So in my two previous posts, how Christianity is a synchratic faith, blending different traditions and ideas together, like streams and tributaries eventually forming a river. The ancient Jews had neither a concept of Hell nor did their god allow for an intercessor figure. These rather crucial elements to the Christian faith came from elsewhere.
So why blend them at all?
Details on the historical Jesus and what the real story behind the Gospels was are sketchy at best. The closest we have (ignoring the Testimonium Flavianum as a rank forgery by Bishop Esubius) is an entry into the Annals of Tacitus somewhere in the early second century. This reference is so oblique it doesn't even mention Jesus by name, only that the "anointed one" of Christianity was crucified by Pilate. There are a few other scraps but nothing that provides any details. The details on the founding of the "early church" are almost as fuzzy, especially if you factor in the problems of interpolation and pseudo-epigraphy into the letters we have.
All that said, the glib assertion that Christianity got started as a unified faith that "got off the ground quickly and spread rapidly in spite of persecution" is just not supported by the facts we do have. As I've previously mentioned, there was not one Christianity but many.
The scenario that seems more compelling to me is that the ancient Jews were chaffing under Roman rule. Yahweh had promised David that his seed would rule for all time. Where was this promised kingdom? Why had Yahweh abandoned them?
Some of the Jews, most notably the historian Josephus, believed that Yahweh was punishing them and using the Romans to do so. Reading the OT, it was not uncommon for Yahweh to abandon the Jews to their enemies when they had sinned against him.
The early Christians may have been trying to resolve this conundrum. Perhaps their promised kingdom was not on earth but existed in a higher place. The "throne" that Yahweh spoke of need not, after all, be an earthly one, right? The follow up Gospels to Mark made an effort to establish a blood line from David to Jesus, thereby reestablishing his House onto a throne that the Romans couldn't touch. And given how, according to apologist dates, the first Gospel was penned at the time of Masada, moving the promised kingdom out of striking distance became the only realistic option.
So why blend them at all?
Details on the historical Jesus and what the real story behind the Gospels was are sketchy at best. The closest we have (ignoring the Testimonium Flavianum as a rank forgery by Bishop Esubius) is an entry into the Annals of Tacitus somewhere in the early second century. This reference is so oblique it doesn't even mention Jesus by name, only that the "anointed one" of Christianity was crucified by Pilate. There are a few other scraps but nothing that provides any details. The details on the founding of the "early church" are almost as fuzzy, especially if you factor in the problems of interpolation and pseudo-epigraphy into the letters we have.
All that said, the glib assertion that Christianity got started as a unified faith that "got off the ground quickly and spread rapidly in spite of persecution" is just not supported by the facts we do have. As I've previously mentioned, there was not one Christianity but many.
The scenario that seems more compelling to me is that the ancient Jews were chaffing under Roman rule. Yahweh had promised David that his seed would rule for all time. Where was this promised kingdom? Why had Yahweh abandoned them?
The Bible Wrote:2 Sam 7:13 He (David) shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
Some of the Jews, most notably the historian Josephus, believed that Yahweh was punishing them and using the Romans to do so. Reading the OT, it was not uncommon for Yahweh to abandon the Jews to their enemies when they had sinned against him.
The early Christians may have been trying to resolve this conundrum. Perhaps their promised kingdom was not on earth but existed in a higher place. The "throne" that Yahweh spoke of need not, after all, be an earthly one, right? The follow up Gospels to Mark made an effort to establish a blood line from David to Jesus, thereby reestablishing his House onto a throne that the Romans couldn't touch. And given how, according to apologist dates, the first Gospel was penned at the time of Masada, moving the promised kingdom out of striking distance became the only realistic option.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
