Jesus discussion

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

The only thing i can imagine is that the early christian teachings were juxtaposed over mithraism, and several other gods where incorporated by the christian pandemonium. for instance, Early depictions of Mary always wear almost exactly!! the same crown as Cybele. Also depictions of Jesus in armour, and as in St Pauls Cathedral, with a strange likeness to Alexander the Great, lead me to believe that early christianity found a mixture of Pagan beliefs with their own teachings ideal to be used for their own agenda. Now in what extent the letters of Paulus, his subsequent trial, and his alledged reforming of christianity to suit the Roman ideas best had anything to do with it i do not know. Since i am reluctant to take that path.

however, there must have been a reason for Roman citizens to start believing these ideas, maybe out of an underlying discontent with their present day situation or societies rules and regulations, or the decadence portrayed by the patrician power as seen by the plebs in Rome on a day to day basis.

M.VIB.M.

[Arthes]

But what interests me more is how after the eledged crucifixion of Jesus this religio illitica spread out from Judaea to the Roman world.
Were they part of the Essenic philosophers of Qumran? who were the earliest Christians, and what were their original teachings? for I always have found it hard to believe that a movement which had only a few followers in the beginning in a society which was so controlled by Roman law and politheistic faiths,
could have grown into the massive state endorsed religion it became.

I have also found this fascinating. I can not think of anything like it - a major world religion originating from a few followers of a Jewish man regarded as a wise man, Rabbi, and Messiah. Amazing that within only a few decades of the crucifixion of Christ, you have Christianity extending to Rome, Asia Minor, and Spain. What began as a sect of Judiasm emerged and grew even among non-Jewish people. How does a religion like Christianity take root in a multi-theistic society like that in Rome? And then, how does it thrive even in spite of the persecutions waged against it, to one day be declared as the official religion of the Romans?

Rather tongue in cheek - hypnotism ?.......
M.VIB.M. You are correct with your comment about Alexander, whose features were used in portrayals of Helios and then later Christ.....who was depicted as driving Helio's four horse chariot of the sun....complete with sunburst halo....or was it the Macedonian star...!
Christos Helios I can't find the bigger image I saw.....
A 3rd century tomb mosaic, below St Peter's, Rome.
larger image
regards
Arthes

[Narukami]

"What began as a sect of Judaism emerged and grew even among non-Jewish people. How does a religion like Christianity take root in a multi-theistic society like that in Rome?"


I think it is important to remember that in the early years Christianity was not a single religion but a large number of sects, the most basic division being between those who believed Jesus was the son of God and those who believed that he was God. A very fine line across which many bloody battles were fought.

May I recommend two books that I believe bear on this topic (and which supplement the fine books listed above).

Apocalypse The Great Jewish Revolt Against Rome AD66-73
by Neil Faulkner

This book deals with the various Jewish factions involved in the war including the subject of Jesus as a revolutionary and the belief among the rebels in the impending Apocalypse and Jubilee Year.

God Against The Gods The History Of The War Between Monotheism and Polytheism by Jonathon Kirsch

Although not a classical historian, Kirsch has picked a fascinating topic and brought to light some interesting information. He points out that the Romans called the Christians "atheists" because they believed in only one god. Also, his section on the Emperor Julian raises some interesting "what if" questions. Had he reigned for as long as Constantine it is possible that Christianity would have remained a minor sect and the idea of polytheism would be the universal norm.

As to the people of Rome recoiling in disgust at some of the blood letting in the Arena you might look at Michael Parenti's The Assassination Of Julius Caesar. He has several sections on this very topic.

Narukami

[Spurius]

My sincere thanks again to all who have recommended various publications. I have more books on my 'wish list' now, and these will keep me going for some time.

But, please do not hesitate to mention others as you see appropriate!

[Daniel S Peterson]

Spurius,
as to your interest in how 'things were rewritten", you may enjoy this aspect of my next book which examines how early Christians essentially "rewrote" the Old Testament in order to have a popular new religion that retained the "respectability and antiquity" of Judaism, combined with the dualism of Zoroastrianism that was far more palatable to the pagan mind than the strict monotheism that Judaism is. This is why Satan is transformed from the obedient servant of Jehovah in the old Testament to the fallen angel and wicked Ahriman dragon carbon copy taken from Zoroastrianism. And of course, pagan hellenistic mythology was thrown into the mix as well, which is why there is a Platonic Hades to punish the wicked, that never existed in the Old Testament, and also why the New Testament is overrun with Greek demons which never seemed to trouble anybody in the Old Testament.

So you can marvel at the popularity of Christianity, but essentially it was a clever concoction of the most popular beliefs from both the east and west, all rolled into one.

This fact however, does not necessarily mean that Christianity is a false doctrine, to have blatantly borrowed so much from pagan cultures to become more popular than Judaism in the Greco Roman world, but rather, perhaps God finally decided Pagans deserved salvation too, but their cultures were such that they could not easily accept strict monotheism of Judaism. Jesus' mission then, may have been to "paganize" Judaism by introducing greek demons and hell, the Persian Ahriman Satan etc. But on the other hand, Jesus may have always been the pious Jewish Rabbi, and all of these pagan ideas that fill Christianity were concocted by later followers that melded Judaism, with the popular pagan religions of the day to create a popular new religion.

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

But what interests me more is how after the eledged crucifixion of Jesus this religio illitica spread out from Judaea to the Roman world.

That's a big question. I'd second the recommendation of Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians on this topic, as well as Ramsay MacMullen's Christianising the Roman Empire: 100-400 AD.

Were they part of the Essenic philosophers of Qumran?

Probably not (and there's a growing school of thought that actually doubts there even were any Essenes at Qumran). The early 'Jesus Movement' shared some ideas with the Essenes, but only to the extent that many other Jewish groups did. They differed from them in many important respects. The Essenes were obsessed with spiritual purity, for example, which meant they would have avoided all contact with 'sinners'. Jesus clearly disagreed with them on that point and many others.

who were the earliest Christians, and what were their original teachings?

Again, that's a big question. I could give a really, really long answer, but it might be easier for you to check out some of the books I recommended in a previous post. Short version? The original Jesus Movement followers were Jews who held to Judaism but simply considered Jesus the Messiah or "Annointed of God". They don't seem to have considered that he was God at that stage. Their movement spread into the Greco-Roman world via coimmunities of Jews across the Mediterranean and, as it did so, began to lose much of its original Jewish character and absorb distinctly non-Jewish ideas.

for I always have found it hard to believe that a movement which had only a few followers in the beginning in a society which was so controlled by Roman law and politheistic faiths,
could have grown into the massive state endorsed religion it became.

There was already an interest in the Empire in 'foreign religions', especially Eastern ones. Mithras, Isis and Cybele all became popular amongst Romans in much the same period. As did, surprisingly enough, Judaism. Modern Judaism doesn't tend to seek out non-Jewish converts, but elements of ancient Judaism did. So there were many Romans and Greeks who were attracted to Judaism as an ancient philosophy and some of them came to be 'God Fearers' - believers in the Jewish God who stopped short of circumcision.

It was some of these 'God Fearers' who became the first non-Jewish converts to Christianity. The early Christian movement actually had some bitter disputes over whether a non-Jew could be a Christian and Peter and Jesus' brother, James, debated Paul on this point. It was Paul who won the debate and this victory accelerated Christianity's drift away from Judaism proper. That rift widened in the late First Century when the Jewish Council of Yavneh declared Christians heretics and excluded them from synagogue worship. By that stage Christianity was well on the way to becoming a totally non-Jewish faith.

Early Christianity had all of the attractions of Judaism for non-Jews, without any of its drawbacks (eg weird dietry rules and painful circumcision). It had other attractions as well. Unlike many other 'mystery religions' it was totally non-exclusive. Mithraism was popular, but it excluded slaves, women and anyone 'not up to scratch' - it was an exclusive, invitation-only men's club. Christianity, on the other hand, welcomed anyone, and everyone who converted was meant to be 'equal in Christ', regardless of class, rank, wealth or sex. Conversion provided other benefits, particularly the support of an Empire-wide community and financial support for the poor. This made it especially attractive. And its view of the afterlife was also very appealling to many people.

So it's not really surprising that it gained converts rapidly in the Second to Fourth Centuries. Even then, when Constantine made Christianity legal in 313 AD, Christians only made up 10-15% of the Empire's population. The removal of its illegality and the end of active persecution boosted conversions and the eventual Imperial endorsement of Christianity as the state religion by Theodosius in 382 AD effectively made it the dominant faith.

When persecution became prevalent in Domitian's reign, was it for reasons like this, or was it a case of bringing up old fears among the population?

By then Christianity was large enough to be a genuine cultural force in the Empire. It had lost some of its old anti-Roman, apocalyptic, 'the end is nigh' elements, but Christianity was an exclusive faith that didn't allow its members to sacrifice to the Emperors or to the Roman state gods for the good of the Empire. This was seen as a direct political challenge and as a genuine spiritual threat and it was this that caused the persecutions. The Romans didn't really have a problem with Christians holding their weird pseudo-Jewish beliefs, but objected to a cult that refused to placate the gods on the Empire's behalf. This is why they were called 'atheists' and why Julian called them 'those impious Galileans'.

The persecutions actually strengthened the movement. Wishy-washy believers buckled under Imperial pressure and left the faith, leaving the 'true believers' in control. And for those guys threats of torture and death didn't really have much of an effect, since they believed that those who suffered and died for their faith would go straight to heaven. They were about as bothered by the threat of execution as fundamentalist Jihadist suicide bombers are by the idea of being blown to pieces - they welcomed it. It hard to scare people with threats of death if they aren't afraid to die.

The only thing i can imagine is that the early christian teachings were juxtaposed over mithraism, and several other gods where incorporated by the christian pandemonium. for instance, Early depictions of Mary always wear almost exactly!! the same crown as Cybele. Also depictions of Jesus in armour, and as in St Pauls Cathedral, with a strange likeness to Alexander the Great, lead me to believe that early christianity found a mixture of Pagan beliefs with their own teachings ideal to be used for their own agenda.

That's true to an extent, but it's a point that's often overstated. Some people go so far as to claim that Christianity was 'simply' paganism by another name', which is not true. Christianity certainly did absorb many non-Jewish elements - that's how the Jewish concept of 'the son of God' morphed into the distinctly non-Jewish 'God the Son'. And, like any faith which moves into a new culture, Christianity used existing artistic expressions: thus the Isis-style pictures of the Virgin or the Apollo-style depictions of Christ.

But those influences generally didn't change the fundamentals of Christian beliefs. Some fringe modern authors totally overstate the parallels between Christianity and other cults. You can find plenty of web sites that claim Mithras had twelve disciples, raised the dead, was crucified and rose again. They sound like amazing parallels with Christianity and clear evidence of Christian borrowing from Mithraism, until you realise Mithraism actually had none of these elements at all. There's a hell of a lot of outdated, amateurish crap written on this topic.

as to your interest in how 'things were rewritten", you may enjoy this aspect of my next book which examines how early Christians essentially "rewrote" the Old Testament in order to have a popular new religion that retained the "respectability and antiquity" of Judaism, combined with the dualism of Zoroastrianism that was far more palatable to the pagan mind than the strict monotheism that Judaism is. This is why Satan is transformed from the obedient servant of Jehovah in the old Testament to the fallen angel and wicked Ahriman dragon carbon copy taken from Zoroastrianism. And of course, pagan hellenistic mythology was thrown into the mix as well, which is why there is a Platonic Hades to punish the wicked, that never existed in the Old Testament, and also why the New Testament is overrun with Greek demons which never seemed to trouble anybody in the Old Testament.

Hmmm, are you really going to argue that 'Christianity' did this? That kind of dualism and concepts like 'Hades' certainly aren't found in the OT, but the transition from the Judaism of the OT to these more dualist, Persian and Hellenic-influenced concepts happened long before Jesus was even born. Prominent branches of Judaism absorbed those ideas in the post-Exilic period and in the period of Hellenic domination. We can see them in Rabbinical Judaism and we see them prominently in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Christianity didn't make this transition on its own, it inherited it from an already transformed Judaism. It added some touches of its own, but it was Judaism that transformed itself under Persian and Greek influence and it did so in the two to three centuries before Jesus. Christianity exhibits that dualism etc largely because of its origins as a Jewish sect.

[Daniel S Peterson]

Thad,
You are correct that these dualistic trends influenced Judaism in the post exile period, where the Jews had been exposed to Zoroastrian theology for a very long time, and I said as much in a previous post. But mainstream Judaism dismissed these blasphemous ideas later, along with the bulk of apocryphal writings, which curiously, were embraced by some early Christian sects and can still be seen in Catholic Bibles.

However, in the Christian book of Revelation we see an almost word for word plagiarism of Zoroastrian texts written hundreds of years earlier. Quite literally, in some cases, only the new names of Michael and Satan replace Ahura and Ahriman. In other places we see only slightly more subtle changes. For example, in the Zoroastrian mythos "dragons" will destroy one third of the human population. In the Revelation version the exact same one third of the human population are destroyed, but this time by fire breathing "horses" with sharp teeth like lions, and tails like serpents....hmmmmm. :oops:

Of course, we can hardly blame Jesus for "stuff" written by others after his departure from this world. The amazing thing is why, when so many early Christian writings were dismissed, this one remained "canon" despite how closely it imitated Zoroastrian mythology, and clearly contradicted the Old Testament scriptures Jesus endorsed.

Dan

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Thad,
You are correct that these dualistic trends influenced Judaism in the post exile period, where the Jews had been exposed to Zoroastrian theology for a very long time, and I said as much in a previous post. But mainstream Judaism dismissed these blasphemous ideas later, along with the bulk of apocryphal writings, which curiously, were embraced by some early Christian sects and can still be seen in Catholic Bibles.

Yes, because those early Christian sects arose out of branches of Second Temple Intertestamental Judaism that hadn't dismissed this (semi) dualist theology.

However, in the Christian book of Revelation we see an almost word for word plagiarism of Zoroastrian texts written hundreds of years earlier.

Because Revelations was the heir of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition which had been heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism centuries earlier.

Quite literally, in some cases, only the new names of Michael and Satan replace Ahura and Ahriman. In other places we see only slightly more subtle changes. For example, in the Zoroastrian mythos "dragons" will destroy one third of the human population. In the Revelation version the exact same one third of the human population are destroyed, but this time by fire breathing "horses" with sharp teeth like lions, and tails like serpents....hmmmmm. :oops:

And Jewish apocalyptic literature often depicts visions of 'dragons' and other terrifying beasts bring afflicting and/or divine judgement on a proportion of the population in the End Days. This isn't Christian 'plagarism' of Zoroastrian ideas, it's a Christian extention of a long established Jewish religious literature.

Of course, we can hardly blame Jesus for "stuff" written by others after his departure from this world.

Except the gospels have Jesus making apocalyptic statements and describing the End Days in very similar language to Revelations. Whether he actually did say these things is unclear, but there's little doubt that he was part of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition of his time.

The amazing thing is why, when so many early Christian writings were dismissed, this one remained "canon" despite how closely it imitated Zoroastrian mythology, and clearly contradicted the Old Testament scriptures Jesus endorsed.

I can't see how this is so remarkable. Christianity arose out of an apocalyptic branch of Judaism and remained highly apocalyptic in its outlook long after it separated from Judaism. It remains so to this day, as the success of those horrible Left Behind novels in the US indicates.

[Daniel S Peterson]

The point I was attempting to make is that it is one thing for various faiths to have similar apocalyptic beliefs, but quite another when we find the mythologies of older religions imitated literally word for word, yet declared to be a "revelaton", and fervently believed to be such.

I suppose some apologists, if they are willing to acknowledge that events in Revelation are taken almost verbatim from an earlier religion, and one that wasn't Jewish, but Persian, might state that both Zoroaster and John of Patmos had been inspired by the same God. But if that were truly the case, why would the Zoroastrian scriptures state that the Gods of the two beliefs are most definately not the same being, and in fact, in Zoroastrian scriptures like the Denkard, the God of the Jews is actually stated to be yet another evil dragon named Zohac? And as I recall, he is supposed to be the brother of their own dragon, Ahriman who is unquestionably the "same dragon" in Revelation, right down to being bound up and cast into the same abyss in both the Zoroastrian, and John's accounts.

I wonder how many readers of all of those "Left Behind" novels are aware of where many elements of the "original" Revelation story actually came from?

[hoplite14gr]

Hmmm...
The idea of "son of God" or devine ancenstry of families was a concept pre-dating Cristianity.
The "Last Supper" ceremonies also are known in the "Backhic" tradition.
Add to the mix that most Western ancient religions did not have an organized structure of clergy or a "priestly cast" like those in the East.
Also it seemed that demographics seem to favor early Cristian communities at a time.
So many concept that are part of the "modern" Cristianity were already there.
It was a matter of time for the established order to follow suit, once it found its interests best served by the new religion.

Pious non-cleric Cristians would perhaps not feel uncomfortable discussing these things, but the Clergy knows that they are "The New Religion" that "overthew" the older religions. They feel that they too can possibly be "substituted" like the beliefs before them. Naturaly they wouldn´t like any "decent" that will erode the base of the belivers.

Just my 2 penies worth

Kind regards

[Johnny Shumate]

Did Zoroastrianism Influence the Book of Revelation?

More than likely it was the other way around..!

Our main source for details on Zoroastrianism is the Avesta, a collection of sacred texts which was put in writing between 346-360 AD and of which we have manuscript copies only as early as the 13th century. Some of the material probably comes from a time before the Christian era, but most of this is reckoned to be hymns and some basic information that was part of the oral tradition. The rest seems likely to have been added later.

Did the Jews “stealâ€

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm not so sure about who infleunec who.

First of all, there's numbers - a relative small number of exoles is less likely to influence a massive number, although I immediately conced that this happened with Christianity.
Also, the status of the exiled Jews would not be in favour of spreading their religion (they had lost, after all) among a vastly superior victorious people.

Cornening 'the evil one', before the Exile, the Bible seems not to show a big evil dude on an equal footing (or ranking a close second). The biook of Job, on the other hand, shows a devil who seems to have light bater with the Lord, successfully seducing Him hock: into harming Job- as if it were a bet about soccer! this 'equality' is very much culturally attached to the East, whilst unknown in Judaism before or after. It closely resembles a duality, where good and bad are two parts from the same coin. Of course it's not the same, but most likely an influence.

Btw, it need not be from Zoroastrism. Dual gods were not exclusive to Zoroastrism.

[Johnny Shumate]

Remember the Persians didn't conquer the Jews, the Babylonians did. After the fall of Babylon, Persia ruled the Jews by default. Cyrus was very generous to the Jews, allowing them to re-build the temple under Ezra. So there would have been more "friendly" interaction between Jew and Persian. Remember, Nehemiah was the kings cup bearer. So Jewish thought would have been pervasive. Cyrus the great even said," Ezra 1:2 ¶ This is what King Cyrus of Persia says: “The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has appointed me to build Him a house at Jerusalem in Judah.
Ezra 1:3 Whoever is among His people, may his God be with him, and may he go to Jerusalem in Judah and build the house of the LORD, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem.
Ezra 1:4 Let every survivor, wherever he lives, be assisted by the men of that region with silver, gold, goods, and livestock, along with a freewill offering for the house of God in Jerusalem.â€

[Robert Vermaat]

It seems Cyrus was influenced by the God of the Jews....

Hmm.. It sounds very much like propaganda to me, puting word in the mouth of His Imperial Majesty.
Or is there a Persian text/tablet confirming this?

[Spurius]

I was under the impression that Daniel (among others) were taken and given special treatment on account of their elite status among the Jews. I may be mistaken, but I understood the intent was to influence them, and they in turn would influence the Jewish population at large.

But, influence can become a two-way street where those who were brought in to be influenced then, in turn influence the ones who were supposed to be setting the 'program'. I believe this is the reason why, in times of war it has generally been a strong issue to avoid fraternisation with the enemy.