|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Marketing Of Christianity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
To get things started it might be interesting to look at the products being marketed by some of the early players in the market; Jesus, James (brother of Jesus), Peter, John and Paul.
James, Peter and John were said to be disciples and companions of Jesus while Paul was a self appointed apostle. Jesus himself was a Jew, and never other than a Jew. He seemed to see himself not as a priest but rather as a rabbi; a teacher and judge. James was definitely a Jew and a strong supporter for strict observance of Jewish traditions, practices and law. John (as seen through the lens of the Gospel of John) saw the emphasis not so much on how to live ones life and the relationships of man to society and to god but rather solely on absolute adoration of the caricature of Jesus as divinity. Miracles were not for the results of the miracle but rather solely as evidence of Jesus divinity. Paul's product was quite different than any of those, broader in scope and acceptance of non-observance of so called laws and tradition, more open to adopting pagan practices, cultures and rites and more concerned with social practices than John. His was a pragmatic product that evolved from a simple End of Times position to one of long term organization and evolution. Peter seemed to be the conciliator, the one that kept different groups in the same room but allowed them to have their own small tables. Gradually Paul's product came to dominate the early church partially because he seemed to live longer, was more open to compromise with outside authority and the fact that his conversion did nothing to diminish his obsessions and the fact that he was always writing inter-office memos. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin rites not rights Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
The motives it seem was to convince others that their product was the right product. Paul at least constantly modified his product based on demographics of the potential buyers.
AbE:
Yes, Paul advertised that God wanted Paul to market Paul's product to new possible clients. It seems you don't like the word "marketing" but when someone says "My tonic will cure warts and make you feel 20 again", that is marketing. Whether the product is insurance or savings accounts or education or snake oil, when you tell people to try it that is marketing. Whether the goal is to make money, interest folk in a cause, help cure pimples, make them fall in love, reduce inventory, fill a stadium or the pews, it is marketing. Edited by jar, : see AbE: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
What makes you think Paul saw Jesus as God? What makes you think Jesus saw himself as God? What makes you think James or Peter saw Jesus as God? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
You seem to be wandering all over the place. Acts is still later in the development cycle. The Gospel of Luke-Acts was likely written sometime around 80-90 AD by an anonymous source and adding emphasis to what had evolved over the preceding half century. One key feature is the Pentecost and thus that narrative played a significant role; thus the mention of the Holy Spirit. But again, what is shown is the evolution of the various products being marketed that were far different than what might have been marketed by Jesus or James (brother of Jesus). Also, remember proselyte simply means a convert. Paul was a proselyte. Peter was a proselyte. John was a proselyte. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I'm not sure what that quite means, but maybe this might help clear some points up. Let's start with the positions of the initial group where known. Most of the disciples saw the movement as a Jewish sect. In particular, James (and to some extent Peter) were strongly opposed to the movement being anything new, outside of traditional Judaism. This was the first instance of adopting and evolving a Jewish tradition to attach a Jesus centric mythos. If Jesus death is placed around the year 30AD then Paul's conversion took place 4-10 years afterwards. Does that help? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Sheesh. What does the evidence show. Jesus ministry did not last longer so speculation is simply silly. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Again, not quite. There is no evidence Stephen was at the Pentecost event. Stephen was likely a Deacon of the Church in Jerusalem. AbE: Maybe a little more history is needed. The story of Stephen begins in Acts 6 and carries on through most of Acts 7 where his speech is recorded. Stephen was appointed by the Twelve as a Deacon and his job duties were to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, comfort the sorrowful. His was a mission of doing. He too was a Jew and saw the Jesus movement as completely Jewish, not a new religion but rather a Reformation. In fact his defense at his trial (recounted in Acts 7) was that Jesus and his movement was not to destroy Judaism or create a new and separate religion but rather Reformation. And it was that message, "The problem is YOU not Jesus or the Mexicans or the Muslims or the liberals but YOU. " and it was that message that got him stoned. It's not healthy to tell the voters that they are the problem. Edited by jar, : see AbE: Edited by jar, : fix sub-title Edited by jar, : appalin spallin as a not a a Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Stop and think. Stop just believing what you have been told because it is comforting. See what the actual evidence shows. First, there was no sudden or dramatic changes. Paul never experienced Jesus Death,Burial, and Resurrection except from being told the stories AFTER whatever actually happened on his way to Damascus. And very little changed about Paul after the incident; he was still the fanatic, set in his ways, not open to compromise unless it is in his advantage, opinionated person that he was before the incident. Plus, all that is still five to ten years after Jesus death. There was very little change in the Disciples either; remember Peter had been willing to draw sword when Jesus was arrested. John's Gospel is thought to have gone through several iterations and been written at least a full half century after Jesus death. And Paul's teachings were only accepted after considerable discord and mainly because Paul outlived most of the other Apostles and built up a relatively effective organization. Plus, while Paul was initially just another apocalyptic preacher he was forced to evolve his theology to fit the reality that many of the initial tenets were just plain wrong.
But there was NOT much of a dramatic transformation. As you have been shown, the story of Paul's experience did undergo dramatic transformation as it got revised and retold, but the only real change was one of allegiance; Paul switched sides. Nor was Paul only concerned with life after death. If you actually read what we have that is attributed to Paul the vast majority concerns how to get along with life day to day, how to get along with others, how to get along with those who do not believe as you do, how to manage the business of a "Church". Stop listening to them what try to sell the proof texts and mined little quotes taken out of context. If they give you the passage you quoted above make them also provide all the other versions of the story and determine who actually wrote them (if possible) and when they got written (usually easier). I don't think anyone doubts that Paul experienced something dramatic, but that is not evidence that anything really happened, only that Paul believed something happened. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
As you may know by now I find all of 1 Cor 15 pretty much useless and in fact some of the very worst of Christianity. Fortunately it is just one part of a fairly long letter written pretty early in Paul's ministry before reality set in. It was written while he was still the apocalyptic the end is nigh Snake Oil Salesman. As you read on through 1 Cor he returns to the topic of how to behave while still living.
Do people today still follow Mohammad? Do people today still follow the teachings of the Buddha? Do people today still follow the teachings of Mencius and Confucius? Perhaps it might be a matter of belief?
Belief can be a powerful motivator for both good and ill. But conversions happen all the time and in every area of life yet seldom does the individuals basic traits change. Their awareness of those traits might change and their goals might change but the basics, their training in critical thinking, in evidence based decision making, their nature usually remain the same. If you read on the 1 Cor 15 you will see Paul the many facing enemies rise again to the surface. The enemies changed but Paul did not.
Paul would only be happy marketing a new Pauline Christianity. Paul was not happy marketing James' Christianity or Peter's Christianity, Paul insisted on marketing Paul's Christianity. Pauline Christianity is based on Paul amplifying and explaining what Jesus really meant. What you see in Paul's Epistles is Jesus through the filter of Paul. And even that evolved over time from the apocalyptic the end is nigh initial position to his later position that the end is not likely any time soon and so we need to concentrate on how we live this life. The error so many seem to make is picking one little section, 1 Cor 15:1-4 instead of 1 Cor 1 through 1 Cor 16 and understanding that 1 Cor is just ONE interoffice memo from a man that loved writing interoffice memos. Remember that Jesus ministry only lasted 2-3 years. Paul converted when he was about 25-30 year old and his ministry lasted for over 30 years, ten times as long as Jesus ministry. We should not base an understanding of a thirty year ministry on one paragraph from one interoffice memo. AbE2: the sequel As I think I have mentioned I went to an Episcopal Church school (St Paul's) where Paul's writings were a big part of the Sacred Studies curriculum. Two in particular were emphasized, the second actually being the school motto. The school had been around for awhile since it was first organized back in 1849. Here is the first example, also from 1 Cor, all of Chapter 13. quote: Same interoffice memo but a different emphasis. The second is from the end of Paul's ministry. quote: Note he does not say he won the fight. Note he does not say he fought a fight. It is that he fought the GOOD fight. This was our motto, that we would try to do right; that we would fight the good fight; no idea if we would win or loose but the important point was the trying. Edited by jar, : ten times as long not three Edited by jar, : see AbE2: Edited by jar, : appalin grammer there ---> their Edited by jar, : and again in same sentence. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Okay, if that is what you want to believe that's fine. But when it comes to Paul things are slightly different. You asked "In your opinion based on what you have studied, would Paul have been content to market a new and improved Judaism versus a new product known as Christianity? Why or why not?" and the answer to that question was "No. Paul was not content to market a new and improved Judaism versus a new product known as Christianity or even a version of Christianity that was not Pauline Christianity."
Again, what does that even have to do with anything in this topic? Have you read all of John 8? You do understand that we don't know who wrote John but that it is a later revisionist view? John is NOT Paul and the Gospel of John was likely not even written until near, if not after, Paul's death. It has nothing to do with Pauline Christianity but is yet another version to be marketed.
What does that even mean? How does someone know they have a relationship of any kind or duration or interval with God? Edited by jar, : left out a closing " Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
What did Jesus say? As reported in Matthew: quote: As reported in Mark: quote: As reported in Luke: quote: And as found in Matthew 25: quote: Next, understand language. The people of the period were not really concerned with consistency and also constantly used forms of speech as a way of promoting understanding. Take your example of Judaism teaching that God has no form as an example. Even if that was true (and for the most part it is) that did not stop them from writing stories where God did have form (see Genesis 2&3) and where God not only had form but appeared to folk, wrestled with folk, stopped for water with folk, talked to folk, took advice from folk. Stop expecting accuracy and remember that much of the Bible stories (almost all the important parts) are just Mythology. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
And you are free to object, but of course you would be wrong. Genesis 1 is a myth meant to explain the Sacred Week and concept of the Sabbath. Genesis 2&3 is a myth meant to explain why we fear snakes, why childbirth seems more painful for women than for other animals, why we farm instead of being hunter gatherers, why we wear clothes, why women are subject to men... Exodus is a myth to explain the origin of the Nation Israel. Numbers is a manufactured genealogy. With the exception of just a very few instances (laws, proverbs) all of the Old Testament is mythology. The same is true of the New Testament. There are the tales that explain why Savuot became the Christian Pentecost, why the Jewish Passover became Easter, why the Pagan Winter festival became the Christian Christmas. There are the three Synotptic Gospels each recounting a different view of Jesus life and ministry and then the revisionist Gospel of John. These all create a myth, the myth of Jesus life. Even if Jesus lived, what we see based on the Bible stories are fictionalized accounts, mythology. Stop trivializing mythology. It is essential.
But Phat, as long as we are alive all we can know is the myth, the God(s) and god(s) we create. Cultural myths are essential. The bumbling god of Genesis 2&3 that is learning on the job, learning by trial and error, fearful but intimate was a cultural myth. The god of Exodus who changes Pharaohs mind simply so that she can show how big her dick is with yet another plague was a cultural myth. The supremely competent overarching god of Genesis 1 who is also aloof and does not interact with the creation is a cultural myth. The evolution of the Great Commission over time or of Paul's conversion over time are examples of the development of cultural myth. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Lots of people claimed to actually have direct face to face meetings with God, Phat. What makes you think Stephen is not speaking of a God he created? What is the evidence of an intimate relationship with the Creator of all seen and unseen? Evidence Phat. Is it possible Stephen, like you, believed they had an intimate relationship with God? Certainly, but that is only evidence that they held such a belief. I don't claim John was written near if not after Paul's death, that is the dates assigned to John. And John as I have said repeatedly was a revisionist. His Gospel is different from all the others because the author of John was marketing a different Jesus myth than found in the other three Gospels. John is hawking a different Jesus than the one found in the Synoptic Gospels. That is why it is not included as one of them. And who knows if Paul ever changed; the only real difference was he switched allegiances. What else changed?
Yet when challenged not one of those critics has ever presented evidence of what soul/spirit even is, how it can be detected and how it can be tested or even the identity of the source verified? AbE: A couple other points to remember. Like the Gospel of John, Acts was written long after the incidents it recounts would have happened. Most scholars date Acts to around 80-90 AD and so about a half century after Jesus death. Stephens death was likely around 36AD and so what you read in Acts is a tale about what happened at least a half century earlier. Edited by jar, : see AbE: Edited by jar, : soul/spirit Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Just as you get upset when I talk of the Christian myth or the marketing of Christianity, Stephen was attacking a strongly held belief system.
The story was part of creating a Christian Mythos, a tale of good versus evil, us versus them. Classic propaganda written after the facts but still close enough for the issues to still be fresh. Look at the US Films made between 1908 and 1912 about the US Civil War for a parallel.
But what do we have other than logic, reason and reality? and I have never claimed "that humans either MUST be capable of good on their own or else God HAS to be evil." so stop trying to assert I believe stuff YOU think I believe.
We will never know but there are several versions of the story and each involves some kind of spiritual event.
But Phat, actually there is a majority vote on most of this stuff as well as lots of evidence on one side and only tradition, shaky tradition, on the other side. It's fine to hold a belief that runs counter to all the evidence but we should be aware that such a belief is held in spite of the evidence. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33101 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Belief. It really is that simple. An agnostic says they have no idea whether or not there is a god or any belief one way or the other. I believe that there is a GOD, a creator of that that is, seen and unseen, but I also know that there have been many other God(s) and god(s) asserted to exist over time. And so honesty must also play a part. In addition, as I have pointed out, even assertions far too often taken as meaningful like "The God of the Bible" really fall apart when the actual evidence is examined. The God described in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God described in Genesis 2&3 or the God(s) found in the New Testament. So honestly, I must admit that I have a very high likelihood of being wrong. Is there any reason to think the God I might worship is more likely than Ganesha? Isn't it far more likely that ALL of the God(s) and god(s) we can talk about really are only creations of the human mind, caricatures perhaps of some reality but no more accurate than a landscape of a place the artist never even visited? Religions are paths, guides. Some basics as you point out seem to be common even outside religion. Aren't those commonalities the things we really can use to improve THIS life, do do for the least of these?
But what does the evidence show? Do the followers of Jesus behave better than the Buddhists, the Muslims, the Taoists, the Hindus, the Atheists, the Agnostics? AbE:
I find that position revolting, disgusting, symptomatic of a vile evil God that should be opposed. You are welcome to that God but I cannot imagine anyone worshiping such a creature. Edited by jar, : see AbE: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021