Monotheism vs Polytheism

[W|M]

Or, there is a spiritual connection that binds all Christians together in unity despite their personal beliefs.

Is Christ divine or human in nature?

 

[timtofly]

Is Christ divine or human in nature?

That is the wrong question. The question should be: can Jesus be both physical and non physical at the same time? Can a being existing outside of physical existence, become a physical entity? Sure, if that person can prove they have the ability not to be confined to the physical.

I think there have been humans who are considered divine, or a human form, that is not bound by the physical to a certain extent. They are still part of this physical experience though. They may not be as limited as we currently are in our present natural state.

In order to understand the human condition, Jesus had to be born and develope as a normal human, and susceptible to certain human limitations. Jesus did actually die as a human.

 

[SteamCiv]

The Tang dynasty ended in 907. The Christians that WIM was referring to mostly Nestorians, members of the Eastern Churches which spread along the Silk Road. Contemporary Chinese Christians are mostly Catholic or Protestant, with a smattering of Orthodox, and those sects weren't adopted on any sort of scale until the nineteenth century. They don't represent the survival of ancient Chinese Christian communities, is the point, so Christianity's long-livedness must owe something to circumstance, and not just the apparently self-evident superiority of its doctrine.


The Japanese were pretty well-acquainted with Buddhism, which has a similar nominal adherence to social equality. Why would that message suddenly become more destabilising just because it was delivered by a bunch of weird-looking foreigners? Considering, further, that the weird-looking foreigners in question were Jesuits, who although strikingly modern in some respects, were absolutely comfortable with social stratification, and in fact made a point of adapting to the traditions and social mores of their hosts, at least when they were not directly contrary to Catholic doctrine. (Unlike the Dominicans, who were the religious equivalent of people who think you can overcome a language barrier by talking very loudly.) It isn't like somebody had dumped a bunch of fire-breathing Baptists from the Great Revival-era into the mix.

This history is more complex than the program I watched portrayed (described in my previous post), and yes
European influence appeared to be a concern which led to Japan's isolation and persecution of its Christians.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2014/02/destroying-japanese-christianity/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Japan

Christianity re-emerged there after the island granted freedom of religion was introduced in 1871,
Ironically, Nagasaki, forever famous because it was nuked in WW2, had a large Catholic community.

Anyway back to the early church, parallels between Japan and the early church are tenuous. Its persistence kept it from being erased by the Romans (though the Jews would have had even more vested interest in stopping Christianity as a heretic religion, though they were "on the run " by the early 2nd century because of their feud with the Romans).

 

[SteamCiv]

Wait, when did we move away from the Early Church?? Because if we're talking post-Augustinian Neoplatonic Christian theology, any pretense of egalitarian or providentially equalized society goes directly out the window.

Great Chain of Being, y'all.

The thing of it is, what was taught in the early Church is STILL THERE.

Traditions, some of which do come from documented sources, though non-canonical, have indeed shaped the Church, however, its not to say it cannot be shaped back as long as we have knowledge of the original sources. Pentecostalism, for example, reminded Christianity of women's leadership role for those so qualified in the Church as well as disenfranchised minorities, ie Galatians 3:28" There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

When Christianity started out, it did not rule anything except the local churches which were groups of people meeting in somebody's house.

Then one day they were running the Empire and trying to figure out how implement spiritual values into the running of government that is also concerned with protecting it citizens from belligerent foreign powers as well as suppressing internal instabilities.

Yes there is a tendency skip over that into later histories of Christianity; which is still on going conversation even after 2000 years. However, what is fascinating (to me at least ) is how they managed to get to running the Empire without an armed revolt or guerrilla movement forcing coercion; and why anyone would want to follow them.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yes there is a tendency skip over that into later histories of Christianity; which is still on going conversation even after 2000 years. However, what is fascinating (to me at least ) is how they managed to get to running the Empire without an armed revolt or guerrilla movement forcing coercion; and why anyone would want to follow them.

It hasn't been 2000 years yet. That anniversary is coming up soon, but it's not here yet.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That is the wrong question. The question should be: can Jesus be both physical and non physical at the same time? Can a being existing outside of physical existence, become a physical entity? Sure, if that person can prove they have the ability not to be confined to the physical.

I think there have been humans who are considered divine, or a human form, that is not bound by the physical to a certain extent. They are still part of this physical experience though. They may not be as limited as we currently are in our present natural state.

In order to understand the human condition, Jesus had to be born and develope as a normal human, and susceptible to certain human limitations. Jesus did actually die as a human.

actually a better question is “Is there existence beyond the the physical universe?” That allows for a broader range of answers and doesn’t rule out your pathway.

When Christianity started out, it did not rule anything except the local churches which were groups of people meeting in somebody's house.

Then one day they were running the Empire and trying to figure out how implement spiritual values into the running of government that is also concerned with protecting it citizens from belligerent foreign powers as well as suppressing internal instabilities.

Yes there is a tendency skip over that into later histories of Christianity; which is still on going conversation even after 2000 years. However, what is fascinating (to me at least ) is how they managed to get to running the Empire without an armed revolt or guerrilla movement forcing coercion; and why anyone would want to follow them.

I recently read some where that Paul led a total Christian community of about 2500. Within 250 years or so that number would be millions. Constantine cut the head off the pagan snake and replaced it with his own.

For me the interesting transition was from 30 AD to 100 or so. The founder died and the faith continued.

 

[SteamCiv]

What a shame nobody sent a memo about this to the various monarchs and others throughout the last 1900 years and change (it hasn't been 2000 years yet), when they decided to start persecuting and killing their fellow Christians who didn't all share the same exact beliefs, perform the same exact rituals, or make the same exact gestures during their worship services.

1900 vs 2000 years, ... have not heard /read it expressed as "1900" much, probably colloquially rounded for the sake of phonetic brevity and impact, something like "$5.00" seems a whole lot more than "$4.99 "...

Yes, the lives of Christians and its overall historical implementation are the best and worst testimonies to the credibility of that faith. Evaluation of lives individually, collectivity and historically regarding other faiths and philosophies, is this a valid "yardstick" to use?

The practical necessity of government protecting its citizens from foreign and domestic threats and maintaining stability while of upholding Christian values may be at times, run into various forms of conflict.

In Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus said: “Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."

This verses makes the point, not everyone who self identifies as a Christian is one.

The issue of hypocrisy was prevalent among the ancient Hebrews and Jews; indeed the Jewish scriptures the Tanakh (Old Testament of Christianity) has almost what could be called "case studies" about people having lofty ideals and and not living up to them.

 

[SteamCiv]

actually a better question is “Is there existence beyond the the physical universe?” That allows for a broader range of answers and doesn’t rule out your pathway.

I recently read some where that Paul led a total Christian community of about 2500. Within 250 years or so that number would be millions. Constantine cut the head off the pagan snake and replaced it with his own.

For me the interesting transition was from 30 AD to 100 or so. The founder died and the faith continued.

I agree, a most fascinating time and and a period often glossed over. How many other movements have survived their leader's death after such a short time? Paul fits in the transition period, active from the mid 30's, a couple of years after the crucifixion of Jesus to martyred in 64-67 AD .

Yes, the new monotheistic religion had to be shaped by the disciples WITHOUT the direct, living guidance of its founder, though it will be strongly contended the Comforter, the Holy Spirit guided the process. After the asserted resurrection and subsequent ascension of Jesus, as little as 5 weeks later, according to Acts, at least 10,000 persons were added to the new faith.

The Holy Spirit can be hard to understand, though convincing as it may be to believers combined with the heady sincere insistence of the 12 along with 500 others, at the SAME time, they actually SAW the risen Jesus, still what did they sufficiently OFFER that was different from the beliefs that surrounded them?

 

[Hrothbern]

I agree, a most fascinating time and and a period often glossed over. How many other movements have survived their leader's death after such a short time? Paul fits in the transition period, active from the mid 30's, a couple of years after the crucifixion of Jesus to martyred in 64-67 AD .
Yes, the new monotheistic religion had to be shaped by the disciples WITHOUT the direct, living guidance of its founder, though it will be strongly contended the Comforter, the Holy Spirit guided the process. After the asserted resurrection and subsequent ascension of Jesus, as little as 5 weeks later, according to Acts, at least 10,000 persons were added to the new faith.
The Holy Spirit can be hard to understand, though convincing as it may be to believers combined with the heady sincere insistence of the 12 along with 500 others, at the SAME time, they actually SAW the risen Jesus, still what did they sufficiently OFFER that was different from the beliefs that surrounded them?

The traditional arguments for the rise of the early Christianity are, besides the holy argument of the hand of God, the holy Martyrs, that especially the "have nots" were welcoming the Christian belief as it offered more equality. Respect in the real world and a place in Heaven to earn for all.
Although in that traditional story it is recognised that richer people joined as well from the start.

Another way to look at it is that there was in the Roman empire, build on state virtues, hierarchy and materialism, little respect for the individual life of the masses (except as tax payer). The Roman formal culture was devoid of spiritualism, devoid of non-materialistic food for the soul. So there were many cults to satisfy that. The Christian cult starting as one of them, and by the great wisdom of St Paul handsomely manoevred into a basic position that would not be in conflict with the state supremacy here on earth.
You can even say, I think, that there were dozens of Christian cult varieties (all the more because without a centre because of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD) that were actually all competing with each other in terms of converting new Christians and.... and editing the gospels (!!!) to fixate the hand of God to the most convenient set of teachings, and interpretations, from the original Founder (just look into the details of the differences between the gospels).
I think you can compare this evangelising, this converting, in a sense as a selling process where good salesmen, by instinct recognising the needs of their geographic area, are optimising, making up (and believing in) the product they sell, or demanding changes to the product they sell.

It is only after 300-400 AD that this diaspora of Christian cults and areas are consolidated again (to a large degree in that first big wave).

 

[timtofly]

actually a better question is “Is there existence beyond the the physical universe?” That allows for a broader range of answers and doesn’t rule out your pathway.

I recently read some where that Paul led a total Christian community of about 2500. Within 250 years or so that number would be millions. Constantine cut the head off the pagan snake and replaced it with his own.

For me the interesting transition was from 30 AD to 100 or so. The founder died and the faith continued.

Except that question was never asked, was it? From the beginning of what it was meant to be Hebrew, God already told us that God was outside of physical existence. So technically, the founder has always been, and will always be. It is the founder's path and humans have very little to do with it. The reason that it works, is because it equalizes all of humanity, and no single human really has a say in the matter. Where Christianity looses is when we loose sight of this truth, and try to make our own path.

Neither does God change in this position, just because we think we have a firmer grasp on physical existence. Humans have pointed out (from the beginning of recorded history) that whatever concepts we may come up with, are fleeting and changing, no matter how much we want them to remain a constant in our ability to reason. That is the point of early Christianity that allowed it to fit into every cultural experience where humans embraced it. The physical is fleeting, and God is the only unchangeable truth.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Except that question was never asked, was it? From the beginning of what it was meant to be Hebrew, God already told us that God was outside of physical existence. So technically, the founder has always been, and will always be. It is the founder's path and humans have very little to do with it. The reason that it works, is because it equalizes all of humanity, and no single human really has a say in the matter. Where Christianity looses is when we loose sight of this truth, and try to make our own path.

Neither does God change in this position, just because we think we have a firmer grasp on physical existence. Humans have pointed out (from the beginning of recorded history) that whatever concepts we may come up with, are fleeting and changing, no matter how much we want them to remain a constant in our ability to reason. That is the point of early Christianity that allowed it to fit into every cultural experience where humans embraced it. The physical is fleeting, and God is the only unchangeable truth.

So, in the Hebrew view, is "that which is outside" of the physical universe separate and distinct from it? ie. There re two separate existences: the physical "world" and the non physical "world"?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

For anyone interested, here is a podcast of an interview by a religious historian about the rise of Christianity:

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/5951...tys-path-from-forbidden-religion-to-a-triumph

 

[timtofly]

So, in the Hebrew view, is "that which is outside" of the physical universe separate and distinct from it? ie. There re two separate existences: the physical "world" and the non physical "world"?

Here is the page from the Jewish Encyclopedia. The list of passages that show they wrote down such facts. Whether many of the Hebrews throughout history actually believed those facts may be totally irrelevant. Since it would be God, defending the position the thoughts given to humans understandably cannot come from human intuition. Nor can they be put under the scrutiny of human reasoning to refute them.

The argument was that humans came up with the concept of God. The Greek philosophers reasoned out that there had to be a first cause. It is quite clear that they did not even have a grasp on the fullness of the universe itself. How would they determine the reality of a being outside of the universe? Most still think a created being happened to be able to manipulate matter that was already in existence.

 

[SteamCiv]

For anyone interested, here is a podcast of an interview by a religious historian about the rise of Christianity:

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/5951...tys-path-from-forbidden-religion-to-a-triumph

Thank you for that link, I found another is a review covering the main points of his book:

Bart Ehrman on How Christianity Defeated Paganism
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/triumph-of-christianity-bart-ehrman/

Polytheism (of the Roman Empire)
(a) they worshiped many gods instead of one, one god was as good as another;
(b) they were more concerned with ritual acts than with doctrine or ethics;
(c) they focused on this life instead of the afterlife;
(d) they were local instead of global; and
(e) they operated on the basis of custom instead of books.
(f) no one is really "lost"

Christianity

(a) missionary commitment to save the lost, to save them from Judgement
(b) once committed to Christ the pagan past was abandoned
(c) Books shared among the different church groups gave a certain consistency of doctrine across the widely separated geographical regions

While Ehrman depreciates the following points, other scholars state:
(c) Christian charity in assisting other people; for example, through healthcare, attracted pagans to the Christan movement (apparently this did not exist inside of paganism the same way as in Christianity; availability depended on status)
(d) miracles played a role in deciding which god was actually more powerful, assorted pagans are historically recorded to have seen / experienced the miracles and made their decision for Christ

The last paragraph of the NPR article linked in your post sums up point (d):
"What the Christians argued was that the Christian God was more powerful than any other god, that this God was active in the world.
He not only brought salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus, he continues to act in the lives of his followers.
He heals the sick.
He casts out demons.
He raises the dead.
This God is very active and he is more powerful than any of the others, and so it came to be a competition between the gods, where the Christians were trying to convince people that their God was the superior one."

 

[SteamCiv]

The traditional arguments for the rise of the early Christianity are, besides the holy argument of the hand of God, the holy Martyrs, that especially the "have nots" were welcoming the Christian belief as it offered more equality. Respect in the real world and a place in Heaven to earn for all.
Although in that traditional story it is recognised that richer people joined as well from the start.

This equality among classes is an important component. It was a driving factor in Buddhism breaking off from Hinduism. Jesus in some of his teachings discussed various of the Jewish leadership occupying the best seats in the house at the synagogues and receiving various honors not accorded to others in the congregation; implying an embedded social stratification-- that one man was better than another.

Roman stratification was already well known, prevalent and accepted, probably about half the society was enslaved, a quarter free or roughly equatable to a middle class and the other quarter divided between the military and those running the show.

And from what is known of the numerous religions in Rome, this social stratification continued inside of them as well.

With the royals becoming equal to the slaves under Christ, indeed the great equalizer (which has seen its equivalent trying to be reflected in modern law, a fair trial for all whether rich or indignant...),

 

[SteamCiv]

You can even say, I think, that there were dozens of Christian cult varieties (all the more because without a centre because of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD) that were actually all competing with each other in terms of converting new Christians

I think you hit upon something there, with the destruction of the Temple and the subsequent scattering of the Jews, the Christian persecution from the Jews for being a heretic sect (early Christians were primarily Jewish) was diminished by that quarter at least.

and.... and editing the gospels (!!!) to fixate the hand of God to the most convenient set of teachings, and interpretations, from the original Founder (just look into the details of the differences between the gospels).
I think you can compare this evangelising, this converting, in a sense as a selling process where good salesmen, by instinct recognising the needs of their geographic area, are optimising, making up (and believing in) the product they sell, or demanding changes to the product they sell.

It is only after 300-400 AD that this diaspora of Christian cults and areas are consolidated again (to a large degree in that first big wave).

>>details of the differences between the gospels<<

Different witnesses explaining the same story from their point of view will likely have some differences from each other recounting.

>>>the most convenient set of teachings, and interpretations,<<<

If there is concern about the gospels themselves, that what the founder said is what was correctly transmitted to us, there are number of verification levels that are used to confirm this .

1) The original pre Gospel of Mark edits
(2)the Pauline writings
(3) extra canonical Gospels (ie Peter and Thomas)
(4) Oral tradition
(5)The Gospels themselves which reflect the community of people who were there.
(6) authors who write about their relationships with those who were there.

There is however, theology as understood by these writings and how they are presented by various church groups. The assembly of documents did not take place until the various councils convened in AD 390's though the “canon” was largely compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included most all of the New Testament books. Prior the books were circulating around among the various churches either individually or part of a larger batch.

While precise understanding of what these writings can vary, resulting in different opinions and denominations, allowing for translational variances, the documents themselves today are the same as that of the 1st century .

 

[Hrothbern]

>>details of the differences between the gospels<<
Different witnesses explaining the same story from their point of view will likely have some differences from each other recounting.
>>>the most convenient set of teachings, and interpretations,<<<
If there is concern about the gospels themselves, that what the founder said is what was correctly transmitted to us, there are number of verification levels that are used to confirm this .

1) The original pre Gospel of Mark edits
(2)the Pauline writings
(3) extra canonical Gospels (ie Peter and Thomas)
(4) Oral tradition
(5)The Gospels themselves which reflect the community of people who were there.
(6) authors who write about their relationships with those who were there.

There is however, theology as understood by these writings and how they are presented by various church groups. The assembly of documents did not take place until the various councils convened in AD 390's though the “canon” was largely compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included most all of the New Testament books. Prior the books were circulating around among the various churches either individually or part of a larger batch.

While precise understanding of what these writings can vary, resulting in different opinions and denominations, allowing for translational variances, the documents themselves today are the same as that of the 1st century .

Key is what happened to the many oral stories in the first decades after 30 AD.

Main stream is that Marc was written around 70 AD and Luke, Matthew around 90 AD.
That is decades after the death of Jesus and the Holy Spirit start of the evangelisation in all geographic directions (~30 AD).
Marc written 5-15 years after the Martyr death of Peter, James, Paul and around the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matthew, Luke leaving out texts from the older written gospel Marc (especially the more controversial texts), and adding texts which can be attributed to the source Q.
Zooming into Marc: not every manuscript of Marc is the same, is as controversial, has the same end.
(EDIT: by controversial I mean Jesus doing unsettling, shocking things and statements, and more than needed or comfortable for the early christianity in the line of Paul)

And if you take as guiding principle to compare texts that the most revolutionary, undecent, uncompromising text belongs to the original Jesus...in line with his Mountain Sermon...
There are lots of reasons for concern about how well the gospels describe the actual life and statements of Jesus

EDIT:
And on topic to the success of the rapid evangelisation:
BECAUSE the original teachings and life of Jesus were picked up by christians in so many different ways between 30-70 AD, it was also so successful.
Everybody could see his own thing while busy with that evangelisation, everybody was empowered by the Holy Spirit, everybody was doing the prime priority of that early start in 30 AD: evangelise all corners of the world.

Orally, without gospels to have some unified message.

 

[Lexicus]

For anyone interested, here is a podcast of an interview by a religious historian about the rise of Christianity:

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/5951...tys-path-from-forbidden-religion-to-a-triumph

Read a n excellent review of this book yesterday:
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/04/review-bart-d-ehrman-the-triumph-of-christianity/

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Thank you for that link, I found another is a review covering the main points of his book:

Bart Ehrman on How Christianity Defeated Paganism
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/triumph-of-christianity-bart-ehrman/

Polytheism (of the Roman Empire)
(a) they worshiped many gods instead of one, one god was as good as another;
(b) they were more concerned with ritual acts than with doctrine or ethics;
(c) they focused on this life instead of the afterlife;
(d) they were local instead of global; and
(e) they operated on the basis of custom instead of books.
(f) no one is really "lost"

Christianity

(a) missionary commitment to save the lost, to save them from Judgement
(b) once committed to Christ the pagan past was abandoned
(c) Books shared among the different church groups gave a certain consistency of doctrine across the widely separated geographical regions

While Ehrman depreciates the following points, other scholars state:
(c) Christian charity in assisting other people; for example, through healthcare, attracted pagans to the Christan movement (apparently this did not exist inside of paganism the same way as in Christianity; availability depended on status)
(d) miracles played a role in deciding which god was actually more powerful, assorted pagans are historically recorded to have seen / experienced the miracles and made their decision for Christ

The last paragraph of the NPR article linked in your post sums up point (d):
"What the Christians argued was that the Christian God was more powerful than any other god, that this God was active in the world.
He not only brought salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus, he continues to act in the lives of his followers.
He heals the sick.
He casts out demons.
He raises the dead.
This God is very active and he is more powerful than any of the others, and so it came to be a competition between the gods, where the Christians were trying to convince people that their God was the superior one."

I have not read the book but the author explicitly talked about your point C) (II) about Christian charity being a strong attractive force for conversion in the interview.

 

[timtofly]

And on topic to the success of the rapid evangelisation:
BECAUSE the original teachings and life of Jesus were picked up by christians in so many different ways between 30-70 AD, it was also so successful.
Everybody could see his own thing while busy with that evangelisation, everybody was empowered by the Holy Spirit, everybody was doing the prime priority of that early start in 30 AD: evangelise all corners of the world.

Orally, without gospels to have some unified message.

A few points: Judaism was already wide spread and the destruction of the Temple did not change things in regards to the religion itself. The Temple was like the NY stock exchange. It was the economic center. The economic part was taken away, but not the religious part.

On the Holy Spirit and preservation. The same Spirit that held the OT as a complete book together for 400 years had no problems in keeping a uniform and congruent set of gospels together for 40 years. The 11 apostles and Paul went to 12 different geographical areas around the known world. While Paul seemed to be on the heals so to speak of Peter, their travels were more complementary than confrontational. It should be understood that Paul was the educated one, while Peter was the converted fisherman, but Peter had direct training from Jesus Christ, while Paul was working out his education in light of his conversion. While communication may have been slower then than it is now, the Romans did have a fairly significant one in place.

The original group were not that doctrinally different. It was other groups who tried to use their message and turn it into something different, or converts themselves turning it into their own personal gain for recognition for their own profit. Sure they were considered just another sect from a Jewish perspective, but they were not part of Judaism at any time.

The gods the Romans had converted from the Greeks before them were just getting to the point that no one really cared any more. The Romans probably felt at peace and were itching for war to keep their troops busy. There really was not any thing major going on where the gods really appealed to the masses or begged neccessity.