You started a really interesting discussion. Thanks. — T Clark

You're quite welcome. The subject fascinates me. I think there are still many Christians who don't know aspects of Christianity's history. For example, I know Catholics, or former Catholics, who were surprised to learn Jesus had brothers. I don't remember it ever coming up either. I suppose Holy Mother Church in her wisdom decided it was one of many things her flock shouldn't be told, but I think they could be explained away if needed. They may have been children of the long-suffering Joseph from a prior marriage (he may have been a widower when he married his surprising wife Mary).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why unfortunately? We can fight, too. — baker

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."

Far too much of antiquity is lost to us, unfortunately.

Christianity prior to the hegemony of the Church Fathers was without official doctrines. It was an "inspired" (the indwelling of spirit) religion. But even the attempt to establish the inalterable truth met with change from the very beginning. Rather than "the rock" on which the Church was built, it has been shifting sand. — Fooloso4

It was a mess, or stew, certainly. It's unfortunate it turned out as it did. 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. Possibly, much of the effort spent in trying to treat Jesus as one in being with the Father may have been avoided. I think the acceptance of that belief is one of the reasons it became so difficult to accept the Jesus of the Gospels.

Dorothy enters the shabby dining room of the Catholic Worker House of Hospitality in a full-skirted pastel dress with cuffed short sleeves singing Que Sera Sera. — Bitter Crank

I can picture it! Imagine Rock Hudson working there when she arrives.

I don't normally use AD and prefer BCE but based on the above, they may well have been contemporaries. — universeness

They may have been. As I said, though, I don't see Tacitus relying on any work by Josephus for the little he (Tacitus) writes about the person known as Christus. Why would he? He wasn't particularly fond of any emperor, and certainly not Domitian or the Flavians in general. I doubt he'd look to their favorite as a source.

I haven't read Atwill. Those Alexandrians certainly were a busy bunch, weren't they? Both Jews and Greeks.

Which to me would suggest that if you're a Christian, the logical conclusion is that God created different narratives that work on multiple interlocking levels of allegory to communicate to different people with different personalities and abilities. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not sure how that's the logical conclusion, but it certainly might be a way of making Scripture "one size fits all" if that's what you want it to be.

It's their religion, they can do with it whatever they want. — baker

Yes, even change it, or ignore it, as I think they did.

Then the jews get blamed for asking for this nice placid Jesus to be crucified and the Romans try their best to refuse! This is obviously Roman propaganda! — universeness

Well, Christian propaganda, more likely. As Christianity spread, it was prudent for Christians to make the Jews the villains rather than the Romans.

Josephus Flavius started as a Sicari but got captured by the Romans and turned traitor. — universeness

He became a kind of pet of the Flavians, true. I'm not sure about him writing the Gospels and inventing Jesus, though. I'd be surprised if Tacitus used him as a source for his comments about "Christus" and his death at the hands of Pontius Pilatus. But, who knows? At least we got some confirmation of the existence of Pontius Pilatus when the so-called "Pilate Stone" was discovered. Sadly, I can never think of him without recalling Michael Palin's portrayal in The Life of Brian.

The "Jesus" I like is similar to Dorothy Day, the founder of the Catholic Workers. — Bitter Crank

I'm ashamed to admit I thought, for a very brief but delightful moment, you were referring to "Doris Day."

Did you really need to use the slur "Jesus Freaks"? What if someone came along and used the slur "Atheist Freaks". I think you could have gotten the point across without the slur, and it will would have been an interesting topic. — Philosophim

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.

Sorry for the ramble, hopefully that made some sense. — Noble Dust

I think it does. But they go to such great lengths in their efforts to make of Christianity what they want it to be, what they find to be intellectually acceptable, that Jesus, as portrayed in Scripture, seems less and less recognizable.

I think it's significant that Christianity as a religion is in great part the creation of a man who never knew Jesus, and who disagreed with James the Just, said to be one of the brothers of Jesus, in many respects.

Because they are Christians. There is no Christianity without Jesus _Christ_. — baker

One would think so. And the answer may be that they're "stuck" with him if they want to be known as Christians. But I think that the Jesus of the Gospels is largely ignored by them (just as the God of the Old Testament, that fractious fellow, is ignored). They just don't fit in the theology they construct, or if they fit do so awkwardly. They're embarrassing, in fact, if Scripture is is to be believed as it is written.

I think you're right. They're an odd couple. It was a bad choice on my part.

I used to ask this question. I think the answer is complex and hard for literal minded people like me to comprehend. The gospels are not 'disposable' - this is a reaction to, not an understanding of what is meant - the books suggest a truth above narrative and provide examples and teachings in a form for humans to engage with at their level of understanding. — Tom Storm

It seems to me that if the Gospels are believed to be suggestive, inspiring, thought-provoking (insert appropriate adjective) stories, something of Christianity is lost. In other words, Christianity becomes a religion in which Jesus isn't, or can't be, what the Gospels say he is/was, or is/was only what we want to think the Gospels say he is/was or what the Gospels should say he is/was or what only selected portions of the Gospels say he is/was. That seems to me to be a serious problem.

As if there were a single uniform interpretation of the Christian gospel. — Wayfarer

Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead. Jesus turns water into wine.

What room is there for interpretation, here? "Well, he didn't really raise him from the dead, the Gospels just say he did."

That doesn't seem to be an interpretation, unless it's assumed the authors of the Gospels didn't mean what they said. What's the basis for that assumption? That seems to be an assertion that Jesus didn't raise Lazarus from the dead.

I have a friend who is a Catholic priest and he sees Jesus as a metaphor and an invitation for contemplative prayer. He has almost no interest in the story as fact - it is a teaching aid, like most holy books. The issue is people hold different levels of understanding - a shallow or deep faith. The same could be said for science, with its dogmatic materialists and more nuanced naturalists. — Tom Storm

So, I take it, the Catholic priest doesn't believe the Gospels, or believes in them, or the Jesus they portray, only as metaphor. The sophisticated, knowledgeable Christian doesn't believe Jesus did what the Gospels say he did, or I suppose even said what they say he said.

The Jesus of the Gospels seems disposable. Why do they bother with Jesus? This is my question.

No. I’m maintaining that excluding all races and genders except black female from consideration for a position is racial (and gender) discrimination, which I equate with racism/sexism. Am I mistaken in equating the two? — Pinprick

Based on the definitions I related, I don't think the nomination is racist. To be racist, it seems you must contend that a particular race is superior than another; that must be the basis of the distinction made. If the nomination isn't based on a belief in the superiority of a black woman over others because she's black or a woman, it doesn't appear to come within the definitions. I think you have an uncommon definition of racism.

So, the reason a traditional theistic reader obtains such unusual results from scripture (whether it be through the midrashim of the Jew or the exegesis of the Christian) is because their fundamental assumptions vary greatly from your own. — Hanover

Well, I don't know the "traditional theistic reader" comes to the same conclusions as de Chardin or Barth (for example). I'm inclined to think that if they believe in Jesus, they believe in the Jesus of the Gospels. I get the impression Christian philosophers/theologians don't, or would rather think of Jesus as different from that Jesus in very significant ways.

You have added to that list of atrocities doing handstands in church and pestering people in the streets. — T Clark

Well, I wouldn't call them atrocities. I'd call the former preposterous, the latter annoying and hectoring. I'm not an atheist, by the way, though my conception of God doesn't inspire me to gymnastic feats or induce me to irritate others with my view of the divinity.

I think what you're not seeing is Jesus as archetype. I also think you need a bit more philosophical theology - that book you mention seems a good source for the same. — Wayfarer

So, Christianity portrays Jesus as an archetype? I don't think so.

You see, this is my point. I'm quite certain that Christian philosophers theologians see Jesus differently than I do. I suggest, though, that they see Jesus differently than most Christians do, differently from how he is described in the Gospels.

What's called the Gospel of John was the last of the Gospels written, by my understanding, and likely was written after the death of Paul. It's only in that Gospel that Logos is referred to, and it seems clear that the concept was borrowed from pagan philosophy. The other Gospels are quite dissimilar. Paul, of course, borrowed from pagan philosophy (and the ancient pagan mystery religions as well). He was born in Tarsus, well known as a center of Stoicism. The process of assimilation had already begun. Tertullian's peevish comment "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" notwithstanding, the early Christians were eager to incorporate the pagan thought even then. The supposed correspondence between Seneca and Paul is an example of the Christian quest for acceptance by the pagan elite.

Since the establishment of Christianity as Roman religion, it has informed every single intellectual pursuit thereafter until the past 100 years. — Garrett Travers

It's remarkable, no doubt about it. What it's "achieved" is amazing. It's success is in part, I think, due to its tendency to assimilate so well. It assimilated the Roman Imperial State, much of pagan philosophy, much of pagan worship (through the cult of the saints and otherwise). It's assimilating still.

Gummy bears are also popular. — frank

Bad for the teeth, though.

You clearly need to eat more special brownies. — frank

I dunno. I ate all those special hosts and they never did me any good. Brownies would be tastier, though.

Gosh. That's not how his name is spelled, is it?

Clearly the nomination is, and always has been politically motivated. As to whether it's racist, let's be daring and innovative, and consult dictionary definitions of "racist."

Merriam-Webster (online):

"having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race (see RACE entry 1 sense 1a) is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Dictionary.com:

"noun
a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
adjective
of or like racists or racism:
racist policies; racist attitudes."

Cambridge English Dictionary (online):

"someone who believes that their race makes them better, more intelligent, more moral, etc. than people of other races and who does or says unfair or harmful things as a result:

Two of the killers are known to be racists.
She cannot understand how her husband could be branded a racist.

racist
adjective disapproving
coming from or having the belief that people who belong to other races are not as good, intelligent, moral, etc. as people who belong to your own race :
He furiously denied being racist.
They were the victims of a vicious racist attack.
racist remarks."

Collins English dictionary (online):

"NOUN
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others
2. an overt policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination
3. the maintenance of social, economic, and political structures that deny privileges and opportunities to members of certain racial groups
4. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."

These definitions indicate that according to the most common usage, one is a racist if one believes members of a particular race, or one's own race, are better or superior to members of another race. I don't think it can be maintained, reasonably, that Biden or his administration want to nominate a black person based on the belief that black people are better or superior to white people. Is that what you maintain--the nomination is based on the belief the black race is superior to the white race?

Isn't there a branch of philosophy concerned with ignorance and what we don't actually know? — TiredThinker

There are enough philosophers who pontificate regarding Nothing to make up a school if not a branch. Will that do? Let's call it "Noughtism" or "Nought-ism" the study of that which isn't (I don't think "nihilism" works). We're forever ignorant of what is not.

Well, there are a lot more of us than there are of them, and we all have guns.

Heidegger thought the Holocaust was like modern industrialized agriculture, and people adore him. Free Whoopi!

Just can't miss a chance to excoriate Heildegger, you know.

Speaking of American legal realism, this is how we do the law in our Glorious Republic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AuCgkBmag4

Here's another idiom, meaning much the same as the one about sucking eggs: You would teach your grandmother to milk ducks. Even better, and less common.

I'd think it would be obvious that I'm something of a legal positivist, or perhaps American legal realist, having favorably quoted O.W. Holmes, Jr. on law and justice. Regardless, I've long thought it an error to conflate law and justice, and law and morality for that matter. I've tried, ever so hard, to explain that to clients over the years as well. So I'm afraid your arguments are quite familiar to me and have been for some time, and raise no concerns. Thus you purport to teach me, figuratively speaking, to suck eggs or milk ducks in locus avius as it were.

Exaggeration, by the way, can be a form of humor, as can irony. I get the impression humor is something unfamiliar to you, so I call it to your attention.

You would teach your grandmother to suck eggs, I see. That's an actual idiom, by the way, though it's peculiar enough to please me, so try not to take offense.