One problem is that a balanced, measured response can be too quickly labeled an attack. — Fooloso4

I agree. I don't have any money on this table. I'm not a theist, much less a Christian, but I think the way religion in general and Christianity in particular are addressed here on the forum is disrespectful and contemptuous. Often vehemence takes the place of reason. That includes parts of this discussion.

Well, there's a lot I'd like to know that I think can't be recovered, so it may be just my own frustration and disappointment. I'd like to know better what the world was like before Christianity "triumphed." — Ciceronianus

I have hope that there must be a simpler way to come to terms with one's Christian past than figuring out what the world was like before Christianity "triumphed."

So let's campaign against both and advocate for something better! — universeness

Let me advocate, then, for indifference to religion in political matters and vice versa for religious institutions and theologians to leave politics alone. Or like one of my favorite itinerant preachers once put it: to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, to God what belongs to God.

What do you think things may have looked like? In what ways do you think things might have been different? — Fooloso4

It's hard to say. I think it's particularly hard to say how pagan religion would have developed, or even what it was like. I'm intrigued by the pagan mystery religions, particularly the cult of Mithras. We know very little of them except through Christian writers, who were antagonistic. We have some idea of certain of the practices of initiates of Isis from the perspective of non-Christians (through Apuleius). Beyond the remaining Mithraeums which provide some evidence, and some graffiti found it them, we have nothing from pagans describing the beliefs and rituals of its initiates. This may be because of oaths of secrecy which were very well kept, or because any records were destroyed. Early Christians found Mithraism particularly annoying as, according to them, it mimicked Christian rituals.

The Roman Empire was largely tolerant of the religious beliefs of its various peoples. It's persecution of Christians was nowhere near as extensive or prevalent as has been believed, and its annihilation of the Jewish state was more for political reasons than any religious reason. Rome didn't tolerate any challenge to its authority. The Romans were ruthless in the suppression of any perceived or actual danger (as in the case of Carthage as well as Judea),

Christianity was intolerant, however, and when it assimilated the Roman state, and the Empire became the Christian Roman Empire, pagan religion and culture was gradually extinguished. It was a slow process. Theodosius commencing in 381 C.E. outlawed pagan religious practices, branded as criminals those magistrates would wouldn't enforce anti-pagan laws, closed and destroyed temples, abolished pagan holidays, prohibited visits to temples, probably ended the Olympic Games; there was persecution of pagans before Theodosius I, but he really got things rolling. It was Justinian who finally closed the schools of philosophy in Athens.

In short, a way of living ended, and only one way of living was allowed.

I have hope that there must be a simpler way to come to terms with one's Christian past than figuring out what the world was like before Christianity "triumphed." — baker

I don't know how we come to terms with our Christian past, or if we can. Perhaps it's something like Original Sin is said to be, and is an unending proclivity of some kind.

In short, a way of living ended, and only one way of living was allowed. — Ciceronianus

Or more precisely and tragically: thousands of local cults and religious traditions ended, and only one cult and tradition was allowed.

I guess that was part of the plan: it was all managed as some grand administrative simplification in empire management. One empire, one emperor, one god. Saves a lot of sesterces and trouble.

At least SOME uniformity of creed had been sought by successive emperors for a long time. Sol Invictus was the main candidate for the role before the Constantine family took power. One of these late empire religious innovations like Mithra, it was originally a Syrian god who was actively promoted by emperor Aurelian as an official religion, alongside the traditional Roman cults, and as the main cult in his armies.

The legions of course were the source of the emperor's power. It was particularly important to limit religious heterogeneity in the legions. You have to know to which sodding gods you sacrifice a bull before the battle...

They were on the look out for something like this.

Thomas is simply a list of sayings, not a narrative and is unfortunately lumped in with "Gnostic," which is misleading, although it also seems like Gnosticish sayings may have been added to the version of Thomas we have at a later date as well. What is of note is that some sayings are also more similar to John's more philosophical and mystical sayings. This makes sense either way, because the Gospels were clearly written for varying audiences originally. — Count Timothy von Icarus

One big difference between the gospel of Thomas and the other versions is that in Thomas, the kingdom of heaven is said to have come into existence and that most of us are too distracted to notice the change. That message is starkly at odds with those waiting for the end of "this cosmos."

One of those options became doctrine while the other option was thoroughly erased from memory (except for the bits left in buried pottery).

So, is the will to erase exhibited here related to the views of the winners of these barely seen conflicts or the result of politics, where some win and some lose and so it goes?

Why is all the erasing attention going to that same guy Jesus, always, as if the Buddha or Socrates did not even not exist? That's not fair. — Olivier5

It's possibly because of the claim that Christ was the Word incarnate; the one true Son of God, and that he literally died for our sins. No such claims are made about the other figures you mentioned.

There was a recent discovery of some writings circa 381 CE. A discussion that appears to have taken place on something translated as "The Philosophy Forum". Some participants who called themselves Mithraeums were complaining the Christian members of hate fueled attacks on them. There was also accusations of a "war on Mithramas" and allegations that they would forbid saying "merry Mithramas".

Just goes to show how little things change.

The question being (among others), how do you make a god out of a man, who most probably never ever wanted to be seen as a god? — Olivier5

Jesus would have been horrified to learn that he had been deified and the Son made the same ousia as God the Father.

Caesar had proclaimed himself a god. It was not such a stretch for gentile followers of Jesus to make him a god. The "king of the Jews" was not simply a matter of religion, which was often broadly tolerated, but of political power and authority.

The Jesus Freaks were a thing. They may still be around. I think they even called themselves "Jesus Freaks." Even Elton John referred to them in Tiny Dancer ("Jesus freaks, Out in the street,
Handing tickets out for God"), so they must have existed. — Ciceronianus

They existed; they were here in Australia in the early seventies; I'm not sure they referred to themselves as "Jesus Freaks", but they were certainly referred to here as such. I'm not sure if they were the same, but there were also the Children of God.

I have already told you that the oldest manuscripts of the gospels are in Greek. — universeness

That claim is not without controversy. It is true that the earliest surviving gospels are in Greek, but there is also purported to be evidence that earlier copies in Aramaic or Hebrew were the originals. The Old Testament was, for the most part, written in Hebrew with the excepted parts in Aramaic.

I like to speculate how Christianity would have turned out if, for example, the Arian view had triumphed, or if Pelagius had been preferred over Augustine. — Ciceronianus

The Gnostic Valentinus came within a few votes of being elected Bishop of Rome.

It's possibly because of the claim that Christ was the Word incarnate; the one true Son of God, and that he literally died for our sins. No such claims are made about the other figures you mentioned. — Janus

By this token, all the pharaohs ought to be historically suspect...

I think the reason why this kind of negationist argument tends to focus on Jesus is simply his historical importance at the root of the most popular religion on earth. They are trying to kill the father, à la Freud.

Let me advocate, then, for indifference to religion in political matters and vice versa for religious institutions and theologians to leave politics alone — Olivier5

Such would be an 'assist,' an improvement on the status quo, in many countries. Although every citizen must be attentive to political matters regardless of their theological leanings.

Or like one of my favorite itinerant preachers once put it: to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, to God what belongs to God. — Olivier5

This I don't agree with as Caesar was a tyrant and a butcher and a criminal and does not deserve to be given anything.
If God does not exist then your suggestion is moot.
If it does exist then it must explain its horrific abuse of its own creation.

It is true that the earliest surviving gospels are in Greek, but there is also purported to be evidence that earlier copies in Aramaic or Hebrew were the originals — Janus

But there are always such claims. As soon as someone produces an authenticated copy of the gospels, dated to a time before the Greek manuscripts and they are written in Aramaic or Hebrew. I will react accordingly. I think the Romans destroyed all Jewish literature before the Greek gospels were invented so as to remove all evidence that countered the content of their Gospels. According to Atwill, even the term Gospel in Rome meant 'good news of great victory,'
I think that's why the dead sea scrolls were found hidden in a cave in the desert, because the Romans were teaching future despotic regimes the important tactic of book burning.

This I don't agree with as Caesar was a tyrant and a butcher and a criminal and does not deserve to be given anything. — universeness

Politics are inherently dirty. Power forces you to do horrible things. E.g. Obama was a butcher and a criminal too: he killed many innocents with his policy of assassinating terrorist leaders. And yet we (at least I) forgive him, because we know that's part of the job.

A point Jesus made several times is that one cannot expect a king to behave honestly and morally. That is just an unrealistic expectation. This includes (I guess) the warrior messiah figure hoped for by many Jews at the time. Any such warrior messiah would have been just another butcher. Same old same old.

This is a pretty radical stance about the amorality of politics, but confirmed by Machiaveli. Politicians cannot possibly apply conventional individual ethics, their job is far more complicated than that.

If you don't give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, he might just take it, willy nilly... Sorry but taxation cannot be made optional.

The zealots who revolted against Rome a generation after Jesus ended up killing many many Jews and burning the Temple. They thought they were pure but in fact, they were just mass murderers of their own folks.

So the separation between church and state is also desirable because one cannot judge a king with the same moral standards used to judge day to day activities. A king is always amoral, if he is a real king.

God of course is even higher above the law than any king. If He exists and intervenes in human history, my guess is He must have killed a lot of innocent people... But then, his job is even more complicated than Obama's.

I recognise the issues you describe but I don't agree with your conclusions.
The dilemmas you describe all happen because we got human interaction all wrong from the beginning.
This is the lesson we must learn.
We came out of a 'law of the jungle' situation and tried to create a better way.
Many individual humans started to work together for their common good.
But we could not maintain the harmony, the lessons, fears, traumas we experienced in the wild were too strong. So we were more driven by antagonism towards others compared to maintaining harmonious relationships.
We progressed mainly through chaos. Destroy and conquer and then rebuild better, stronger.
But we have learned since that this approach causes the imbalances you describe.
We cant change the past but we can do things differently in the future.
I want to focus on creating a better future. I don't want to ossify because of our 10000 years of tears and bloody slaughter.
No more kings, gods, rich, poor, nations, tribes, ethnicity, cultural divide, money, etc
One species on one planet, looking out towards the vastness of space, developing the technology needed to leave the nest we call Earth.
This must be our approach or we deserve to perish and the Earth will hopefully, eventually produce another sentient species who will take over our stewardship.
The Earth is perfectly capable of surviving us, as it did the dinosaurs.

I want to focus on creating a better future. I don't want to ossify because of our 10000 years of tears and bloody slaughter.
No more kings, gods, rich, poor, nations, tribes, ethnicity, cultural divide, money, etc — universeness

Good luck with that.

Thanks, will you do your best to help?

So the separation between church and state is also desirable because one cannot judge a king with the same moral standards used to judge day to day activities. — Olivier5

The state usually makes only a rather mediocre effort in anything, hence the result of the state and the church being together is that secularization is rampant. At least in the West (as there is no religious police around).

Americans are religious because the various churches don't belong to the state and they have to compete for members. But when the church is part of the state and gets tax revenue, it doesn't have to compete. It basically rests on it's laurels. So anyone who wants atheism, agnosticism and overall secularization to advance should promote state religion and the church being part of the state.

Personally, I don't buy messianism. There will never be a perfect kingdom of god on this earth. I follow the Talmud on this: aspirant messiahs can wait.

Also, I am appreciative of cultural diversity, and would NOT like to contribute to an effort to erase it. I prefer a messy Darwinian system, with its in-built potential for conflict but creative, evolutive and adaptative, to a uniform, rational, central-command system where everybody is forced to fit the same mold. Because to me, these kinds of grand systems always fail in the long run.

So no, I will not help to try and make a perfect world, but count me in for trying to make it a bit better.

The state usually makes only a rather mediocre effort in anything, hence the result of the state and the church being together is that secularization is rampant. At least in the West (as there is no religious police around). — ssu

The absence of a religious police implies that the state is leaving people make their own religious choices. The UK is not a theocracy today because it does not sanction unbelievers, in spite of its monarchs having created and headed their own cult in centuries past.

And secularization is not rampant in the UK or in France: while Christian cults are dying of boredom, Islam is rising.

A few of the Emperors after Constantine were Arians--Constantius II and Valens--even though Arian "lost" at the Council of Nicea. The Trinitarian faction ultimately won out around 380 C.E., and that's when the real fun began.

So no, I will not help to try and make a perfect world, but count me in for trying to make it a bit better — Olivier5

Mention of terms like Messianic has no relevance to my viewpoint. I am advocating teamwork, I never invoke 'hero' concepts as being part of the solution to the problems the human race currently have.
I am advocating practical solutions not 'perfection' or 'utopian' nonsense. These terms are used to distract the determined. They are presented as unobtainable goals.

Also, I am appreciative of cultural diversity, and would NOT like to contribute to an effort to erase it. I prefer a messy Darwinian system, with its in-built potential for conflict but creative, evolutive and adaptative, to a uniform, rational, central-command system where everybody is forced to fit the same mold. Because to me, these kinds of grand systems always fail in the long run. — Olivier5

I have no problem with cultural diversity but it should never overrule the common good of others.
If you prefer a 'messy Darwinian system,' then that suggests you approve of a 'survival of the fittest,' and a 'chaotic' approach to progress and development which in my opinion, aggravates our problems and is not part of the solution.

'

So no, I will not help to try and make a perfect world, but count me in for trying to make it a bit better — Olivier5

In my opinion, this is not the most harmful position I have heard of but it is also not going to help much.
You offer sticking plasters for gaping wounds.

Some participants who called themselves Mithraeums were complaining the Christian members of hate fueled attacks on them. There was also accusations of a "war on Mithramas" and allegations that they would forbid saying "merry Mithramas". — Fooloso4

The date ultimately chosen for celebration of the birth of Christ was believed to be the birthday of Mithras, and also of the god Sol Invictus. Since nobody actually knew the date of Jesus' birth, it was chosen as the date of his birth as well. "Shepherds watched" while Mithras was born, according to one legend. So, some claim that Christmas is actually Mithras' birthday, and Christian celebrations of that date borrow from the Roman Mithras cult. Of course, Christmas is celebrated close to the time of the Roman Saturnalia, a pagan celebration of the god Saturn over a number of days in December during which gifts were exchanged by people and roles were reversed--slaves treated as masters, that sort of thing.

The early Christians, e.g. Tertullian, thought that demons, knowing of the coming birth of Jesus and what his worship would entail, inspired Mithraists to engage in parodies or mockeries of the eucharist and baptism. It seems that Mithraists took part in a sacred, communal meal of bread and wine. Some reliefs show crosses marking the bread shared in the Mithraic feast.

I don't think we have enough information about the Mithras cult to determine whether or by how long it preceded Christianity, but I think Christianity borrowed significantly from the pagan mystery cults. We see several similarities between Mary and Isis as well. It's an interesting study.

If you prefer a 'messy Darwinian system,' then that suggests you approve of a 'survival of the fittest,' and a 'chaotic' approach to progress and development which in my opinion, aggravates our problems and is not part of the solution. — universeness

That is precisely your mistake: you consider human death and sufferings as problems in need of a solution. But from God's (or nature's, same idea) POV, these things are solutions to the problems of life. They are part of a self-regulating system. Without death and suffering, life would be next to impossible.

have no problem with cultural diversity but it should never overrule the common good of others. — universeness

That made me laugh. Who could possibly be the "others" in this context? People without a culture? :-) Cultural diversity is not something confined to certain folks and not others.

I am advocating practical solutions not 'perfection' or 'utopian' nonsense. — universeness

I don't think so. Yours is a naïve messianic attitude longing for some perfect resolution of our contradictions, neglecting the value and dynamic utility of those contradictions.

Sol Invictus was the main candidate for the role before the Constantine family took power. — Olivier5

Sol Invictus was chosen by Aurelian to be the "chief" Roman god. But yes, the last half of the third century C.E. was a tough time for the Empire. There was a good deal of fragmentation and the barbarians were threatening. Aurelian was a great general and mastered the situation, but his reign was short. Diocletian created the Tetrarchy--two chief emperors, each known as Augustus, and junior emperors, called Caesar, administered the East and West. Centralization was important, and unity all-important.

The claim made in the Gospel of John the Christianity is the only path to God is another way the Jesus of the Gospel seems to cause embarrassment to some modern Christians. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6. Some sophisticated Christians are uncomfortable with the Jesus who supposedly said these words.

Centralization was important, and unity all-important. — Ciceronianus

Indeed, the context is that of the crisis of the third century, during which the empire almost exploded. In this context, the smartest emperors kept trying to promote one unique (or integrative) cult in order to forge a more common polity. What the chosen cult happened to be was irrelevant. Mithra, Sol, the cult of the emperor had one commonality: what was sought was unity. Constantinus was just more effective than others in pursuing that goal, hence Christianity as we know it.