What they actually expected was a warlord who would throw off Roman domination. — frank

This is what Jesus' Jewish followers would have understood based on messianic tradition. What we find in the gospels is something quite different.

It's frequently referred to as the Jesus cult. — frank

What are your sources of religious scholarship that inform what you imagine to be your superior knowledge?

This is the type of assumption I’m critiquing. It just doesn’t make sense. — Noble Dust

Read this: https://jergames.blogspot.com/2008/07/four-assumptions-created-bible-lecture.html

Modern day literalism is very much a product of our scientific mindset. We record data accurately and it makes no difference whether there is any underlying meaning to what we report. If we were artists, we'd be realists. Our ancient ancestors were not such realists. They were overwhelmed creatures trying to figure out how the world worked.

Taking folklore literally is the great failing of fundamentalism, which is a modern invention. Only in today's world where ancient folklore gets confused for modern science would people actually go out and look for the remnants of Noah's Ark.

Speaking of which, how could the authors of the ancient texts have taken the text literally when it is entirely inconsistent, consisting of two entirely separate stories?

What they actually expected was a warlord who would throw off Roman domination.
— frank

This is what Jesus' Jewish followers would have understood based on messianic tradition. What we find in the gospels is something quite different. — Fooloso4

:meh:

It's frequently referred to as the Jesus cult.
— frank

What are your sources of religious scholarship that inform what you imagine to be your superior knowledge? — Fooloso4

Just to be sure you guys aren't talking around each other, there are two meanings of the term "cult" in the religious context. The first is one where we talk about an overly abusive religious leader who takes advantage of his adherents like a Charles Manson or David Koresh.

The second occurs in the context of religious scholarship and it is not pejorative. It refers to the rituals, prayers, sacrifices, and construction of monuments within a religious context. The cult of Yahweh for the ancient Jews would include their method of prayer, sacrifice, and building of temples.

Yes, I’m a aware of all of this and I’m not advocating literalism.

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. — Ciceronianus

Just to be clear: The underlying theme of this topic is about how to come to terms with one's Christian past, right?

:up: A cult is a new religion as opposed to a sect, which is a subdivision of an old religion. In the NT, Jesus is depicted as bringing his message specifically to Jews (he calls gentiles the offspring of vipers). So it seems like he is initiating a sect of Judaism.

Eventually Christianity became a true cult as its Jewish members had more in common with gentile Christians than with their fellow Jews.

This thread seems to have taken on a life of its own, and I think the theme you mention has become a part of it. But when I commenced it, I was noting what I felt to be the fact that sophisticated Christian apologists, theologians, or philosophers, though they include Jesus in their thought and work, do so in a way which I think ignores or is sometimes contrary to the Jesus depicted in Scripture--what he supposedly did and said. I wondered why, in that case, they included him in their work, and by implication whether their philosophy or theology should be considered "Christian," or whether it really isn't Christian at all, or only nominally so.

Just to be sure you guys aren't talking around each other — Hanover

@frank

This is why I asked him to provide sources. He has not. The two different ways in which the term is used does not tell us specifically what was believed and practiced, how widespread it was, and whether it referred to some specific group of followers rather than all . At what point did the Jesus cult distinguish itself from the Jewish followers of Jesus and become a separate religion? Were they mostly those who were Jewish or gentile? Did they hold the same animosity toward Jews as Christians did over time?

Although frank considers it proper to attack me (he seems to have been nursing a grudge for quite a while) he has not said anything to demonstrate his knowledge of the historical situation.

I wasn't attacking you. Sorry you took it that way.

It is difficult to separate the original from what some people made of it because the reports we have that have survived time and erasure are also responses to whatever was said and done. We will never get the direct feed.

Because of that, I think of it as two tracks of development that may cross paths in some places but cannot not be resolved into one: There is the uncertainty of the origins that point to a variety of sources: There are the theological edifices that were built afterwards. The "looting: of pagan thought and practices can be cogently investigated in the latter case. I think a different register is needed for exploring the former.

With that said, I do share one element of why you wanted to separate the two. I grew up in a church environment and was shocked when I actually read the New Testament for myself the first time. Hearing the words of Jesus was getting a different message outside of the bottle it was shoved into.

I wasn't attacking you. Sorry you took it that way. — frank

It seemed so, at least me me when you said:

It's really obvious that your knowledge of the Jesus cult doesn't come from religion scholarship. It comes from Matthew. :lol: — frank

But you added a cute picture of a non-human primate, so I'll move on.

It was used by Gandhi
— Olivier5

Gandhi was not a martyr. Peaceful disobedience is not martyrdom. — T Clark

He suffered. Martyrs are supposed to die, for a cause, and Gandhi did not. True.

But he shamed some oppressors with the suffering he imposed on his own self.

The same that shook the world is the common thread between Gandhi and martyrdom.

That's why he said, "The age of martyrdom is dead -- it's been murdered by a new generation of passive-aggressive politicians."

I am impressed by the opinions of Foolso4 and Olivier. The martyr angle that evolved from a failed messiah story. Brilliant -- so by the ancient Jews or whoever who created Christianity, as by the moderns who uncovered this redirection of faith. I tilt my head to them.

Others may have argued the same, and if I left them out, sorry, my apologies. I just read two posts in this entire thread, and they were precisely the posts that resonated with me.

This thread seems to have taken on a life of its own, and I think the theme you mention has become a part of it. But when I commenced it, I was noting what I felt to be the fact that sophisticated Christian apologists, theologians, or philosophers, though they include Jesus in their thought and work, do so in a way which I think ignores or is sometimes contrary to the Jesus depicted in Scripture--what he supposedly did and said. I wondered why, in that case, they included him in their work, and by implication whether their philosophy or theology should be considered "Christian," or whether it really isn't Christian at all, or only nominally so. — Ciceronianus

If one takes a minimalist approach to the historical accuracy of scripture, believing the aim of the work is predominately theological, then the details of the literature become of less relevance. That is, if one admits (and many do) that the facts and details of the works are only mechanisms to make points, then objections as to historical or factual inconsistency become irrelevant.

By way of example, the books of Judges following Deuteronomy tell of all sorts of historical details, describing Saul, David, and Solomon and all sorts of wars they engaged in. What is attributed to those extremely failed characters is inconsistent with who they appear on the pages, but from a thematic perspective you can summarize their tales as examples of divine justice being imposed on the sinners and success being bestowed on the believers. It's a theological book about justice and divine intervention onto the world, not a historical work of any significance, clearly spun to present a desired narrative.

So, if you're looking for factual truth in the Scripture, or even of a search for factual truth among the apologists and theologians, you're looking for something the religiously motivated are not looking for. They are looking only for the themes and theology and they too are spinning those narratives in a way that makes them applicable to today's world.

Why they chose the Bible as their mechanism for such mental gymnastics likely has a historical basis, but I'd argue their odd enterprise has been successful in finding meaning in the world.

@Ciceronianus@god must be atheist
I write this in another Jesus thread. Perhaps this might be helpful:

My rough theory is thus...

Jesus may have actually been a part of the pharisees, in a more liberal sect like Hillelites. He was also influenced by the John the Baptist movement, and consequently became more of an apocalyptic miracle-working teacher.

His interpretation of Jewish law (halacha) represents that of a Hillel-influenced pharisee (more inclusive, less strict, ethics-oriented). His ability to hold his own and quote at will against other pharisees also to me (if ANY of this is true) seems to give more credibility here. An illiterate peasant with no training, would probably not be able to do that. However, I do recognize this can all be interpolation and perhaps he quoted nothing, and was just a sort of local miracle-worker with later sayings. In this case, he would have represented more the "am ha-aretz" or "people of the land" in perhaps contradiction to the pharisees.

His apocalypticism represents the influence of John the Baptist. Thus his Son of Man imagery, and Kingdom of God being at hand

His goal was to show he was the messiah by "cleansing" the Temple of foreign influence (including the Sadducees, the priestly/elite party that ruled the Temple and more aligned with political Roman status quo of Rome rule over Judea). He probably hoped for a miracle to occur and perhaps thought he would somehow make it through any punishment like crucifixion. He didn't, he died.

His actual brother James took over the sect after he died and led this reformist pharisee/apocalyptic hybrid in Jerusalem. Hillelite pharisees and some zealots (extreme anti-Romans/Saducees) in Jerusalem probably sympathized with this group as well. Ananus I believe was related to Caiaphas, and remembered Jesus opposing him, and thus makes sense that he would want to destroy the remnant of this reformist/rebellious group that represented an affront to the current authority, and the family of priests that were running the Temple.

Martyrs are supposed to die, for a cause, and Gandhi did not. — god must be atheist

He was assassinated in 1948.

But he shamed some oppressors with the suffering he imposed on his own self.

The same that shook the world is the common thread between Gandhi and martyrdom. — god must be atheist

Gandhi and Martin Luther King risked their lives and were killed. They did not intend to die. That was my point. They didn't intentionally sacrifice themselves. I wasn't clear enough.

I am impressed by the opinions of Foolso4 and Olivier. — god must be atheist

Agreed. I've been impressed by this whole thread. Great discussion.

The martyr angle that evolved from a failed messiah story. Brilliant — god must be atheist

Thanks for the kind words.

-------

Just to be clear, my point was NOT to try and mock Jesus or anybody else, or to say that he was 'just another rabbi'. I have a lot of respect for the man, for his creativity, his witt and his courage. His immense influence, too.

Hillel might have been a nice guy but he didn't change the world. Jesus did try a little harder.

My take is to try and understand better what Jesus said and did by placing it in a historical context, and trying to plot his influences. I do this out of respect for him, in an effort to understand him better, as I would do for any philosopher I like.

My interest in Jesus is that of a lapsed Catholic and someone interested in Rome and its empire, including the pagan religions popular in it, and in their extermination and assimilation by Christianity. I know very little of the Jewish factions which existed while Jesus is said to have been alive. What you say seems feasible, but I don't know enough to critique it.

Fair enough. I find it an interesting puzzle. It would have been interesting if the emperor Julian were to have not died after three short years as emperor. He was trying to reverse the course of the Christian spread. He was the last pagan Roman emperor.

I think Greco-Roman religion had a fatal flaw in that the gods themselves were not ethical, but capricious. Thus mystery-cults and religions that provided an ethical-oriented deity made more sense. Add to it the apocalypticism of a sort of "goal" and you have this inbuilt, very appealing worldview. It was the world's greatest "just so" story. Paul and his disciples embellished it, and the Church Fathers promoted it. They overtook other "just so" stories like the Gnostics, and killed off most of the original Jewish Jesus Movement around Jerusalem, and that was that. Proto-Orthodoxy (which became the basis of Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christianities) became the main religion of the land in Europe.

Why they chose the Bible as their mechanism for such mental gymnastics likely has a historical basis, but I'd argue their odd enterprise has been successful in finding meaning in the world. — Hanover

I think that Holy Books present a problem for those who consider them fundamental to their religious beliefs. The problem is that the more one disregards them, or interprets them, or treat them as metaphorical, the less "holy" they seem to be. They're not factual, they're not fundamentally the word of God, they aren't anything, really, but what one wants them to be. They're convenient. In that case they become little more than suggestive, subject to the whims of their interpreters. They can be made to sanction most anything.

As far as Jesus is concerned, the New Testament is all we have along with the apocrypha (and short snippets in Roman sources). If what they say about his isn't true, then it isn't true. If what they say about him is true, then it's true. If we take the position that it isn't true, just how "holy" are these writings, and what of those who wrote them? Did their authors deliberately write falsehoods, or make things up, or credulously record whatever they heard from others? Were they inspired to do so by God?

If they're true, though, then they're (pardon me) inconveniently true for those who would rather not believe he worked miracles, or said that we can come to God only through him, or that he was the Son of God, or was resurrected, or ascended into heaven, or would return to judge the living and the dead riding a white horse, etc.

It would have been interesting if the emperor Julian were to have not died after three short years as emperor. He was trying to reverse the course of the Christian spread. — schopenhauer1

Very interesting. Some think it was too late to do anything significant, but perhaps he could at least have managed to keep paganism going for a time if only among minorities. By the way, if you haven't read Gore Vidal's novel Julian, I recommend it highly.

killed off most of the original Jewish Jesus Movement around Jerusalem, and that was that. — schopenhauer1

Hadrian did that. I mean, the region was devastated by Hadrian's legions circa 130 AD, with millions of deaths. Jewish presence was purposefully erased from the area. Hence the Jewish Christians disappeared together with the Essenes, the Saducees and scores of other groups, and what was left was gentile Christians on the one hand and rabbinical Jews on the other.

Very interesting. Some think it was too late to do anything significant, but perhaps he could at least have managed to keep paganism going for a time if only among minorities. — Ciceronianus

True, could have been holding off the inevitable. But if he was successful, what an interesting change in history. Tolerance might have had more of a premium (but perhaps not the violence of those Roman games.. only medieval torture!).

By the way, if you haven't read Gore Vidal's novel Julian, I recommend it highly. — Ciceronianus

Yes I have. Excellent read. He has so many great historical fictions, but that's my favorite.

We will never get the direct feed. — Paine

Sad but true.

With that said, I do share one element of why you wanted to separate the two. I grew up in a church environment and was shocked when I actually read the New Testament for myself the first time. Hearing the words of Jesus was getting a different message outside of the bottle it was shoved into. — Paine

Makes you wonder, doesn't it, how much the Christian religion has to do with what it purports to worship.

Mine as well.

The problem is that the more one... treats them as metaphorical, the less "holy" they seem to be — Ciceronianus

I think it's the opposite.

I think Greco-Roman religion had a fatal flaw in that the gods themselves were not ethical, but capricious. Thus mystery-cults and religions that provided an ethical-oriented deity made more sense. Add to it the apocalypticism of a sort of "goal" and you have this inbuilt, very appealing worldview. — schopenhauer1

I know what you mean. And, a good deal of the ritual involved in the worship of the traditional gods seems devoted to keeping them happy enough not to smash us, or abandon us, and induce them to do favors for us. Traditional Roman religion seems almost legal in its devotion to rules; if you got one step wrong during the ritual, you had to start all over again. More than that seems to have been involved in the mysteries.

It seems that most looked to philosophy for ethics. Epicureanism and Stoicism were quite popular among the elite during the Empire.

I think it's the opposite. — frank

That's interesting. If you mean that they're more inspiring to us for being metaphors, I think I understand. But is their effect on us, or some of us, what makes them "holy"?