Origins Of Christianity

[steve_bank]

Jumping over from a post by DBT.

A wide subject of which I have only an overview.

DBT: Not to mention Paul's plagiarism of Greek philosophy.

Aquinas was another major influence on Christianity. Read a book The Dumb Ox.

AI Overview

Paul the Apostle and the creation of Christianity | All ...

Paul's writings and ministry show significant Greek influence, particularly in his use of Greek philosophical ideas and rhetorical styles. Born in Tarsus, a center of Greek culture, Paul likely received a strong Greek education, which is reflected in his writings. He utilized Greek philosophical concepts, like those of Plato and the Stoics, to explain Christian theology to his audiences. This engagement with Greek thought allowed him to bridge the gap between Jewish and Greek intellectual traditions, contributing to the rapid spread of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world.


AI Overview

Thomas Aquinas - World History Encyclopedia

Thomas Aquinas heavily incorporated Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle's ideas, into his theological and philosophical system, known as Thomism. He viewed reason, as exemplified in Greek philosophy, as a tool to understand and explain Christian doctrine, even to demonstrate the existence of God. Aquinas's synthesis of faith and reason, drawing from both Greek philosophy and Christian theology, became a cornerstone of medieval thought and continues to influence both religious and philosophical discourse.

AI Overview
The concept of "love your neighbor as yourself," though often associated with religious teachings, also resonates with philosophical ideas, particularly within Greek philosophy. While not a direct quote from any specific Greek philosopher, the sentiment of reciprocal care and concern for others can be found in various schools of thought, particularly in Stoicism and its emphasis on virtue and social responsibility.

The Golden Rule in various forms predates Christianity in most or all earlier cultures. It makes sense and is obvious, the Golden Rule is about maintaining social and civil order. The opposite of the stereotypical image of the American Old West where it was everybody for themselves.

Regardless whether it ca from god in a buening bush, the 10 Commandments were about Jewish tribal civil and social order.

Golden Rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one would want to be treated by them. It is sometimes called an ethics of reciprocity, meaning that one should reciprocate to others how one would like them to treat the person (not necessarily how they actually treat them). Various expressions of this rule can be found in the tenets of most religions and creeds through the ages.[1]

According to Simon Blackburn, the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#cite_note-20"><span>[</span>20<span>]</span></a> A multi-faith poster showing the Golden Rule in sacred writings from 13 faith traditions (designed by Paul McKenna of Scarboro Missions, 2000) has been on permanent display at the Headquarters of the United Nations since 4 January 2002.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#cite_note-poster1-21"><span>[</span>21<span>]</span></a> Creating the poster "took five years of research that included consultations with experts in each of the 13 faith groups."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#cite_note-poster1-21"><span>[</span>21<span>]</span></a> (See also the section on Global Ethic.)

The idea that Christianity has ever represented a who may have been an itinerant Jewish rabbi o0r Jesus was new has no foundation.

Syncretism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Syncretism (/ˈsɪŋkrətɪzəm, ˈsɪn-/)[1] is the practice of combining different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths. While syncretism in art and culture is sometimes likened to eclecticism, in the realm of religion, it specifically denotes a more integrated merging of beliefs into a unified system, distinct from eclecticism, which implies a selective adoption of elements from different traditions without necessarily blending them into a new, cohesive belief system.

 

[DBT]

Greek philosophy is not claimed to be divinely inspirated by the God of the bible. That much of Paul's work comes not from Jesus or God, but Greek philosophers, it's just another thing that puts the Christian claim of divine inspiration on shaky ground.

 

[Learner]

Sure, there is a Greek influence with Paul. Not as you (plural) like to think it is.

All I see is....yes, Paul is portraying Christ with some Greek influence i.e. merely the language style and articulation habits. I mean.... I could give you a Londoners style on Christ as the being the Utimate geezer....


Let's see with some additional input what this quick overview would be.

AI overview:

Paul's Writings Jewish Influence
Paul's writings were deeply influenced by Jewish traditions and the Old Testament. He often referenced its teachings to support his arguments, bridging Jewish traditions with the new covenant in Jesus Christ.
His familiarity with the Old Testament allowed him to connect with both Jewish and Gentile believers, making his message relatable.
Paul's letters were not just for his time; their themes remain relevant today, with his emphasis on unity, grace, and faith continuing to inspire modern readers.

 

[DBT]

Where then is divine inspiration to be found?

 

[Learner]

Greek philosophy is not claimed to be divinely inspirated by the God of the bible.

The "Greek influence" dilemma solved. Nice one DBT

Divine inspiration? It's certainly not Greek philosophy as you state above.. ..Paul didn't get it from there. (Pass that on to steve-b)

 

[steve_bank]

I thought the ancient Greeks saw their gods as active in the world and in their chives.

In a long ago philosophy of region class taught be a Catholic deacon he joked about Greeks having a temple to the unknown god 'just in case they missed one'.

Unknown God - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Unknown God or Agnostos Theos (Ancient Greek: Ἄγνωστος Θεός) is a theory by Eduard Norden first published in 1913 that proposes, based on the Christian Apostle Paul's Areopagus speech in Acts 17:23, that in addition to the twelve main gods and the innumerable lesser deities, ancient Greeks worshipped a deity they called "Agnostos Theos"; that is: "Unknown God", which Norden called "Un-Greek".[1] In Athens, there was a temple specifically dedicated to that god and very often Athenians would swear "in the name of the Unknown God" (Νὴ τὸν Ἄγνωστον, Nē ton Agnōston).[2] Apollodorus,[citation needed] Philostratus[3] and Pausanias wrote about the Unknown God as well.[4]

Yet another twist and evidence of Greek influence?

Creation myths.

Similarities:

Primordial Chaos/Void:
Both Genesis and Greek mythology begin with a state of formless void or deep chaos before creation.

Creation of Light/Water:
Both narratives describe the emergence of light and the presence of water in the early stages of creation.



Differences:

Creator(s):
Genesis presents a single, all-powerful God who creates through spoken commands, while Greek mythology features a pantheon of gods and goddesses with complex genealogies and interactions.

Nature of Creation:
Genesis describes creation as a deliberate, orderly, and benevolent act by a single, sovereign God. Greek myths, particularly those like Hesiod's Theogony, often involve violent conflicts between generations of gods, such as the battle between Uranus and the Titans, to establish cosmic order.

AI Overview
Creation of the World - Greek Mythology Stock Illustration ...
In the beginning of Greek mythology, there was Chaos, a vast, empty void. Out of this void emerged Gaia (Earth), Tartarus (the Underworld), and Eros (Love). Gaia then gave birth to Uranus (Sky), who became her consort. Together, they produced the Titans, the Cyclopes, and the Hecatoncheires. This union and its subsequent conflicts are the core of the Greek creation myth, as detailed in Hesiod's Theogony.

What Is the Greek Creation Myth? -

Like most, if not all peoples of the world, the Greek have their own myths and legends about how the world came to be. While there are a...

www.theoi.com

In the Beginning, There Was Nothing but Chaos

According to Greek Creation myth, in the beginning, there was nothing but Chaos – a formless emptiness or void. It is believed that Chaos was something of a careless god who lived in a dark, chaotic void with no order whatsoever. When Chaos was in-charge, there was no solid land as there is today. The was no sun, no moon, no flowing rivers, no freshwater, no seas, no mountains, and there was no pure air to breathe.

Note: There are a few conflicting stories as some versions say that in the beginning there was Nyx – a big bird with dark wings. In those myths, it is Nyx who gave birth to an egg that later on turned into Chaos. Let’s stick with the Hesiod version of things.

From the Oxford Commentary interpretation and translation of Genesis creation is murky. It could mean out of chaos god brought order.

I can see how one can get drawn into a life of mythology, a bottomless well.

 

[DBT]

Greek philosophy is not claimed to be divinely inspirated by the God of the bible.

The "Greek influence" dilemma solved. Nice one DBT

Divine inspiration? It's certainly not Greek philosophy as you state above.. ..Paul didn't get it from there. (Pass that on to steve-b)

It was more than just influence. Some of it copied practically ad verbatim.

If the bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, why would this be the case?

Why would Paul need the help of Greek philosophers?

 

[steve_bank]

Learner

DBT's post off what is to me the crux of the issues on Christianity.

Jews went through an evolution of beliefs barrowing (synchronism) from other cultures.

Yahweh and Genesis appear at the end of the evolution.

The Noah flood and Gilgamesh. Monotheism was not a Jewish invention.

Greeks and Romans were inspired by gods no different than lancet Jews.

Monotheism, the belief in one God, doesn't have a single creation date, but its emergence is linked to various historical and religious developments. Ancient Egypt saw an early experiment with Atenism, during the reign of Pharaoh Akhenaten around 1350 BCE, where the sun god Aten was declared the sole deity. Around the same period, Zoroastrianism in Persia, with its focus on Ahura Mazda, is also considered an early monotheistic faith. Later, Judaism, with its concept of Yahweh, evolved towards monotheism, particularly after the Babylonian exile. Ultimately, while Atenism was short-lived, Zoroastrianism and Judaism laid the groundwork for the development of monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam

Monotheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Jews were not original and are predated by other cultures, and Christianity is a synthesis of multiple influences. Christian theology which all st6ems from Catholic invention for over 1000 years is rooted inn Greek philosophy.

Given the dominance of Greek thought in the ancient world it would be impossible for Chritinaity to nit be influenced. Look at the influence of American culture around the world.

Before that the French and Brits. Before English French was the inernational language.

The oldest existing complete or near-complete copy of the Bible is the Codex Sinaiticus, which is written in Greek. It dates back to the 4th century CE and includes the entire New Testament, as well as parts of the Old Testament (Septuagint).

Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic as his primary language. It was the common language of the people in Galilee and Judea during his time. While he may have also known Hebrew for religious purposes and Greek for interactions with non-Jews, Aramaic was the language he would have used in his daily life and ministry.

Aramaic is an ancient Semitic language with a rich history, spoken for over 3,000 years. It's closely related to Hebrew and Arabic and was once a widely spoken lingua franca in the Near East. Today, while not widely spoken, Aramaic still exists in various dialects, particularly among small communities like the Assyrians, and is used in Jewish and Christian liturgical practices.

The common them in all iof it is Greek....

 

[Learner]

Greek philosophy is not claimed to be divinely inspirated by the God of the bible.

The "Greek influence" dilemma solved. Nice one DBT

Divine inspiration? It's certainly not Greek philosophy as you state above.. ..Paul didn't get it from there. (Pass that on to steve-b)

It was more than just influence. Some of it copied practically ad verbatim.

I'd like to see the comparison you speak of....Verbatim. Oddly enough - there are similar notions regarding Nordic god's Hindu gods etc.

The bible mentions at least 30 + pagan God's IIRC .. Some gods are the same gods having different names,depending on the locations and nation. All quite similar.

Jesus is apparently Horus, Attis, Mithra..and um ...you get the score. According to some claims.

If the bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, why would this be the case?

Because it's profound in many ways (to mention). Jesus of course is key.

Why would Paul need the help of Greek philosophers?

Paul was an educated man. It would be quite natural for him to have dialogue from a philosophy base to the educated , or even just speaking to the Greek influenced gentiles...for example:
Wouldn't that be logically fitting for the educated readers of philosophy of his day, who knows nothing of Christ, would need Paul to be speaking to them on their platform in their language? We have here in the Gospels, a writer for every "class" and 'level' of understanding perspectives for all types of people.
(Although...corruption confuses it of course)

Sorry I was posting in haste. ok I'm off

 

[steve_bank]

Learner

It is one thing to be ignorant, there is no law against it. It is another thing to be ignorant and being proud and willful about it.

Put down the bible and read something else for a while. Like the earliest known traditions which I believe is considered to be Hinduism and how the belief diversity evolved.

The Golden Rule exi9sts in all traditions predating Chrtianity.

'Love your neighbor as yourself' in the gospels is but one form of the Golden Rule.

 

[Swammerdami]

I appeal to the experts here, asking if my ignorant gleanings are mostly correct or not:
* Islam has a 1400 year-old schism into two branches, but those branches are largely in agreement on the nature of the world, humanity's role, their Prophet's character and teachings, the duties of adherents, etc.
* Buddhism has three branches, but again there's wide agreement on fundamentals.
* Other Asian religions are even more self-consistent.
* It is specifically Christianity and Christianity alone which has fractured repeatedly into sects with completely different viewpoints and emphases. Even by the middle of the 1st century there may have been three sects with widely different ideas, antagonistic to other. New sects continued to "spin off" over the centuries, sometimes accompanied by violent fighting between sects.

Why was Christianity especially prone to such fracturing?

I don't know the answers to such questions. What little studying I do attempt focuses on very early Christianity, i.e. the 1st century AD.

Syncretism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Syncretism (/ˈsɪŋkrətɪzəm, ˈsɪn-/)[1] is the practice of combining different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths. While syncretism in art and culture is sometimes likened to eclecticism, in the realm of religion, it specifically denotes a more integrated merging of beliefs into a unified system, distinct from eclecticism, which implies a selective adoption of elements from different traditions without necessarily blending them into a new, cohesive belief system.

We often see the claim at IIDB that early Christianity was an amalgamation of earlier teachings and "memes." I think this is wrong.

Yes, other men have been resurrected or granted eternal life, but "Jesus died for our sins." The best prognostic for this is in Isaiah, but the "servant" there "had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him." Not very close IMO.

Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Of course some of Jesus' teachings were not original with Jesus, but many religious scholars and philosophers who have studied these matters far more than anyone here state that Jesus' sermons were UNIQUE, different from prior teachings. His parables were novel, and even when they taught an already-known lesson, this creative method of teaching was original. Jesus' teachings are given WITHOUT citing scripture, and almost in defiance of Jewish religious authority: this was very unusual for a Jewish rabbi.

An example of a novel parable is the Return of the Prodigal Son. Can anyone show a precedent for the surprising preference for the disgraced son? Matthew 20 has a similar story.

"Love your enemies." :: "Turn the other cheek." -- These teachings were NOVEL.

Jesus of Nazareth had novel ideas. These ideas and their novelty must have been widely admired: The growth of Christianity was phenomenally fast: There was a thriving Christian community in Antioch, 700 km from Jerusalem, within a few years of the Crucifixion. The sentiment often expressed at IIDB that Jesus was a "nobody" or even non-existent is, IMO, uninformed.

 

[steve_bank]

The topic of the thread is origins of and influences on Christian beliefs and theology, not the historicity of or existence of Jesus.

Specifically what influenced the gospels and NT writers. For example the supernatural gospel Jesus takes the form of a Greek and Roman demigod. God for a father and a human mother.


Non Jewish precedents and commonality with other cultures and traditions.

AI Overview
In Hinduism, demigods, often referred to as devas or devatas, are celestial beings with divine powers who inhabit the heavenly realms. They are not the Supreme God but are considered powerful entities who can grant boons and influence various aspects of life. Examples include Indra (god of thunder), Agni (god of fire), and Varuna (god of water).
Key aspects of demigods in Hinduism:

Subordinate to the Supreme God:
While powerful, demigods are understood to be subordinate to the Supreme Being, often identified as Vishnu or Krishna.

Granting Material Benefits:
Demigods are primarily associated with granting material boons, wealth, health, or other worldly desires.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Jesus' sermons were UNIQUE, different from prior teachings. His parables were novel, and even when they taught an already-known lesson, this creative method of teaching was original. Jesus' teachings are given WITHOUT citing scripture, and almost in defiance of Jewish religious authority: this was very unusual for a Jewish rabbi.

I think the Jesus in the Bible stories is very likely very different at least from the bulk of other Jewish thinkers/teachers of his time and place. That difference could be said to have been most often primarily stylistic. I guess.

Whereas the "experts in law" seem to have tended most often toward reductionistic intepretations (typically with reference to specific scriptural passages and often enough with exegetical justification in terms of specific words used in the referenced verses - hmmm, sort of like lawyers today), Jesus, as depicted, instead seems often to presume that those to whom he spoke were already sufficiently familiar with scriptures. This style or approach could go a long way towards explaining why he sent his apostles to spread his teachings amongst only other people who held to those scriptures.

Regardless, by avoiding excessive reductive analysis, he could impart an often unconventional perspective with the intent - or hope - of imparting a broader understanding decoupled from the interpretations of the generally acknowledged experts (who established convention). Is not the Prodigal Son a broader, grander understanding of the already scripture-based insistence that grudges are not to be held?

There were, of course, interpretative disagreements amongst Jewish scholars even at that time. Why should it have been different then and there than is the case now and everywhere and always has been amongst all peoples?

For instance, the Judaen Jews and the Alexandrian Jews disagreed about whether Jews could keep the company of gentiles, specifically whether they could eat together and, therefore, visit with one another. It is conceivable that such a disagreement might have had a part in Jesus' remark about what goes into a person's mouth is not what defiles. He was, of course, pointing out a broader way of understanding defilement, but, even with that, Jesus was not so much defying established religious authority in such a case as he might have been disagreeing with some interpretations.

Obviously, if he was going to emphasize the already scripture-based notion of loving the neighbor, the stranger, the foreigner, then there was going to be tension with the idea that Jews were not to visit with gentiles.

 

[steve_bank]

It appears the idea of a heavenly exigence somewhere above humans with a supreme or head god with lessor power beings who can respond to human pleas is not exclusive to ancient Jews.

God the supreme being, with Jesus, angels, and saints having less power than the supree being.

The supreme being having power over natural events.

All with precedents.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

The Golden Rule in various forms predates Christianity in most or all earlier cultures. It makes sense and is obvious, the Golden Rule is about maintaining social and civil order.

Even if the teaching (or commandment) to love your neighbor as yourself has an effect of maintaining social and civil order, that does not establish that this teaching in the Old Testament and the New Testament is solely or even primarily for the purpose of maintaining social and civil order. The Parable of the Good Samaritan puts the lie to the idea that loving the neighbor as yourself is simply for the purpose of social/civil order. Do unto others as you would have them do to you (or, in the alternative, do not to others what is hateful to you) might be associated more easily with social/civil order as the primary concern. To love your neighbor as yourself is more deeply personal than it is social/civil, and to love your neighbor as yourself transcends merely social/civil concern. This is the case with any philosophical or religious thinking which asserts and emphasizes the rightness of loving the neighbor or which is re-expressible in terms of loving the neighbor.

 

[steve_bank]

Irre4lvnt to the topic.

Christians exemplified by Leander claim the gospel Jesus and Yahweh are singularly unique in history and of divine origins .

The Christian god and demigod Jesus are true and all other claims to divinity are false.

Clearly a cursory review of mythology refutes that claim. It does not take an expert in mythology.

Framing it academically does not change the Greek influence on Christianity.

Who an HJ may have been and what he was in Israel in his day is irrelevant to what Chrtianity became.

What became the Christian bible canon and the basic theology was derived as a political compromise between competing sects and their leaders. The Council Of Nicaea.

There is little Jewish in Chrtianity. I grew up going to Catholic schools. The rituals were all invented.

Confession
Communion, symbolic cannibalism
Ash Wednesday
Stations Of The Cross

and a long list.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Framing it academically does not change the Greek influence on Christianity.

I have not gotten the impression that Learner denies that there was/is Greek influence.

 

[steve_bank]

Framing it academically does not change the Greek influence on Christianity.

I have not gotten the impression that Learner denies that there was/is Greek influence.

Then you are not very observant.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Irre4lvnt to the topic.

One other thing: if the Golden Rule issue is irrelevant, then it would have been better to refrain from introducing it.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Framing it academically does not change the Greek influence on Christianity.

I have not gotten the impression that Learner denies that there was/is Greek influence.

Then you are not very observant.

Learner said, “Paul was an educated man. It would be quite natural for him to have dialogue from a philosophy base to the educated , or even just speaking to the Greek influenced gentiles...for example:” A philosophy base affecting the presentation is an influence.