Divinity of Jesus

I hope you guys don't mind if I join this discussion. I have been following this thread for a stretch.bertot,I think what autmunman is saying is, you are attempting to offer a conclusion about the Historical Jesus based on the Theological Jesus.The historical evidence that is available is the same for all parties, regardless of your Theological position regarding Jesus' divinity. This evidence consists of not only the religious manuscripts and writings themselves, but also all other historical documents of the periods up to and including the time in which Jesus lived, and the period that immediately follows his death.If one accepts on faith that what the Gospels state about Jesus is true then there is nothing to discuss; However, if your goal is to dicuss Jesus in a historical context and arrive at an objective conclusion, this requires one to momentarily divorce oneself from faith and pose the question, what is this all evidence of? What does all of the accumulated historical information tell us is the most likely scenario about who Jesus was, what he thought and believed, as opposed to what the authors of the documents believed about Jesus?Mainstream Christian discussions of the nature of Jesus are invariably Theological rather than Historical. When Mainstream Christians do discuss the history, such discussions concentrate entirely on the four Canonical Gospels and Pauline writings, while ignoring the rest of the evidence that can be used to reach a position. Historians have much more than the Canon to work with; all non-Canonical Gospel accounts and Apocrypha are also sources that must be given equal consideration when piecing things together. Christian Theologians simply throw these other sources into the waste basket as unworthy of historical discussion because they have not been officially sanctioned. Offering a Historical account of who Jesus was based simply on the four Canonical Gospels offers a woefully incomplete picture.Of course, the historical information available is always open to interpretation and opinion regarding meaning and content, so it is natural that different scholars will arrive at different opinions. Regardless, when asking, 'Who was Jesus?', any objective analysis must consider all of the historical evidence and put it into the context of the political, social, cultural, and religious environments of the period in which Jesus lived. Without this approach, you don't get a complete picture - one just ends up reading into the picture what one wants to see.To demonstrate the scope and depth of the issue:Below is an abbreviated list of early christian writings in Chronological order of composition. Keep in mind, this is not comprehensive and does not include the myraid of other fragementary manuscripts and all other historical documents related to Christianity and Judaism during this period. Combine this with all the other historical material avialable, both prior to and following the period.Now, what kind of inferences would you reach based simply on the four Canonical Gospel accounts and the Pauline letters, ignoring all the other sources? Would you say the conclusions reached would be rather limited?Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church FathersEdited by Grizz, : add link

What was it about the movement that made it so appealing to the populace? Certainly something was very special and unique about the message for it to catch on while other upstart movements died off. What was it offering that others were not?You have to look at the world in which the movement took hold. The message of the Gospels, regardless of their truth, offered something that other prophets, religions, and sects did not - a unique vision of hope and a measure of self-respect in the middle of a barbaric existence with an uncertain future.Notions of forgiveness, pity, and divine love were something that simply did not exist in the Pagan religions of the time. Classical Philosophers reviled the notion of compassion. In the Roman world, Pity and Mercy were defects of character, not virtues. This is part of the reason that some early Christian communities were persecuted - they were weak and stubborn and the weak need to be eradicated. If someone is poor, you don't feed him, you throw him off your property. If someone asks for mercy, you revile him for his weakness.Furthermore, the Gods had no love for man -- mankind only existed to appease the Gods by offering sacrifice and worship. A significant portion of taxable income in the classical world was spent on building temples of worship and sacrifice. Both Citizens and subjects of the Empire were forced to pay into this system.The people of the time were hearing the message that the Christian God loves his creation. This God does not demand any sacrifices, offerings, or taxes - God is only demanding that you love him back. This God also commands you to love your neighbor, forgive your enemies, and give assistance to the poor and weak. The Christian message about God was totally unique.Amidst the wars and occupation, the population was being told, 'Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's' -- You don't need to fight the occupation to win, you belong to God and God will have the last say. Unlike the Pagan God's, the Chrisitian God is on your side and Jesus is coming back soon to resuce his followers.Judaism had similar themes to the Christian message, but converts to Judaism not only took on the belief system but were integrated into the Judaic ethnic culture as well. As a Christian, you could retain your cultural identity. You did not have to stop being who you are - you were still a Roman, a Greek, or an Egyptian.I don't really find it surprising that Christianity took hold. I would find it surprising if it didn't.

I am simply forming an opinion in response to a question. As with any opinion, it may or may not be true. I wasn't there -- I don't know. Everything I am offering for discussion can quite possibly be complete and utter rubbish.Why does any religion grow? Any answer needs to include the social, political, religious, and economic climates in which they took hold. I was attempting to offer just such an answer based on what I know of the period. There are about as many theories as to why and how Christianity spread as there are theorists. The same applies for Islam, Buddhism, or any other belief system.

Bargain?, no. Most beneficial?, yes. One had more to gain on a personal level from Christianity than what the pagan gods could offer, both temporally and in the hereafter.What god is not angry for one reason or another? All of the gods of antiquity are prone to spells of anger, rage, or jealousy; this anger is usually, but not always, directed towards mankind. All of the religious literature of antiquity has one thing in common: The deity(ies) is prone to spasmodic fits of anger and rage directed against the creation. The retribution usually takes the form of destruction and violence.Any members of a religion or sect will be commanded through Divine mandate to adhere to the requirements put before them. Failure to comply brings forth wrath, anger, and punishment. Divine retribution for mortal indiscretions is not exactly a new concept to Pagan society. If anything, the whole world of Paganism was immersed in the fear of godly retribution.For Pagan Rome, the gods were very temperamental and the culture spent a great deal of time, money, and effort simply to keep the gods placated, happy, and off their backs. In return, the gods would keep the crops from rotting, keep the invaders out, and keep the economy prosperous. Huge sums of money were spent on constantly building and refurbishing the pagan temple structures and this nearly bankrupt the economy during the reign of Nero. People were growing weary of the economic toll created by the temple culture but felt too powerless and fearfull to challenge the gods. When the crops soured or there was word of calamity, this was a sign to build more temples and offer more sacrifice. Everything that happened in Rome during this period was somehow thought to be related to the happenings in the temples.Pagans no doubt heard the message that the God of Jesus also demanded adherence to divine mandate and would meet out punishment to those who refused to listen. But in addition to the typical anger and retribution directed towards the derelicts, this unique God of Jesus was capable of offering something to his followers at no extra charge, something the Pagan Gods never did - purpose and meaning to life, compassion, pity, love, brotherhood, forgiveness. These Divine messages simply did not exist in Pagan Rome, anywhere.Furthermore, this God does not require temples or taxes to keep his anger in check; This God does not stipulate that the success of this year's crop is contingent upon a sufficient amount of temple sacrifice or ritualistic groveling. No burnt offerings or devotionals are required to stop disease, pestilence, famine, or foreign invasion. Instead, they heard something different - 'God will provide for his followers free of charge. Do not worry what you are to eat or drink. The God of Jesus takes care of the least of his creation, so he will take care of you as well.'Early Christian were also sharing the news that, Unlike the pagan gods who simply toy with mankind, this one God is coming soon to rescue his followers and usher them to paradise. If you are not onboard when this happens, you have a serious problem.How early Christians went about proselytizing, we simply don't know. There are no written records from the period following the crucifixion up to the period when Paul of Tarsus compiled his first letter. That is roughly two-decades of silence. Paul is the first individual to record anything about the dynamics of the Christian community. The Gospels had not yet been put into writing at this early time and were a relatively late arrival. Everything was conveyed via word-of-mouth. Jesus commanded his followers to go forth and preach the good news, not write down what you hear and pass around manuscripts. When the Gospels started appearing in print, there were lots of them, and no doubt they contained pieces of the verbal tradition that was being passed around.How did early Christians spread the message? Did they offer to share dinner, stand on the street corner and preach, invite passer-by's to informal gatherings? Perhaps some were simply curious about the stories regarding the band of followers of this Jewish mystic named Jesus, who they hard was raised from the dead. We do know Christians were not persecuted at this time and were free to go about their business as they pleased. It wasn't until converts to Christianity started depleting the ranks from the temples that Rome took notice. Rome did not prohibit religious freedom as long as the sect did not incite the masses. We can assume then that they had the freedom to proselytize as they saw fit.Regardless of how they went about proselytizing, the message was obviously appealing enough to get people to stick around to listen to the whole story. My opinion as sated is, the Christian community not only offered the pagan and gentile a revolutionary way of thinking about the Divine, but also a sense of purpose, meaning, and civility, all packaged up with an offer of eternal paradise that would be bestowed upon believers when Jesus soon returned to rescue his followers from this world.Not a bad exchange at all IMO.

That is my personal opinion on how Christianity was able to rise from being just one of a multitude of small sects within Judaism to enjoying popularity with the Gentile and Pagan communities. The OP was inviting us to share opinions based on historical records.Regarding my personal opinions on the other questions you posed? Those would be great topics for new threads. It would be better for us all if we spent a bit of time outlining how our opinions were formed on specific questions rather than lumping them together here as bundled statements. I advise this approach simply to avoid the usual static that will turn this thread into a WWF Smack-Down. Any simple answer offered up will inevitably result in members attacking the conclusion rather than the methods or reasons used to arrive at them.

Hi,All theistic religions of antiquity have displayed God as prone to fits of anger and rage that results in acts of violence and destruction. In Judea-Christian literature, God's destructive anger against Man is portrayed as playing out Locally(Sodom and Gomorrah), Globally(The Flood), and Universally(The Apocalypse).Regardless, if what you were saying was true, then it would lend even more credence to the opinions I expressed earlier in reply to lano.

Or perhaps there are many sides to every story and we all tell our own. More words are written and more stories are told about Jesus than any other figure in history.Jesus told his story.40-120 years later, the author(s) of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, Thomas.....told their story as well. Paul of Tarsus also told his story, as did the historians Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and then Martin Luther, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas,.....Today we have stories from Marcus Borg, John Crossan, NT Wright, Pope Benedict, Tim LeHay, Pat Robertson, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, You and I. Each one will tell a different story about who Jesus was or whether Jesus was at all.All history is story, but not all story is history.