PHTlump

Historically, that's not such a problem. Contemporary sources are usually preferred to later sources, but it's not necessarily a problem. Winston Churchill wrote an excellent history of English-speaking peoples in the 20th century. He went back to the time of the Roman invasion of Britain in 55 BC.

And you say you're not intending to be hostile? Of course you are.

You didn't learn everything you know about the first century from the DaVinci Code, did you? You need to brush up on your history if you think the early Christian church was about control. The early Christians were persecuted. They were killed by both the Jews and the Romans. There are easier ways to gain power than inventing a religion that will flourish hundreds of years after the original progenitors are dead.

You don't think George Washington accepted command of the American army during the Revolutionary War so that our country could eventually gain control over Middle-Eastern oil reserves, do you?

PHTlump

Of course you will. That is the point of your posts. You resent Christianity and you want to preach your own brand of religion. That's OK. Everyone believes their own religion is the one, true belief.

Not to all of us. Most of the facts that atheists believe completely discredit religion, or Christianity in particular, seem perfectly congruent to the faithful.

You're looking to 20 year-olds for wisdom? Talk about your blind faith.

I wouldn't trust a 20 year-old to recommend a beer, let alone a world-view.

ocotillo

Well the very earliest Christians were mostly Jews themselves who had added belief in Jesus to a full observance of the Law. The Jewishness of James the Just, and other very prominent Christian figures is a matter of history.

Jewish/Christian relations broke down by the end of the first century, but we're talking about a pretty small window in time. By the early fourth century, the tables had turned and the Jews were paid back in spades.

JTL

Sorry, no hostility here.
I don't follow a religion but would not consider myself an athiest. I choose to keep an open mind and am willing to believe in anything that can be proven with facts and without blind faith
I hear you about 20 year olds but their wisdom was not my point. The point is without religious influence during a persons formitive years, the less likely a person is to believe in it.
Again, i don't hate religion, christianity, whatever. Just the belief that the quaran, bible, torah (sp?) are somehow historically factual.
P.S. No, i do not base my opinion ( for that is all it is) on the Davinci code, but that certainly was a great comment!

Grayson

In actuality, that was merely an example of what would seem to be the most expedient method...the occasional, indisputable "personal appearance." Given that the deity in question is alleged in part of the book we're talking about to directly and overtly, that doesn't appear to beyond the scope of said deity.

First, a bit of clarification. When I say "the Jesus of the Bible," I refer to the character in the book with supernatural powers. There very well may have been a real human being around whom the Bible stories were written. So, that clarification out of the way, based upon the information available, about the stories of the Bible, how the world works, and what human beings are capable of, you are correct...I don't believe in "the Jesus of the Bible." If that person were here today, and could demonstrate the supernatural powers attributed to him, that would be additional information to take into account, wouldn't it? New information can lead to new conclusions being reached.

If we give the writers of the Gospels the benefit of the doubt that they held no ulterior motives, we must also remember that the writers of (what we now refer to as) Greek mythology genuinely believed that what they were writing was real, and needed to be passed down, as well. That they believed it was real doesn't mean that it was real.

Of course it can be written off as fables and parables. Or, if you prefer, mythology, because the writings compiled into the Bible share more in common with those three forms of writing than straightforward historical documentation.

Again, assuming no ulterior motive, what they have to gain is the same thing those ancient Greeks, or the Norsemen had to gain...a record of their theories (for want of a better term) of how the world worked, along with a narrative method of delineating their beliefs, which is always more engaging to an audience than a dry lecture. (This is, in fact, similar to how the Biblical story of Jesus' birth became associated with December 25. The context of the story would tend to indicate the birth happening in spring. However, as Christianity sought to convert followers other belief systems that celebrated the winter solstice, it became necessary for Christianity to have a holiday during this time period of the year to attract and appease these potential converts. So, the birth story was grafted onto many of the traditions of pagan celebrations of the winter solstice to form the holiday known as Christmas. It's often said during the holidays that "Jesus is the reason for the season," but it seems more apt to say that PR is the reason for the season.)

If we do assume an ulterior motive, which is more in line with "just making things up," then as JTL suggested, they stood to gain control of the followers of their new religion. They stood to gain a structure to their religion that allowed the imposition of rules that dictated the conduct of the followers. And, again assuming that it was purely fictional as opposed to simply a limited understanding of the world, by couching the fiction within fact, their stories gain verisimilitude.

mace85

Really? You interpret the bible as the word of god, and ignore the historical and social context of the language? The term abomination at that time in that culture meant "not consistent with custom". Not nearly the same context as today. This is what pisses me off about Christians. You use this book to give yourself a "moral superiority" to others. Just like history used it to treat minorities and women as second class citizens years ago.

I truly feel sorry for people that believe everything they are spoonfed without examining the source for themselves.

Would you take a new drug for diabetes that just arrived on the market without research? Hell no, I would read the raw data, put it in context, and then decide.

Science will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings. Keep telling homosexuals to ignore their sexual desires and that their behavior is sinful. Thats why gay teens take their own lives at such a high rate. But if your or your churches opinions is like the "Christians" I have met, Maybe that's alright because they are second to people who believe as you do, and they were destined to a life of sin anyway.

Maybe the person you quoted is a prophet, but just not of your particular fan club. There are many religions in this world. Which one is right? As an outside observer I can see one making more sense than the other. Maybe your scripture is wrong.

nader

If you're referring to the Gospels, I have to respectfully disagree here. Have looked at any of it lately? Read the opening of the Odyssey and then read the first chapter of Mathew. See the difference?

If the Gospels are authentic, this motivation would be the same.

nobody disputes this.. but again, that doesn't make the gospels any more or less authentic. You are just describing a basic human phenomenon here.

Actually, the earliest Christians spent more time breaking rules than creating new ones.

They abandoned Jewish customs such as circumcision and dietary restrictions, and included Gentiles in their fellowship. The Epistle to the Galatians deals with this and is actually quite radical.

For the Romans, the practice of communion was often confused with sorcery and cannibalism; additionally their refusal to worship the Emperor or the Roman deities was even worse. That level of singlemindness and devotion was what led to such widespread persecution.

Someone trying to gain power and control would have made more of an effort to synthesize their teaching with the contemporary religious/philosophical climate. Instead we are looking at a radical, underground movement whose adherents and used secret codes (the fish symbol) to recognize each other in public.

It was never about "controlling people" until much later.

PHTlump

Not at all. I do think the Scriptures are holy. But, I recognize that there is context to consider.

I haven't seen that argument before. My understanding was that the original Hebrew word in Leviticus was "tow' ebah," which means "morally disgusting." Given that the punishment prescribed in Leviticus for homosexual acts was death, it seems that the authors considered the crime pretty grave and not just a matter of taste.

This is what pisses me off about atheists. They think that having morals means being hypocritical and superior.

I, for one, have never portrayed myself as morally superior to most other people. Homosexual acts are sinful. So are many other acts. While I've never committed any homosexual acts, I have committed sins. I've committed sexual sins. The difference between me and most homosexuals is that I recognize and admit my sins.

Religion can be used badly. So can science. Non-religious, scientific eugenics has killed millions of people. The Church didn't inject black men with syphilis in Tuskegee.

As for gay suicide, I agree that it's tragic. But other sinners suicide as well. I think it's foolish to argue that we, as a society, should abolish morals because immoral people might feel badly and suicide. I think a better solution is to encourage people to behave morally.

mace85

Assuming that lifestyle is a choice.... But that is indeed another thread jack.

ocotillo

As a Jewish person, that's one of the most fascinating things to me about the NT.

The Christian movement became sharply divided in just a few decades, with a Jewish faction centered around James the Just and a Gentile faction centered around Paul.

Fellowship with Gentiles became possible and the rift in the movement was (mostly) mended under the terms of the Apostolic Decree, which were the four minium requirements of the 'alien resident' (Ger Toshav) stated in the exact same order in which they appear in the Torah.

Still, Paul's writings and James' writings are full of barbs which seem to be directed at each other. For example, Eusibius quoting Hegesippus (Who actually knew James personally) tells us that James was a life-long Nazarite who neither cut his hair nor ate meat.

Paul who certainly knew this wrote that "..if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." and that "...a man who's faith is weak eats only vegetables."

There's a lot more to it than this. (There's entire books on the subject) The point (In agreement with what you've said) is that control doesn't really exist while it's still being fought over. The imposition of a code of conduct arguably didn't exist at least until the Didache was written and criculated in the early Second century.

nader

ocotillo -

fascinating - the 'long hair' verse never made sense to me until now! I love discovering things like this.

Mr B

Where's this "church"..... Saudi Arabia?