What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[abaris]

Apparently, three hundred years after Jesus' supposed death, the early Christians weren't a peaceful lot.

It really depends. There were probably as many christian sects as there are today. And as I said earlier, some prominent figures had the right ideas in opposing military service and capital punishment. Some others literally grazed on the banks of the river Jordan until they were killed off by shepards not liking the competition for their sheep. And others, when they gained influence in certain regions, started a killing spree that rivals ISIS. And they too destroyed priceless relics and books in the process.

The story of early christianity is a story of conflicting believes and lastly sucking up to the Roman emperor. And the following centuries are marked by the Roman church striving to wipe out all the competition.

[watchamadoodle]

Who were the early christians you were taught to emulate?

That's a good question... Paul always turned me off, and I ignored his epistles. My favorite NT books were Matthew, 1 Peter, 1 John, and James. I'm not sure who actually wrote those books, but I liked them.

The characters I admired in the NT were doubting Thomas, Pilate, Judas, John, and of course Jesus (he was the bee's knees with those parables).

EDIT: Pilate and Judas probably seem weird, so let me explain. I admired Pilate, because he said "what is truth", and he generally seemed to be a decent person. I didn't admire Judas, but I felt sorry for him. He wasn't such a bad guy that he deserved to be hated so much by Christians IMO.

---

@DeistPaladin, I'm sure you're familiar with the quote from Josephus about the stoning of James. How do you reconcile that quote with the idea that Jesus was not a historical figure?

I know it's not addressed to me but three possibilities if one wants to take the Christ-myth route:

1) Josephus is just, in all likelihood, repeating what Christians thought about James: that he was a brother of Christ, whether biologically or spiritually.
2) James was part of a sect called "brothers of the Lord" or "brothers of Christ."
3. The identification with Christ is a later interpolation that was not originally written by Josephus.

From wikipedia: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Regardless of whether James was a sibling, cousin, or fraternal brother, this seems to suggest a real person named Jesus who was called Christ (Anointed/Messiah/...) by some. The stoning of James happened when Josephus was an adult, and he was an important Jew. The Christians were unpopular enough that James was stoned. This was only a few decades after the crucifixion. It seems to me that if there was some question about the existence of Jesus, then Josephus would have mentioned that in his quote.

[Drich]

Who were the early christians you were taught to emulate?

That's a good question... Paul always turned me off, and I ignored his epistles. My favorite NT books were Matthew, 1 Peter, 1 John, and James. I'm not sure who actually wrote those books, but I liked them.

The characters I admired in the NT were doubting Thomas, Pilate, Judas, John, and of course Jesus (he was the bee's knees with those parables).

EDIT: Pilate and Judas probably seem weird, so let me explain. I admired Pilate, because he said "what is truth", and he generally seemed to be a decent person. I didn't admire Judas, but I felt sorry for him. He wasn't such a bad guy that he deserved to be hated so much by Christians IMO.

So your question is how do we know the gospels and the books you mentioned are reliable, and not made up?

Just on the surface, there are 25,000 different manuscripts of the bible dating back to the end of the second to the beginning of the third century. We have more copies of biblical manuscripts than we do of any other event in history of the time period combined. To question the validity of the bible is to question all that we know of that time period.

Why didn't you like Paul or what He taught?

Jesus didn't seem to have hate for judas, so for me I don't hate him either. To hate judas is to not understand basic christianity...

Judas filled a much needed role in the fulfillment of prophesy.

Piloet on the other hand was a fence sitter who did not want to upset the jews or Rome.

I use to think he wasn't a bad guy, but then I saw 'the passion'.. (Which illustrates a biblical truth I did not fully grasp.) after finding Jesus innocent, he had him scourged.

That is like going through a high profile murder trial, found innocent, then sentenced to being beaten to an inch of your life then nailed to a cross because 'the people' don't care about justice, they want your blood.

Piloet was a weak leader and a coward for not doing the right thing even by today's standards.

[Anomalocaris]

One wonders whether inshallah is the direct menifestation of preservation of a certain brutal fatalism that might have prevailed amongst the pre-Islamic Bedouin society with their marginal wondering existence and internecine tribal warfare. This would make it a different thing from Calvinism, which is a Christian theologically derived thing with tenuous connection to pre-Christian social and moral norms.

I agree that conceptually they're probably disparate, each with a unique origin.

I also think that the harshness of the desert probably did impose a harsh sociocultural outlook, including the idea thattaking care of someone who appears doomed might be a frivolous waste of the clan's limited resources. Whether that morphed into inshallah or not is beyond my reckoning.

---

I think the ideals of islam has hewed close to the ethics of patriarchical tribal mob living strained and marginal existences in hostile land, and permanently engaged in vicious internecine conflicts. When stressed, it falls back to the principle that freedom of thought and experimentation that does not contribute to social control and to prevailing in internecine conflicts is an unaffordable luxury. This may be part of the reason why bulk of societies under its sway, when confronted with the superiority of modernity, has adopted so poorly, one might say uniquely poorly, to modernity in commerce, industry, politics, and technology.

[Mudhammam]

From wikipedia: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Regardless of whether James was a sibling, cousin, or fraternal brother, this seems to suggest a real person named Jesus who was called Christ (Anointed/Messiah/...) by some. The stoning of James happened when Josephus was an adult, and he was an important Jew. The Christians were unpopular enough that James was stoned. This was only a few decades after the crucifixion. It seems to me that if there was some question about the existence of Jesus, then Josephus would have mentioned that in his quote.

Representing the contrary view, Richard Carrier argues that the words "the one called Christ" likely resulted from the accidental insertion of a marginal note added by some unknown reader.[31] He proposes that the original text referred to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus mentioned in the same narrative, given the straight forward nature of the text without that insertion. James (the brother of Jesus) is executed by Ananus. The Jews get angry at this. Complaints and demands are made. The King removes Ananus from being High Priest. Jesus, the son of Damneus, is made high priest.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

[Minimalist]

@DeistPaladin, I'm sure you're familiar with the quote from Josephus about the stoning of James. How do you reconcile that quote with the idea that Jesus was not a historical figure?

Go back and that passage carefully. Josephus never actually says that the sentence was carried out. What he says is that leading citizens ran to the king:

but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified;

Jerusalem was a small place. How long do you think it would have taken them to get there?

[Crossless2.0]

Piloet on the other hand was a fence sitter who did not want to upset the jews or Rome.

I use to think he wasn't a bad guy, but then I saw 'the passion'.. (Which illustrates a biblical truth I did not fully grasp.) after finding Jesus innocent, he had him scourged.

That is like going through a high profile murder trial, found innocent, then sentenced to being beaten to an inch of your life then nailed to a cross because 'the people' don't care about justice, they want your blood.

Piloet was a weak leader and a coward for not doing the right thing even by today's standards.

You must be joking. Have you ever read anything about Pilate outside the NT? A fence sitter worried about upsetting the Jews?

[Minimalist]

"But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity.


-Philo of Alexandria, writing to Caligula c 40 AD, speaking of Pilate.

[Mudhammam]

"But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity.


-Philo of Alexandria, writing to Caligula c 40 AD, speaking of Pilate.

Doesn't that kind of make the possibility of his freeing an actual criminal and putting to death a religious heretic, by toying with the mob and forcing them to vote---during Jerusalem's most holy festival---a bit more credible?

[Anomalocaris]

Piloet on the other hand was a fence sitter who did not want to upset the jews or Rome.

I use to think he wasn't a bad guy, but then I saw 'the passion'.. (Which illustrates a biblical truth I did not fully grasp.) after finding Jesus innocent, he had him scourged.

That is like going through a high profile murder trial, found innocent, then sentenced to being beaten to an inch of your life then nailed to a cross because 'the people' don't care about justice, they want your blood.

Piloet was a weak leader and a coward for not doing the right thing even by today's standards.

You must be joking. Have you ever read anything about Pilate outside the NT? A fence sitter worried about upsetting the Jews?

Drich never jokes. He always is a joke, albeit one that is old and tired even at its start.