Reads completely like bad fantasy. Recently I read about a jewish sect that partially led to the creation of Christianity and there's purification, and temples, and wild beliefs. It makes the modern day devout seem completely normal, hard to believe it was the reality of religion such a short time ago.
-
Features
I started reading 'A History of Christianity' by Paul Johnson and it's hilarious
- Thread starter rousseau
- Start date
Perspicuo
Veteran Member
I hate it when I buy a bad book. Paying 6 or more dollars for one I wouldn't give 2 cents to read. I feel your pain.
ideologyhunter
Contributor
I just buzzed through the user reviews of the book on Amazon. One reviewer -- who liked the book! -- referred to Paul Johnson as a "mistress spanker" in his heading. What's that about?! The readers who hated the book claim that Johnson discusses Christianity as a construct of human imagination, not revelation from Above. I don't think I'll slog through this one. I do like 'painful' reads, but I gotta be in the mood. Ten minutes with the dentist office illustrated kiddie bible is always time well spent. Love that Loretta Young-style Eve.
Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic book, the hilarious part is religion around the year 0.
It seems like the weirdest parts had to do with Judaism leading up to the beginning of Christianity. I'm sure Christianity had some weird parts, but between 0-200 A.D. everything seems to go pretty much as expected: a large number of sects struggling for supremacy and trying to figure out what the hell Christianity actually is.
Underseer
Contributor
Google is your friend.
http://crookedtimber.org/2008/07/22/book-review-savage-mules/#comment-247018
excerpt said:
Sounds like he would more accurately be described as the spankee.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Or spankEDGoogle is your friend.
http://crookedtimber.org/2008/07/22/book-review-savage-mules/#comment-247018
excerpt said:
Sounds like he would more accurately be described as the spankee.
Perspicuo
Veteran Member
What do the author's sexual kinks have to do with the book?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Nothing.
Unless you can't find any other way to get people to not read the book...
Revisiting this from the beginning with a little more focus and plan to try to finish it before the year's end.
Just finished the first section titled 'The Survival of the Jesus Sect'. As far as I understood it went something like this:
- Jesus life and teaching were shrouded by lack of evidence
- Pauline theology becomes the 'orthodox' sect amongst multitudes of sects after nearly being reabsorbed by judaism
- Rome becomes associated with the orthodox sect, and uses it's power to absorb extreme Christian sects
- Eventually an organizational structure and philosophy is developed making Christianity a singular, and coherent organization
Just finished the first section titled 'The Survival of the Jesus Sect'. As far as I understood it went something like this:
- Jesus life and teaching were shrouded by lack of evidence
- Pauline theology becomes the 'orthodox' sect amongst multitudes of sects after nearly being reabsorbed by judaism
- Rome becomes associated with the orthodox sect, and uses it's power to absorb extreme Christian sects
- Eventually an organizational structure and philosophy is developed making Christianity a singular, and coherent organization
Gotten a bit deeper into the second section, titled 'From Martyrs to Inquisitors'. So far it seems to go into a little more detail about how Christianity became associated with the Roman state and started to become a more coherent organization.
My understanding of what I've read so far is a little conflicted because at one point it was saying that Christian sects were generally tolerated in the Roman world from around 100-300 AD, but then it has some passages describing a few examples of Christian persecution. I assume the cause would have been that the persecuted were the more extreme sects.
As time moved along, I believe it was around 250-300 AD that Christianity started to really organize and form a clerical class, and inevitably Rome realized that this structure was compatible with their own goals, and so the two aligned. From that point on I'd assume Rome reinforced Christianity's strength but I haven't gone much further.
In and around this period there was some debate over the powers of the clerical class, and eventually the power for clergy to forgive sin was conferred to themselves. The logic behind the decision isn't coming back to me right now, but I assume it was something of an organizational decision to strengthen the Church.
My understanding of what I've read so far is a little conflicted because at one point it was saying that Christian sects were generally tolerated in the Roman world from around 100-300 AD, but then it has some passages describing a few examples of Christian persecution. I assume the cause would have been that the persecuted were the more extreme sects.
As time moved along, I believe it was around 250-300 AD that Christianity started to really organize and form a clerical class, and inevitably Rome realized that this structure was compatible with their own goals, and so the two aligned. From that point on I'd assume Rome reinforced Christianity's strength but I haven't gone much further.
In and around this period there was some debate over the powers of the clerical class, and eventually the power for clergy to forgive sin was conferred to themselves. The logic behind the decision isn't coming back to me right now, but I assume it was something of an organizational decision to strengthen the Church.
I should add an addendum to that. By 'Christianity' in the bolded I'm referring to the Orthodox, or Catholic, sect, which had throughout the centuries attempted to align itself with Jesus' actual teachings, although not very successfully.
The Roman State and Orthodox sect each realized that extreme Christian sects were their common enemy, which was partly why they aligned.
Made it to the end of the second section (covering 250-450 AD) and found quite a bit of interesting stuff in the second half.
The general sense I got from the period was that in the third century you had multitudes of competing sects, with the Orthodox sect becoming stronger and stronger, to the point that it started looking like a good candidate for an imperial religion and association with the Roman state. Couple that with extreme religious sects being a common enemy of orthodoxy and the Roman state, and you had a good match politically.
Then in and around the end of the fourth century as the orthodox and other sects of Christianity solidified you started to see more debate over the actual theology and philosophy of the religion. One of the main points of contention around that time was over the divine/human status of Jesus. Different sects and thinkers around the time looked at the problem differently, but in the Orthodox strain there was eventually a decree over the problem. Quoting from Wikipedia:
And this caused one of the first major schisms between 'Eastern' and 'Western' Christianity at the time. Around this time Christianity also started to over-take and under-develop paganism as a major force.
In and around the fifth century the orthodox strain began re-orienting itself to start winning over the masses. They made their services more elaborate, buildings more grandiose, and so on. At the time the main aim of this was to underplay the Eastern 'Arian' form. Around this time judaism started to be looked at with more suspicion as well.
The church also started developing ideas on sex and marriage around the beginning of the 5th century, abstinence being one of the major ideas coming out of it. Lots of debate, but it's interesting that even Paul Johnson, the author of the book, notes that most of these 'rules' had nothing to do with Jesus himself, or even early Christian teachings.
Then Paul Johnson spends the last couple pages talking about Augustine, who he describes as having the most profound affect on Christianity after Paul. The sense I got out of those couple pages was that Augustine, and the general motion of Christianity at the time, was pushing toward Orthodox Christianity's complete control over society. People started to be coerced into the idea that they needed to submit to the Christian God and Church or else risk eternal damnation, and this direction supposedly dictated the brunt of the medieval era.
Note that the dates I'm using are a bit flimsy as the author jumps around a lot and it's hard to keep track of what happens when, and a lot of it is a slow evolution rather than discrete events.
Next up: Mitred Lords and Crowned Ikons (450-1054)
The general sense I got from the period was that in the third century you had multitudes of competing sects, with the Orthodox sect becoming stronger and stronger, to the point that it started looking like a good candidate for an imperial religion and association with the Roman state. Couple that with extreme religious sects being a common enemy of orthodoxy and the Roman state, and you had a good match politically.
Then in and around the end of the fourth century as the orthodox and other sects of Christianity solidified you started to see more debate over the actual theology and philosophy of the religion. One of the main points of contention around that time was over the divine/human status of Jesus. Different sects and thinkers around the time looked at the problem differently, but in the Orthodox strain there was eventually a decree over the problem. Quoting from Wikipedia:
And this caused one of the first major schisms between 'Eastern' and 'Western' Christianity at the time. Around this time Christianity also started to over-take and under-develop paganism as a major force.
In and around the fifth century the orthodox strain began re-orienting itself to start winning over the masses. They made their services more elaborate, buildings more grandiose, and so on. At the time the main aim of this was to underplay the Eastern 'Arian' form. Around this time judaism started to be looked at with more suspicion as well.
The church also started developing ideas on sex and marriage around the beginning of the 5th century, abstinence being one of the major ideas coming out of it. Lots of debate, but it's interesting that even Paul Johnson, the author of the book, notes that most of these 'rules' had nothing to do with Jesus himself, or even early Christian teachings.
Then Paul Johnson spends the last couple pages talking about Augustine, who he describes as having the most profound affect on Christianity after Paul. The sense I got out of those couple pages was that Augustine, and the general motion of Christianity at the time, was pushing toward Orthodox Christianity's complete control over society. People started to be coerced into the idea that they needed to submit to the Christian God and Church or else risk eternal damnation, and this direction supposedly dictated the brunt of the medieval era.
Note that the dates I'm using are a bit flimsy as the author jumps around a lot and it's hard to keep track of what happens when, and a lot of it is a slow evolution rather than discrete events.
Next up: Mitred Lords and Crowned Ikons (450-1054)
I've both finished the third section, and have decided to start blogging about it. You can see my posts here:
A Series on the History of Christianity
The Rise and Rescue of the Jesus Sect (50BC - 250AD)
From Martyrs to Inquisitors (250 - 450)
Mitred Lords and Crowned Ikons (450-1054)
The idea is to produce quick, readable summations of each section, leaving out a lot of detail, in order to give a sense of how Christianity developed over time.
A Series on the History of Christianity
The Rise and Rescue of the Jesus Sect (50BC - 250AD)
From Martyrs to Inquisitors (250 - 450)
Mitred Lords and Crowned Ikons (450-1054)
The idea is to produce quick, readable summations of each section, leaving out a lot of detail, in order to give a sense of how Christianity developed over time.
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
Isn't Jesus' teaching itself the evidence? Is it suggested by the book that there are some missing bits or that more of the exact same types of stories about Him would lift the shroud making Him more real?
How early does the book date the origin of Pauline theology? Christian bible scholars date it very early and think that Paul himself draws on even earlier sources of information.
Sarpedon
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,976
- Location
- MN, US
- Basic Beliefs
- the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
The teachings of Jesus cannot be considered evidence of his existence, just as the existence of the book 'the Wit and Wisdom of Tyrion Lannister' cannot be considered evidence for the existence of Tyrion Lannister or the continent of Westeros.
There exists a body of books that are CALLED the 'teachings of Jesus.' Whether they actually ARE or not is without evidence. You cannot define evidence into existence by simply calling a sourceless book 'the teachings of Jesus.'
There exists a body of books that are CALLED the 'teachings of Jesus.' Whether they actually ARE or not is without evidence. You cannot define evidence into existence by simply calling a sourceless book 'the teachings of Jesus.'
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
Well duh...obviously there is dispute over whether the teachings are authentic Jesus' sayings.
But the teachings we do have are the only evidence we have - full stop.
What exactly does it mean to say "shrouded by a lack of evidence" if additional evidence looks the same as what we already have? More documents claiming that Jesus said "blessed are the meek" won't prevent people from asserting that those documents are copies, fakes, inventions.
But the teachings we do have are the only evidence we have - full stop.
What exactly does it mean to say "shrouded by a lack of evidence" if additional evidence looks the same as what we already have? More documents claiming that Jesus said "blessed are the meek" won't prevent people from asserting that those documents are copies, fakes, inventions.
The point Johnson makes is that there is not a lot of recorded evidence about Jesus' life to draw conclusions from. Evidence exists, but it is limited. That is what I meant by 'shrouded by a lack of evidence'. If there was more recorded evidence we would know more about Jesus.
If I could ask everyone to not make this thread about the existence of Jesus, though, that'd be great. There are many other threads that have discussed this topic in depth which can be found with a quick search.
If I could ask everyone to not make this thread about the existence of Jesus, though, that'd be great. There are many other threads that have discussed this topic in depth which can be found with a quick search.
Herrick
Junior Member
Hi Rousseau. Do you recommend this book? I enjoyed Johnson's History of the American People. If you don't recommend this book, are there any other good histories of Christianity you'd recommend?