Christianity is syncretic - is that not inherently subversive of the source?
And in this way it created common ground regional cultures, but the direction of the syncretization was also that of Romanization - the new mythos served to legitimize the earthly authority of Rome (and their territorial claims) in a way the teachings of the Jewish tribes had not.
Christianity is syncretic - is that not inherently subversive of the source?
Oh I think I see what you mean. To one extent every religion is. No one starts from page 1. I am not quite seeing however what Biblical Jesus borrowed from Rome that the Jews of the area hadn’t already. Can you list some examples?
And in this way it created common ground regional cultures, but the direction of the syncretization was also that of Romanization - the new mythos served to legitimize the earthly authority of Rome (and their territorial claims) in a way the teachings of the Jewish tribes had not.
Really only discussing what Biblical Jesus is supposed to have said. He was clear that he was only there for the lost sheep of the Jews, not for the rest.
Yes! History is a tale of cyclical power struggles. I disagree that every religion is syncretic but in principle that’s right. It’s exactly why this headline exists!
I am not quite seeing however what Biblical Jesus borrowed from Rome that the Jews of the area hadn’t already. Can you list some examples?
No I cannot because Biblical Jesus wasn’t real, whether historic Jesus was or not.
The human being that is most recognized as being the inspiration for Jesus had nothing to do with the Bible or the stories in it. The first hint to this should be that many Biblical stories predate the preacher, of course with different characters in the originals. Jesus was simply the device needed to create the opportunity to rewrite regional beliefs in a format more compatible with the contemporary nation-states.
It was non-contemporaneous authors that made Christianity what it is, not some Jesus character. During the time of Jesus around a century after iirc, the practices now called Christianity were not present. There was a very ambiguous and locally varied new twist on the old stories, but Christianity did not start with Jesus as a singular point and then branch from there. Christianity started as an influence on existing religions that slowly tied together disparate branches with a story that became more and more consistent only after it had been around for generations. When his name first started to be used to retell these stories, 2000 years ago or so, there was little agreement on who Jesus was or what he preached. And so the things Jesus is claimed to have said now, are not the same things they were claiming he said back then, which were themselves removed from what the human preacher actually preached (which is currently understood to have been pretty standard teachings for the time and region).
And so, as a character in a story, Biblical Jesus was not an entity that ever had agency. He couldn’t “borrow” anything.
Really only discussing what Biblical Jesus is supposed to have said.
Then you must pay attention to who wrote his lines! It was Rome. Forget the Bible, if you want to learn the answers to your questions, then go read history books to understand the actions that went along with the words. Christianity was the vessel for Roman colonialism.
If you’re too attached to approach it without biases, you could study Islam instead. After understanding the history of Islam, the history of Christianity should become easier to understand for Christians.
Explain please. I don’t quite understand your question.
Christianity is syncretic - is that not inherently subversive of the source?
And in this way it created common ground regional cultures, but the direction of the syncretization was also that of Romanization - the new mythos served to legitimize the earthly authority of Rome (and their territorial claims) in a way the teachings of the Jewish tribes had not.
Oh I think I see what you mean. To one extent every religion is. No one starts from page 1. I am not quite seeing however what Biblical Jesus borrowed from Rome that the Jews of the area hadn’t already. Can you list some examples?
Really only discussing what Biblical Jesus is supposed to have said. He was clear that he was only there for the lost sheep of the Jews, not for the rest.
Yes! History is a tale of cyclical power struggles. I disagree that every religion is syncretic but in principle that’s right. It’s exactly why this headline exists!
No I cannot because Biblical Jesus wasn’t real, whether historic Jesus was or not.
The human being that is most recognized as being the inspiration for Jesus had nothing to do with the Bible or the stories in it. The first hint to this should be that many Biblical stories predate the preacher, of course with different characters in the originals. Jesus was simply the device needed to create the opportunity to rewrite regional beliefs in a format more compatible with the contemporary nation-states.
It was non-contemporaneous authors that made Christianity what it is, not some Jesus character. During the time of Jesus around a century after iirc, the practices now called Christianity were not present. There was a very ambiguous and locally varied new twist on the old stories, but Christianity did not start with Jesus as a singular point and then branch from there. Christianity started as an influence on existing religions that slowly tied together disparate branches with a story that became more and more consistent only after it had been around for generations. When his name first started to be used to retell these stories, 2000 years ago or so, there was little agreement on who Jesus was or what he preached. And so the things Jesus is claimed to have said now, are not the same things they were claiming he said back then, which were themselves removed from what the human preacher actually preached (which is currently understood to have been pretty standard teachings for the time and region).
And so, as a character in a story, Biblical Jesus was not an entity that ever had agency. He couldn’t “borrow” anything.
Then you must pay attention to who wrote his lines! It was Rome. Forget the Bible, if you want to learn the answers to your questions, then go read history books to understand the actions that went along with the words. Christianity was the vessel for Roman colonialism.
If you’re too attached to approach it without biases, you could study Islam instead. After understanding the history of Islam, the history of Christianity should become easier to understand for Christians.
You seem to know what you are talking about, can you recommend a good starting book for the history for Christianity (or Islam)?
You make it sound very interesting.
Try Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll. It’s not "hard’ history so it’s an easy read. I’m sure doomer can supply more in-depth sources.
Thanks!
It’s been awhile… maybe Bernard Green and The First Three Centuries?
Thanks!