Weekly Religion: Christianity

[Adam]

This is the first weekly thread to cover questions and answers about the different world religions. This week, the topic is on general Christianity, and includes all of the different sects that are found under that category.

Since this is the first one, here are a few notes. This isn't a thread for debate, it is a thread for gaining knowledge of other people's perspectives. Unlike debate, if someone says "I believe such and such because of how I interpret my religious documents," then it is a perfectly valid answer. Similiarly, a person can use their religious leader as a source, or even personal experience. We do not want to challenge the validity of the different beliefs, simply find out what those beliefs are.

The structure that I'll use is I'll start out with a general history, then open the thread for questions. If I don't know the history, then I'll ask someone more knowledgable than me to write it up. If you have an idea for a religion that you want covered, please contact me and we'll start a new one.

For the duration of the week (right now, Wednesday to Wednesday in the Western Hemisphere) the current thread will remain as a sticky. After that week, a new thread will be created, and the old thread will be un-stickied, but anyone is welcome to keep the conversation going long after that.

Without further ado, here is the history of Christianity.

Approximately 3000 years BCE (that's Before Current Era, also abreviated as BC, meaning Before Christ), the people living in the modern-day region around Isreal were a polytheistic group. Their pantheon included noteable figures, such as the Elohim, a group of female gods who created the world and most life on it, including several bands of humans, Jehova, their god of war, much like Aries or Mars in the Mediteranian-European region, and who also created one specific band of humans, and the Devil, the keeper of the underworld. There were other gods and heavenly creatures, such as angels and shai-tan, but they didn't play a very large role in the development of this new religion that was to be born.

Around the time mentioned above, a man, Abraham, left his home for reasons described in texts common to the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions. During his travels, he met up with a group of nomads who worshiped only one deity. Abraham took a clue from them, and began to worship only one of his many deities, Jehova, because he believed that his line descended from those people created by Jehova, rather than the other people who were created by the Elohim. Now, Jehova was a god of war, so naturally he was a very jealous and vengeful god... That plays into a lot of the tradgedies that befell the people who later followed Abraham and became part of his covenant. Because Jehova was so jealous, He insisted that He be recognized as the only god. The Isrealites, as they'd later be known as, traveled to Egypt, and the archeological evidence and accounts from the bible differ at this point.

Moses led the Isrealites out of Egypt, and waged war against several other nations until they could settle in their promised land. All was as peaceful as possible when living under a god of war, until one fateful day.

Jesus of Nazerus was born. Due to the conflicting accounts of his history, the bare minimum that could be said is that he was a very wise man who taught love for your fellow man and forgiveness (which is naturally a foreign concept for people who have been living under a god of war) until he was hung on a tree. Christianity springs from people's interpretations of other people's interpretations of Jesus' words and deeds.

In the 400's, Christianity became the official religion of Rome, following a Caeser's victory in battle after praying to Jehova.

During the Renaisance, Martin Luther formed the first successful protestant church, which led to many other protestant churches springing up as well. The original Christian church became known as the Catholic church, because of their use of the word 'catholic' when gaining converts, which used to mean 'open to all.'

In the 1800's, Joseph Smith formed the first restorationist church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as LDS or Mormon. (Note: calling members of that church "Mormons" was considered a derogatory term, similiar to racial slurs. It has since lost most of its bite, but it is still more correct to call them members of the LDS church.)

The current concept of divinity held by Christians is no longer that of Jehova, being a god of war, but is closer to that of Elohim, of a caring creator. Because of the heavy influence of Jehova in the old testament, many Christians still use that as a model, noteably people such as Fred Phelps (google "Fred Phelps funeral" for some of his more spiteful work) and people who identify themselves as evangelical fundamentalists.

The cornerstone of modern Christianity is that of love and forgiveness. Despite its polytheistic roots, it is very much a monotheistic religion today.

Alright, to start this thread out, here's the first open question. Anyone is free to ask any question, so long as it is not a loaded question.

For those who are Christian, why did you choose that path?

[gberardi]

1) Where did you find this history?
I admit that I am not as knowledgeable as others when it comes to religious history, and obviously my education as a Catholic will be biased, but I would like to know more about Jehovah vs Elohim, Jesus being hung vs crucified, etc. Also, I read that one atheist historian claimed that Jesus was a man who had followers who thought he was God. Offhand, I don't know the historian's name.

2) "Christianity springs from people's interpretations of other people's interpretations of Jesus' words and deeds." As I understood it, Christianity was originally just called "The Way" because this sect of Judaism hadn't been given a name yet. The Apostles of Jesus originally acted as the leaders. Who claims that Christianity is just interpretation of interpretation? I guess this might just be another part of the first question, but this claim seemed to dismiss Christianity as a rumor that got out of hand. I imagine you didn't mean for it to be so, but I'd still like to know more about it.

As for your question, I was born into the religion, and while I am no longer practicing as a Catholic (I'm bothered by the leadership, personally), I haven't yet given up my belief in Jesus as Christ. I am, however, finding myself questioning the idea of a "personal" god, but I am not ready to dismiss the possibility as make-believe or fairy tales.

And a general question: I remember singing songs with the line "They will know we are Christians by our love", and yet a lot of big names seem to spread hate in the name of Christianity. When you think of Christianity (whether you are a Christian or aren't), what do you see? Do you see generally loving people, or do you see vitriol being passed as doctrine? I ask because I've grown up in a predominantly Catholic life, not really being exposed to people of other religions or even denominations.

[Radical]

How do people feel about their president being such a devoted christian?

Do you agree that democracy in America is turning into more of a theocracy?

[Adam]

1) Where did you find this history?

Most of this history was gained by talking to rabbis, and a religious scholar at Utah State University. (The scholar wishes to remain anonymous, because this region is heavilly religious and his position is very political... If his name were attached to some of this information, he would be fired.) The distinction between Elohim and Jehova is noticeable only in the Hebrew texts, because English translations change both names to be simply God... I really do recomend getting a dual-language bible, so that you can see what the original text was and find those concepts that don't translate completely into English. "Poisoner" (the best English translation for the original term) and "Witch" (the commonly accepted English translation) is another example of the differences.

As far as my comment about being hung on a tree, sorry, that was an euphemism... I really did mean crucification, and didn't realize that it would be taken differently. My mistake.

"Christianity springs from people's interpretations of other people's interpretations of Jesus' words and deeds."

The reason why I said that is because Jesus didn't write anything down himself. The first interpretations come from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which were written after Jesus' death. The second interpretation comes from whoever is reading those books... Also, there is strong evidence to suggest that many of the books in the bible had been re-written for political gain over the centuries, so there is the possibility for a third interpretation there. The original intent is still in there, that of love, service, and forgiveness, but it is not straight from Jesus' teachings, rather it is memories of his teachings that we read, then re-interpret ourselves. Fred Phelp's interpretation of the same words is vastly different from the interpretations of mainstream Christianity, just to point out an extreme example.

[Nneka]

Adam, this is very interesting. I had no idea that was the history of Abraham. I am curious to see what other posters know as the history of Christianity. I am also curious about the other sects of Christianity including Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptist, etc.

Personally, I belong to Unity which considers itself a Christian church. However, by today's standards I don't think that's true. We believe that there is only God and that we are all expressions of God (Christ). We don't think of Jesus as the only begotten son, but as an example of God in full expression that is achievable by all.

[Michael Chui]

You fail to mention Josephus, who, as I recall, is the only historical account we have of Jesus, especially outside the Bible. You also don't talk about the Gnostics or Ebionites (pre-Catholic sects of Christianity), the Councils of Nicaea and Trent (highly pivotal), the influence of the apostle Paul, and less importantly, the many schisms in church history, the irony of the fourth Crusade, and the Roman occupation of Israel before the birth of Christ, which culminated in the destruction of the Jersusalem temple in 70 AD.

Also remarkable is the perspective that Christianity was a feminist religion. The belief begins based on the concept that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelena, carries across to the idea that there were 12 women disciples, is supported by the extraordinary female presence in the New Testament (count up all the names of non-significant characters, that is to say, no apostles or authors or such; then note how many are female), which in turn connotes that popularity among women was a large reason why Christianity was successful, and winds up as some speculation that Peter, or some church patriarch, disliked Magdelena's uppitiness and did his best to erase her from the Bible and only succeeded in reducing her to a mere prostitute kissing Jesus' feet.

First person to whisper "Da Vinci Code" gets strangled.

Originally Posted by Adam

Jesus of Nazerus was born. Due to the conflicting accounts of his history, the bare minimum that could be said is that he was a very wise man who taught love for your fellow man and forgiveness (which is naturally a foreign concept for people who have been living under a god of war) until he was hung on a tree.

Which accounts? As far as I'm aware, there is only one historical account and a small number of "spiritual" accounts. I do not believe they conflict. Of interest to some people may be the similarity to the Poetic Edda, wherein Odin hangs himself from a tree, his side pierced by a spear. It is less probable that there was significant contact between the Scandinavians and the Israelites, though; it's actually more likely that the Scandinavians got it from the Gospel itself.

Originally Posted by Adam

Christianity springs from people's interpretations of other people's interpretations of Jesus' words and deeds.

Close. Christianity springs from people's interpretations of what they think are other people's interpretations of Jesus' words and deeds.

Originally Posted by Adam

In the 400's, Christianity became the official religion of Rome, following a Caeser's victory in battle after praying to Jehova.

Specifically, Emperor Constantinople was shown a vision, which converted him to Christianity (possibly at the urging of his scribe), and proceeded to achieve victory over Rome. This is marked as the moment of history when Christianity ceased to be a cult and became a major religion. (My pastor once told me that Christianity held no weight in Roman circles because they refused to say they were based on Judaism, and "new" religions were scorned.)

Originally Posted by Adam

During the Renaisance, Martin Luther formed the first successful protestant church, which led to many other protestant churches springing up as well. The original Christian church became known as the Catholic church, because of their use of the word 'catholic' when gaining converts, which used to mean 'open to all.'

Catholic means "universal", and the church was established because of the widely differing views being preached to pagans across Europe. It was formed as an attempt to unite Christianity into a single, cohesive religion with one voice. The papal one. See: Catholic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Adam

Despite its polytheistic roots, it is very much a monotheistic religion today.

The Jehovah's Witnesses sect (or religion, depending on who you ask) states that the Trinity, or Godhead, is in fact a polytheistic concept. (Note: I got that out of a pamphlet about 9 years ago, but from what I know of the Witness religion, there's really no expectation of change.) You would have to accept the Nicene Creed, or some substitute, in order to argue for monotheism.

Originally Posted by Nneka

We don't think of Jesus as the only begotten son, but as an example of God in full expression that is achievable by all.

I like that.

Originally Posted by Adam

The first interpretations come from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which were written after Jesus' death.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are considered the Synoptic Gospels due to their remarkable similarity. Further, Luke has not been confirmed as ever having met or seen Jesus in person; he wrote both the Gospel of Luke as well as Acts of the Apostles.

Originally Posted by Radical

Do you agree that democracy in America is turning into more of a theocracy?

No. I have not seen any religious leaders explicitly supporting one party member or another, and happen to know a number of Christian democrats personally, and am fairly certain there is a sizable contingent of them in America. Just as a large contingent of Muslims argue that the terrorism practiced primarily in the Middle East is radical and heretical, so does a contingent of Christians believe that the decisions being made by the American government are against their teachings.

It is still, ultimately, a democracy, where the people are both religious and secular. President Bush's declamations aren't terribly indicative, unless you listen to La Rouche, which I wouldn't recommend. Focusing on specific people is not the right tactic in a democracy; you have to convince the majority.

I get the impression, though I've never looked into what they teach at seminary schools, that most modern Christian sects are flat-out unaware of their actual roots. Joseph Campbell notes that there were four phases of Christianity: "(1) a period of literally following the master, Jesus, by renouncing the world as he did (Primitive Christianity); (2) a period of meditating on Christ Crucified as the dvinity within the heart, meanwhile leading one's life in the world as the servant of this god (Early and Medieval Christianity); (3) a rejection of most of the instruments supporting meditation, meanwhile, however, continuing to lead one's life in the world as the servant or vehicle of the god whom one has ceased to visualize (Protestant Christianity); (4) an attempt to interpret Jesus as a model human being, but without accepting his ascetic path (Liberal Christianity)" (Campbell, Hero of a Thouand Faces, p319, fn 4) Campbell additionally notes the similarity of this history to the interpretation of the Buddha.

Oh, and the Jewish folks are peeved that Jesus is actually a conflation of the Suffering Servant and the Messiah, who are supposed to be two separate people. But they could be wrong, like all the Christians (*cough*Mel Gibson*cough* ) say.

And after all of this, I have to say that I don't actually know very much about the history of Christianity. There's so much of it.

Lastly, I've got to mention this:

Originally Posted by Adam

(that's Before Current Era, also abreviated as BC, meaning Before Christ)

Again, Wikipedia says it better than I would: Common Era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[gberardi]

I grew up in a Catholic town and didn't really get introduced to Protestants or other denominations until college. I was surprised to find out that Catholics would be called "Mary worshippers" because of the idea that Catholics "pray to saints". I believe it had to do with the problem of worshipping idols, but that's my question. What does a non-Catholic Christian see as wrong about praying "to" saints?

Now I'll say why I keep using quotes. I do remember being taught that we don't pray to the saint him/herself. We basically ask the saint to pray for us or with us. For those outside of the Catholic faith, is it still considered wrong to pray to God while asking for saints to also pray with us, and why?

[Angela]

I'm puzzled by the saints/mary question, too -- isn't christianity based on the idea that only god is divine, immortal, and capable of intervention? Wouldn't saints then just be dead humans, with their hands tied in regards to helping living folks out?

[gberardi]

So, I went to Wikipedia, and I found the following listing as part of the distinctly Catholic belief system:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

# Veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary or Theotokos, and veneration of the saints.
# A distinction between adoration (latria) for God, and veneration (dulia) for saints. The term hyperdulia is used for a special veneration accorded to the Virgin Mary among the saints. Some do not accept the distinction between hyperdulia and dulia.
# The use of prayer for the dead.
# Requests to the departed saints for intercessory prayers.
# Belief in Exorcisms

And then this section on Veneration:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In Catholic and Orthodox theology, veneration is a type of honor distinct from the worship due to God alone. Church theologians have long adopted the terms latria for the sacrificial worship due to God alone, and dulia for the veneration given to saints and icons. Catholic theology also includes the term hyperdulia for the type of veneration specifically paid to Mary, mother of Jesus, in Catholic tradition. This distinction is spelled out in the dogmatic conclusions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), which also decreed that iconoclasm (forbidding icons and their veneration) is a heresy that amounts to a denial of the incarnation of Jesus.

Hence, the "Mary worshippers" tag. Now it makes sense to me.

[Angela]

Am I interpreting that correctly -- that mary and the saints actually are relied upon by catholics, at least, to intercede in response to prayers? Is that not a conflict with the belief that god is the only deity? What I mean is, how can you intercede without being a deity (god-like)? I guess the next question is, since the devil intercedes, too (right?), and he's clearly not a god in christian belief, what the heck is his power all about? There's got to be an explanation for these special powers, but I don't remember from catechism. Any christians out there know?

[David Hausladen]

Angela: Having been a Catholic until recently, and having attended Bible Study with Protestants for about a year in college, I think I may be able to answer your question about saints:

Catholics ask saints to intercede for them basically because they believe it is more difficult to directly reach God from here on earth. Protestants focus more on a direct personal relationship with God (and as mentioned before, believe that Catholics' reliance on saints' intervention is not worshipping God Himself properly.

[Angela]

Got it, thanks. But why is it so hard for catholics to get ahold of god directly? Do they consider it's because he's so busy working on more important things? Or is it just better ettiquette to let the saints deal with their own specialties?

[Michael Chui]

This might be useful; I didn't read it myself, but I believe it is sanctioned by the Catholic church:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Veneration of Images

[David Hausladen]

Good question, Angela--it touches on some of the fundamental differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. I've outlined the larger context surrounding the answer to your question below, but if you want the short version just read the bold text ; I think I got a little carried away answering this one...

In Catholicism, lay people (those who are not ordained as priests, bishops, or the like) require traditions and more experienced guidance to reach God. Basically, Catholicism says that the lay person does not have the training/blessing/mandate to guarantee his or her salvation. He or she needs priests to perform the sacraments which are required--especially Eucharist and Reconciliation, which he or she must receive regularly (though a large portion of actual Catholics receive one or both irregularly). He or she needs saints to intercede on their behalf with God, most commonly asking for guidance or miracles (though the Catholics who actually request the help of saints are few in number; among those who do, Mary is commonly asked for help). He or she needs the Church's interpretation of Scripture (the Bible), because doctrinally the religion is based on Scripture and tradition, with each being given equal weight (ha, I remembered that from grade school Religion class!). One indirect consequence of this is that Catholics know the main stories in the Bible, which they hear at Sunday Mass, but they often don't read the Bible on their own, much less study it. Basically, a lay person in the Catholic Church cannot reach heaven without its help.

The opposing principle advanced by Protestantism is the idea of the "priesthood of all believers" which stipulated that every person had the ability and right to interpret Scripture and secure their own salvation (another essential principle is the rejection of transubstantiation, but that's a separate issue). Protestants have ministers, but generally those are ordinary people, often married (as opposed to ordained Catholic ministers, who cannot marry), who have simply chosen to lead the congregation of a Protestant community. Various Protestant denominations have different common beliefs and ideas, but individual Protestants also have their own interpretations and ideas, and in my experience read and study the Bible much more than their Catholic counterparts. Protestantism is a belief system which is more freeing (and thereby empowering), but that freedom also opens it up to very wide variation in beliefs.

I think the real origin of both ideas (reliance of laypeople on the Church and the "priesthood of all believers") is not Scriptural, but rather political, from medieval and Renaissance times. The Catholic Church, before the Reformation, was a very strong power in the world, with influence over kings and peasants alike. Catholics' reliance on their mother Church for salvation is what gave it its power. Protestantism became possible with the advent of the printing press--it allowed dissenting views to be distributed quickly and easily, where before people had had to rely on Catholic priests and bishops for religious guidance. The printing press allowed Martin Luther's 95 Theses to become more than just a list of protests against the Church nailed to a church door. The other reason that Protestantism succeeded, though--I think--is that it transferred power from the Church to the nobles. If nobles could secure their own salvation, they didn't need to listen to the leadership of the Catholic Church! I find it very likely that this is the real reason why Frederick the Wise (a German noble) protected Martin Luther from arrest as a heretic, and it's the spirit in which, in another part of Europe, Henry VIII severed the Church of England from the Catholic Church.

[Angela]

(both of whom happen to have very biblical sounding-names!) David, that is very helpful -- you are a great teacher! and Michael, I mean to read the link you recommend today -- it's long!
Thanks again,
Angela

[Dimitry]

Very awesome read. At least I'm catching up on my history. Is there any good book out there that just explains the history from a third perspective without starting to interpret it one way or another?

Also I see the differect sects of Christianity named but I don't see Orthodox (like Greek Orthodox for example).
A little background on myself: I was born in USSR into an Orthodox religion. Here in Canada I attend a Greek Orthodox church.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Angela

(both of whom happen to have very biblical sounding-names!)

I take the origin of my name quite seriously.

Originally Posted by Dimitry

Is there any good book out there that just explains the history from a third perspective without starting to interpret it one way or another?

I doubt it. You've got to recognize that good historianship is very, very difficult when it comes to religions. The Jewish culture (not the religion) started during the era when people didn't recognize a distinction between fiction and non-fiction. So whether or not God actually spoke to Moses through a burning bush was completely irrelevant to the writer of Exodus.

Fast forward to the birth of Christ. Neither the canonical Gospels (I haven't read the non-canonical ones) nor Josephus provide any details about Christ's early life, except a few light details, which some speculators have suggested were the foundation for Christ's more... radical ideas, ranging from a trip to India to living with the Essenes.

Continue onto the spread into Europe. Christians were actively persecuted until the advent of Constantinople: you don't leave records when you're being persecuted. It tells people where you are and you get torn to bits by lions.

The Catholic Church was more interested in uniting the faith than truthfully reporting its progress. You can't really fault them for this: at this point, there were very, very few historians and no one was all that big on a non-spiritual truth. Of course, as time progressed, more people became literate and we begin to get the large body of documentation that we interpret history from today.

My point is that the book itself would be very hard to write. Not only is it difficult, but there is a lot to cover; I wouldn't trust a book claiming comprehensiveness that was under a thousand pages of small text and no pictures. And then you get into bias. I mean, assuming they didn't make anything up... I personally had no idea that Jehova was a god of war, but I haven't really made a study of Mesapotamian mythologies. (I'm also surprised Campbell didn't mention it in Primitive Mythology, but it might be in Occidental Mythology, which I haven't read yet.)

I'd recommend you find a Christian scholar to get you a list of history books, and then get a similar list from an atheist scholar. Books that show up on both lists would probably be worth reading.

[Dimitry]

Great. Thanks for the advice!
So does anyone know where the Orthodox sect of Christianity fits in the picture?

[J.R. Neumiller]

Originally Posted by Dimitry

Great. Thanks for the advice!
So does anyone know where the Orthodox sect of Christianity fits in the picture?

"Orthodoxy" is a separate and distinct offshoot from the rest of Christianity via a disagreement between the Roman Catholic Pope and the Eastern Patriarch. You can read a bit about it here:

Originally Posted by Dimitry;

Is there any good book out there that just explains the history from a third perspective without starting to interpret it one way or another?

Well, why don't you just read the Bible itself? Its a fairly clear historical narrative of what the authors mean to convey. You'll read for yourself the calling of Abram, the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai, and the birth and ministry of Jesus Christ. You'll also see the spiritual perspectives of many different believers, such as King David (Psalms,) his son, Solomon, (Proverbs, Ecclesiates, Song of Solomon,) and of course, no less than four Apostles, (Paul, John, Peter, and James, & possibly Jude.)

Its many times a mistake to trust the conclusions of "historical explanations," seeing that the explainers have a bias, (whether right or not.) Reading the primary source documents is always the best course, if they are available.

[Michael Chui]

Perhaps because the Bible is written from the perspective of a believer?

[tylersch]

What evidence is there that Jehova(h) is a god of war?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by tylersch

What evidence is there that Jehova(h) is a god of war?

I ran a Google search, and it didn't turn up anything useful. The first result has a biblography, and is probably the best indicator, but it's no proof that Jehova(h) was the god of war in pre-Abraham times. Actually, it seems to say that Jehova(h) wasn't Abraham's god. *shrugs* See for yourself:

jehovah "god of war" - Google Search

[maverickstruth]

Wow... okay... hm. I'll respond mostly to the OP, if only because that's what caught my attention and prompted my response.

I'm a scholar of Religious Studies, and my particular area of study is Christianity (especially between 200-300 CE), so I thought this would be an interesting thread to pop in on, and see what was being discussed. I must say that I found the OP's description of Christianity very... um... curious? Suffice it to say, I've never heard any scholar describe Christianity's origins in those terms. Nor have I heard any scholar of the Hebrew Bible outline the Jewish people's history quite in those terms. Yes, polytheism likely influenced Judaism to a great degree -- scholars argue that this is why Judaism developed such strong monotheism, to contrast themselves from their neighbors -- but to speak with such confidence about that which occurred in 3000 BCE is astonishing to me. The records we have of the Jewish people -- including of Abraham -- date from much later than that. We can't say much of *anything* confidently about Judaism before the exilic period (that would be the Persian exile, for those keeping track) because the Hebrew Bible wasn't edited, compiled, or in many cases even written until that time. Even things like dualism (the OP's reference was to Satan, I believe) are acknowledged as having come into Judaism, but not from the 3000's... but from the Zoroastrian influence. I'm not saying it wasn't there earlier, but I'm saying that the early history of the Hebrew people is not nearly so clear.

I am understating my astonishment at what was written as "fact" a bit, if only because a good scholar of religion will tell you that nothing from that era can be fact (disclaimer: that includes everything I write in this post... although I will say that most of what I have learned is in accordance with the positions held by the majority of the academy). But... wow. I'm quite honestly at a loss for what to say, but I will try to add something constructive to the discussion.

As for Christiantiy, since that's what this thread is supposed to be about, I'll try add what I can in the few moments I have. Michael Chui's post was quite good on bringing up a lot of things about the councils, etc. that were left out of the OP. The OP's modern account of the history from Luther on isn't bad, if not a bit selective, but I really question the history of the tradition as described (for similar reasons to Michael Chui). For example... the first interpretations of the Jesus-movement were written by Paul, not by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. The Gospels came about 30 years after Paul, 60 years after Jesus (approximation going on here).

The statement about the "Historical Jesus" in the OP was pretty much bang on, but I'd recommend that posters do some additional reading on the rest of what was said. If only to recognize that things weren't nearly so cut-and-dry as the history presented here might suggest. I can recommend some books for those who are interested. Then again, even to speak of "Christianity" before the mid-400s (CE) is pretty much a misnomer. There were Christianities (plural), but not one authoritative set of doctrines. For example, in the early times, many Christ-followers did not believe that he was divine, some thought that he was, and some thought that he was some sort of hybrid. And that's just one issue. But it was a divisive enough issue that it eventually led (in part) to the split between the Eastern and Western church (what later would develop into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy).

As for saints, martyrs and Mary, in Religious Studies, we refer to this as a difference between the popular religion (what the people actually do) and what the official religion is (what the official doctrine is that people ought to do). There was a whole debate in the early Christianities about the nature of Mary and whether or not she was to be venerated (look up Theotokos on Wikipedia for a brief intro). I might also suggest the wonderful work of fiction "Our Lady of the Lost and Found" by Schoemperlen. While "only" a work of fiction, it is wonderfully researched, and is a great introduction to the so-called "cult of Mary" (disclaimer here again: I'm using "cult" here in a strictly technical sense, in which it does not have a sense of degradation like it does in common usage)

I don't have time to go into all the other wonderful discussion going on in this thread -- alas, time is fleeting -- but I will try to pop in now and again. It's already a long post anyway, and I don't want y'all to have your eyes permanently glazing over.

Also, I apologize in advance if anything I've said comes across as short or accusatory... that's not the spirit it's meant in... more than likely, it's just the stress of end-of-term.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Perhaps because the Bible is written from the perspective of a believer?

Good point, and I agree ... but one must ask ... it is written from the perspective of a believer in what? Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that the Bible was written from the (varied) perspectives of believers. Then again, there's the whole issue of what the "Bible" is... which goes back to your earlier post about the councils and debates from the early centuries.

Ack! Should not have come into the forum while I still have so much work to do... Must... go ... back... to .... my *own* research!

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I ran a Google search, and it didn't turn up anything useful. The first result has a biblography, and is probably the best indicator, but it's no proof that Jehova(h) was the god of war in pre-Abraham times. Actually, it seems to say that Jehova(h) wasn't Abraham's god. *shrugs* See for yourself:

jehovah "god of war" - Google Search

Okay... sorry... one last thing. IIRC, this comes largely from Mormon doctrine (as a side note, I grew up in a primarily LDS town; they call themselves "Mormons" and never gave anyone I knew of a hard time about it). I do know that this is not a doctrine held by Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism or Protestants (again, this is a generalization, but as far as generalizations go... it's not a bad one ) In fact, now that I think about it, most of the OP's history seems to be drawn from Mormon doctrine, which, while not a bad thing, is certainly not representative of the larger part of Christian thought, nor is it thought historically accurate by (secular) scholars. All of the YHWH / Elohim distinctions, while important to LDS teachings, are not that important to other Christianities, insofar as the development of doctrine goes. In the exegesis of the Hebrew Bible? Sure. Read up on the Documentary Hypothesis for an example of where it comes in.

[Edited to add] I should also note that the Good God / Evil God dichotomy was a prevalent feature of Gnostic Christianity in the first couple of centuries CE. This, along with the rest of Gnostic Christianity, we declared heresy, and so it's not really around much any more (although there are still Gnostic Christian communities around).

[tylersch]

Thank You maverickstruth!

Thanks for clearing up a few of the things in the OP's post.

I know some about history, obviously not as much as you. So I have a few questions.

What is your take on popular religion today...(what the people actually do) and what the official religion is (what the official doctrine is that people ought to do)

For instance.

Is it true that Early Christians did not celebrate birthdays, including the birth of Jesus, and other holidays that were adopted from pagan rituals. (ie.. christmas, birthdays, halloween) Rituals that "christianity" has so happily adopted and slapped a Jesus logo on.

[maverickstruth]

LOL nothing like a loaded question! If I had a few months to go on and on... I might be able to answer it half decently.

There's a lot of debate about how the various Christian celebrations came into being. It seems to be fairly accurate to say that a lot of Christian celebrations were celebrated on the same day as pagan ones -- or as Jewish ones (think of Easter and Passover). But why is this? That's where it becomes difficult to say. Some Jesus-followers probably did just want to take the festival and "slap a Jesus label on it". Others likely wanted to change something "evil" into something "good". Others just wanted an excuse to party. Some would celebrate (for example) Dionyses and Jesus in the same celebration, and saw no problem with doing so. Put it this way... why do people -- even non-Christians -- celebrate Christmas now? There's a million reasons, and if you put them all together, you end up with Christmas as it is these days, with Santa and Baby Jesus sharing a spot in the mall (and occasionally a menorah for Hannukah around, too!) Something similar probably went on in the early Christian communities. Then again, the Roman Empire was so culturally diverse, it's really hard to say what came out of where. And when it comes to history, the answer is never simple anyways. That's the best answer I can give you in such a short time... basically... who knows? But yes, this was a case of pop religion influencing what would later become official doctrine.

With regard to pop religion vs. official religion in the modern day and age... is there still a difference? Sure. Is one "right" and one "wrong"? Nope. Just two sides of the same coin. Sometimes official religion adapts the un-official views, and sometimes it's the other way around. Religions are all always constantly evolving, because ultimately, it's the people who are at their core that are it's life and breath. Look at the religious phenomenon of the "Left Behind" series of books. When they came out, they were absolutely destroyed by theologians who said they were "terrible theology." Now, a lot of theologians -- not necessarily the same ones, but a lot of them -- are teaching the end-time vision portrayed in those books. In some circles, this has become the "official interpretation." In others, it remains a pop phenomenon.

[Dimitry]

Thanks for the responses everyone!

maverickstruth, can you still post a few books that you recommend? I know that it's next to impossible to get a true and 100% accurate interpretation of history. What books at least have sound research behind them that show the "best possible" case scenario of what happened? Hopefully they're not 1000 pages either heh.

What I'm hoping is to at least have some understanding of religions (starting with Christianity because that's what I practice).

Originally Posted by J.R. Neumiller

"Orthodoxy" is a separate and distinct offshoot from the rest of Christianity via a disagreement between the Roman Catholic Pope and the Eastern Patriarch. You can read a bit about it here:

Where's here?

[tylersch]

maverickstruth,

I guess what I mean is...in the bible... it never talks about the apostles or Jesus celebrating their own birthday, or the birthday of others. \

I think there are 2 or three times the bible mentions birthdays.

(Genesis 40:20-22)
on Pharaoh's birthday the chief of the bakers was hung up.

(Matthew 14:6-10)
Herod's Birthday -John the Baptist was beheaded

can't recall the other now though

[maverickstruth]

Tylersch,

You're exactly right -- it's not there. But then again, a lot (I'd even venture to say most) of the rites, rituals and celebrations found in Christianity aren't found in the Biblical text -- at least, not in the way that we celebrate them. Baptism, "Going to Church", the Eucharist (Lord's Supper), Christmas, Easter... if we were to go back a couple of thousand years, most of us wouldn't recognize these traditions as they were done at that time. The festivals, rites, rituals, etc. grew out of the popular religion as a way to mark the important things in Christianity. And as they grew, they changed -- a lot. Right now, for example, I'm doing research on the earliest known Christian Building, and the ritual of baptism from the 230s. Suffice it to say, it was quite a bit different than what we would recognize today.

As for Christmas (since 'tis the season), the Catholic Encyclopedia has some information on the festival here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm The thing to keep in mind is that festivals and feasts weren't uncommon, nor unheard of, at this time. The Roman Empire had multiple feast and celebratory days every month -- usually to celebrate the birth of one of the Emperors (who, incidentally, were also often thought of as being the son of a god -- whether or not this can be linked to Christian claims of Jesus' divinity is a whole 'nother matter of discussion and debate which I won't get into). Regardless, feasts to celebrate births were well established in the Greco-Roman world (I'm not sure of what was going on in the specifically Jewish context at the time). However, since the New Testament was written in the first century (probably between 55 and 100 CE, though the dates vary depending on who you ask) and Christmas probably didn't start being celebrated quite *that* early. The earliest references are around 200 years after Jesus -- which, not coincidentally, is when we have our first widespread references to Jesus being a son of the divine (not to say it wasn't there before, but it really exploded around 200 or so... before that time, most of the Christian writings we have are narratives and apocalypses, not theological treatises on the nature of Christ). So the widespread "Jesus Birthday Bashes" were definitely post-Biblical.

Mav