name of! Why? What caused this?

For the first disciples, while He preached, the answer to #1 is because an encounter face to face isn't the same as an abstract idea about a person from a distance without meeting them. Some that would believe once they met Him did not believe until they met Him.

For the 2nd question.... ....I suggest to read a gospel account, fully through, with a true sympathetic listening, to hear and get more than you can by any abstractions about it.

Here is one of the accounts:
Luke 1 ESV

You just get a lot more from an account that has more details than even a good summary. I'd also recommend to you strongly the Gospel of John (before or next).

 

[halbhh]

I often find myself wondering what people mean when they refer to 'proving' or indeed 'disproving' a religion. I can't say, "hey, just like evolutionary biology and general relativity, the hypothesis of theism has produced xyz testable predictions that have been experimentally.....", uhhhhh, no.

By their very nature, most religious claims are unfalsifiable in principle. None of these revelatory claims can actually be empirically "tested". As inherently unfalsifiable as they are, there is no quantifiable proof for any of them (including my own) - they are, by their nature, outside the realm of scientific enquiry. It is quite frankly hubristic in my mind to believe that there are 'proofs' strong enough to convince skeptics or practitioners of the other faiths ipso facto in and of themselves.

Every speculative philosophical and religious idea deriving from divine revelation typically falls into that category: it may be true, it may be out there, it may have happened or not - but we generally can't prove it other than through personal worldview, aesthetic sensibility or personal spiritual experiences. But such means only provide proof for the individual - they cannot be used to convince others to believe in things that are inherently untestable.

Ultimately, if a person is drawn to any of these supramundane claims and subscribes to a religion - it's because they are taking a philosophical (speculative) stance / making an aesthetic judgement about the nature of reality, which may be true or untrue but they can't "prove it".

Since "nothing" positive or definitive can be affirmed indisputably about the existence of a supreme, unconditioned Creator Being - for instance - there just seems no point to me in a religious person (or anyone, including atheists) being 'absolutist' about something beyond scientific enquiry to prove or test.

I guess I just, fundamentally, don't understand this approach to the pursuit metaphysical or speculative truth (or indeed to interpreting religious scripture and deciding that a given faith is worthy of belief or indeed the reverse).

....BTW sorry for the rant, it's not directed at you or even the other poster, I just wanted to vent a bit of spleen about this I guess, because its something that rather grates me

It does bother us all (even those unaware of their feelings I think) to hear someone say basically something on the order of: "I haven't seen it, so it must not exist." There's something, let's call it rationality, in us, that rebels at this form of ignorance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It does bother us all (even those unaware of their feelings I think) to hear someone say basically something on the order of: "I haven't seen it, so it must not exist."

Just who is making such an argument?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

How come Jesus always uses circumlocutions when he refers to God then? He never ONCE used the tetragramaton.

Just because the English King James does Not use the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Scriptures does Not mean originally it was Not used by Jesus, or Not used by the NT Bible writers.
' Hallowed be thy name...' Jesus would Not hallow, make sacred, some name he did Not know.
This is why in prayer to his God Jesus said at John 17:6 that his Father's name was manifested by Jesus.
And, at John 17:26 were Jesus says he declared to people his God's name and will declare God's name.

Check in the KJV where the Tetragrammaton appears in the OT it uses the word 'LORD' (YHWH) in all Upper-Case letters.
When referring to Jesus KJV uses 'Lord' with some lower-case letters as seen at Psalms 110 as an example.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Check in the KJV where the Tetragrammaton appears in the OT it uses the word 'LORD' (YHWH) in all Upper-Case letters.
When referring to Jesus KJV uses 'Lord' with some lower-case letters as seen at Psalms 110 as an example.

But whenever the tetragrammaton appears in the text, Jews use a circumlocution instead of pronouncing the name when the text is being read out loud.

 

[Native]

Not just that, Christianity was far from the only cult worshipping such a divine figure during the times of Jesus of Nazareth. Off the top of my head, you have the cult of Orpheus/Eleysian Mysteries, the cult of Isis, and the cult of Sol Invictus, all popular among Romans during the same era as early Christianity.

Agreed. In my posted link it says:
"Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the Ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them include Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity".
Even in the Norse Mythology, we have a similar astro-mythical story of Balder.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The entire "history of Jesus" and its connected dogmatism can very well be astronomical myths as the crucifixion, dead, rise and ascension is a common cultural myth of the Dying and Rising Deity.

By imaging a celestial star constellation which have a human form, this constellation is observed in different positions in the night Sky. Laying down (dead), rising from this position (resurrection) ascending in the Sky and again descending to the realm of the dead (position) again. (Also the cultural myth of "the returning deity" which also is connected to the "story of Jesus".

It´s all just an astronomical telling which also is why several cultures had the similar myth/story. It was "written" in the same night Sky.

That sounds reasonable. Then we account for fulfilled Bible prophecy and the immense love from Jesus Christ.

 

[halbhh]

Just who is making such an argument?

In this thread? For this thread, I've no idea. I've stopped reading much here at RF lately. The news has been more compelling than much discussion here for me personally for a while now. Though I have seen several varieties (forms) of that type of argument here on RF though. Many times.

But, that comment you are responding to was itself to one from Vouthon, who had said something in particular, and then I responded to what he said in particular, and you can read what he said if you wish to understand more.

The comment from Vouthon's which began: "I often find myself wondering what people mean when they refer to 'proving' or indeed 'disproving' a religion...." -- That's the one to read if you want to know what I meant.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Agreed. In my posted link it says:
"Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the Ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them include Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity".
Even in the Norse Mythology, we have a similar astro-mythical story of Balder.

Those myths clearly are tied to the changing of the seasons and agricultural cycles (all the ones I can think of, anyway). Jesus' death and resurrection is not.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The entire "history of Jesus" and its connected dogmatism can very well be astronomical myths as the crucifixion, dead, rise and ascension is a common cultural myth of the Dying and Rising Deity.

By imaging a celestial star constellation which have a human form, this constellation is observed in different positions in the night Sky. Laying down (dead), rising from this position (resurrection) ascending in the Sky and again descending to the realm of the dead (position) again. (Also the cultural myth of "the returning deity" which also is connected to the "story of Jesus".

It´s all just an astronomical telling which also is why several cultures had the similar myth/story. It was "written" in the same night Sky.

Nice theory but nothing in Christianity has to do with stars or constellations, aside from the star at Jesus' birth. If it was "really" about astrological occurances then how come that isn't mentioned at all in Christianity? Is it some "secret teaching" that most aren't privy to? At that point, you're getting into silly Da Vinci Code conspiracy territory.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Since I’ve been studying early Christian history, I’ve become quite sympathetic towards it. Although, for various theological reasons (not least of which being my theistic orientation), I couldn’t identify as one. I’ve grown to understand what makes Christianity Christianity.

Though, I still have a two-part question that intrigues me:

1. Why did some of Yeshua’s people (Jews) – over and against their better judgment as to what they knew about the Messiah – choose to believe in Him? Even a few Pharisees, maybe some Sadducees, as well. They were waiting for a king, not a carpenter.

2. As to Gentiles who believed (specifically Greeks and Romans), they were polytheistic. They worshipped many gods. Heck, the Romans had a god or goddess each for, literally, every thing underneath the sun, with statues out the ***! Yet had decided to forsake all of those, for only one: The G-d of Israel. A god they couldn’t see with their eyes, a god that one wasn’t supposed to even utter the name of! Why? What caused this?

1. The political situation encouraged apocalyptic and messianic expectations.
"As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ..." (Luke 3:15)

2. Christians were persecuted because they didn't want to worship Cesar and observe state religion (beside God and Christianity). Then Constantine happened. His conversion was supposed to be based on visions (similarity to Paul's conversion).

 

[2ndpillar]

Since I’ve been studying early Christian history, I’ve become quite sympathetic towards it. Although, for various theological reasons (not least of which being my theistic orientation), I couldn’t identify as one. I’ve grown to understand what makes Christianity Christianity.

Though, I still have a two-part question that intrigues me:

1. Why did some of Yeshua’s people (Jews) – over and against their better judgment as to what they knew about the Messiah – choose to believe in Him? Even a few Pharisees, maybe some Sadducees, as well. They were waiting for a king, not a carpenter.

2. As to Gentiles who believed (specifically Greeks and Romans), they were polytheistic. They worshipped many gods. Heck, the Romans had a god or goddess each for, literally, every thing underneath the sun, with statues out the ***! Yet had decided to forsake all of those, for only one: The G-d of Israel. A god they couldn’t see with their eyes, a god that one wasn’t supposed to even utter the name of! Why? What caused this?

The "cause" of this "Christianity", whereas "you surely shall not die" (Genesis 3:4), is due to the false prophet Paul, who blew his flute, and the "many" followed him down the path of "destruction" (Matthew 7:13-23), propped up by the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, who instituted the Trinity based Roman church at this convened Council of Nicaea, using the "authority" of the "dragon"/devil (Revelation 13) to deceive "those who dwell on the earth".

As for the "messiah", the anointed, that would refer to "David My servant" (Ezekiel 37:25) who started as a lowly shepherd who would "shepherd the flock" (Ezekiel 37:23) and "feed them", after first sending out fishers of men, and then eventually, he will send out hunters of men.(Jeremiah 16:16). As stated in Hosea 5 & 6, Israel/Ephraim and Judah did not repent, and it would be after 2 days, 2 thousand year, when they would be healed after they "acknowledged their guilt" (Hosea 5:15), and "earnestly seek Me". That has not happened as of today. Now when the sky falls, and the ground shakes, and the sun does not give its light, then maybe some will come around (Joel 2:28-3:17).

 

[2ndpillar]

1. The political situation encouraged apocalyptic and messianic expectations.
"As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ..." (Luke 3:15)

2. Christians were persecuted because they didn't want to worship Cesar and observe state religion (beside God and Christianity). Then Constantine happened. His conversion was supposed to be based on visions (similarity to Paul's conversion).

Constantine, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and Paul had supposed visions with angels of light. You know what Paul said about angels of light and Satan? The Trinity religion instituted at the Council of Nicaea, convened by the reigning Pontifex Maximus, the emperor Constantine, became the legal "state religion". Constantine's mother, being a "Christian", the "Christians" were relatively safe post 310 AD, unless of course you had any Arian writings, then of course, you were subject to penalty of death per decree by Constantine.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But whenever the tetragrammaton appears in the text, Jews use a circumlocution instead of pronouncing the name when the text is being read out loud.

Yes, Jewish superstition prevailed especially when the un-faithful Jews began mixing with the Greeks.
So, that still follows through with modern day to not pronounce God's name.
Jesus taught otherwise in his model prayer that God's name should be hallowed ( held sacred / sanctified )
Jesus also told us he manifested God's name and will have it declared at John 17:6; John 17:26.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Agreed. In my posted link it says:
"Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the Ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them include Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity".
Even in the Norse Mythology, we have a similar astro-mythical story of Balder.

I haven't heard about Balder in years.
I recall there were some with the belief that gold balls hung on an evergreen tree was to represent Balder.
Since the God of Jesus was the one who resurrected dead Jesus then dead Jesus did Not resurrect himself.
The God of Jesus is from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2) so it's the God of Jesus who is death proof.