War and Peace

[Haffner]

Christianity was a tiny cult when it first appeared. Why would anyone care to or have to reject it?

Fear, maybe?  Always a good reason, though one that many won't own up to.

[MN Dave]

Fear, maybe?  Always a good reason, though one that many won't own up to.

Fear of what though? I mean, it grew into something to be feared and has caused all kinds of problems, but why should the Jews have embraced it? They had their own, older established religion.

[Haffner]

Fear of what though? I mean, it grew into something to be feared and has caused all kinds of problems, but why should the Jews have embraced it? They had their own, older established religion.

Apparently Jesus' teachings had made enough of a dent in the Judaic culture of the 1st century to have made him worth being squashed. Maybe something about the whole thing scared them.


I've always wondered whether the Jews also had to reject Jesus' teachings in order to preserve their own, hermetic identity. They were being persecuted horribly by the Romans, and the Romans and Greeks ended up embracing Jesus. They may have wanted to distance themselves in order for protection. Just like so many other nationalities/peoples/religions, etc. have, both in the past and present.

[MN Dave]

Apparently Jesus' teachings had made enough of a dent in the Judaic culture of the 1st century to have made him worth being squashed. Maybe something about the whole thing scared them.


I've always wondered whether the Jews also had to reject Jesus' teachings in order to preserve their own, hermetic identity. They were being persecuted horribly by the Romans, and the Romans and Greeks ended up embracing Jesus. They may have wanted to distance themselves in order for protection. Just like so many other nationalities/peoples/religions, etc. have, both in the past and present.

Christianity was embraced and grew for political reasons. Maybe the Jews wanted no part of it.

[Haffner]

Christianity was embraced and grew for political reasons. Maybe the Jews wanted no part of it.

That could also have been the case, excellent point. Could you please elaborate on the political reasons that people might have embraced such a religion during that time?

[MN Dave]

That could also have been the case, excellent point. Could you please elaborate on the political reasons that people might have embraced such a religion during that time?

I haven't read about this stuff in quite a while, so I don't remember the exact reasons, but I do remember it was political. Someone more knowledgable would have to come in at this point.

[Haffner]

I haven't read about this stuff in quite a while, so I don't remember the exact reasons, but I do remember it was political. Someone more knowledgable would have to come in at this point.

Anyone? Now I'm really interested!

[MN Dave]

Anyone? Now I'm really interested!

A question to be asked here is: Why do you think everyone should have dropped their beliefs and latched on to Christianity? Jesus was saying nothing new--nothing new to your average wise man anyway. The only angle the religion had was that Jesus was the son of God, and who the heck is going to believe that? And perhaps Jesus never even said he was, perhaps the people who wrote this stuff up stuck that in there...

[Haffner]

A question to be asked here is: Why do you think everyone should have dropped their beliefs and latched on to Christianity? Jesus was saying nothing new--nothing new to your average wise man anyway. The only angle the religion had was that Jesus was the son of God, and who the heck is going to believe that? And perhaps Jesus never even said he was, perhaps the people who wrote this stuff up stuck that in there...

Dave, I never said everyone should drop their beliefs and latched onto Christianity. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't try to push things on people in this forum, never have. As far as the angle that Jesus was/is the Son of God, literally billions of people have believed that (at least a billion today profess to believing it).

Again, correct me if I'm wrong. No disrespect intended, in the least. But I don't think I made the statements you accuse me of having made.

[MN Dave]

Dave, I never said everyone should drop their beliefs and latched onto Christianity. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't try to push things on people in this forum, never have. As far as the angle that Jesus was/is the Son of God, literally billions of people have believed that (at least a billion today profess to believing it).

Again, correct me if I'm wrong. No disrespect intended, in the least. But I don't think I made the statements you accuse me of having made.

You were talking about the Jews "rejecting" Christianity. That's all I was referring to.

[karlhenning]

Jesus was saying nothing new--nothing new to your average wise man anyway.

Oh, I don't know.  Any average wise man would likely have enough humility to own when he hears something new, in which insight he sees merit.  Even a fresh angle on an idea which he has already pondered a bit.

And, too, so few of us are as bright as your average wise man, of course.  Lots of us have intellectual laziness, &c.

The only angle the religion had was that Jesus was the son of God, and who the heck is going to believe that? And perhaps Jesus never even said he was, perhaps the people who wrote this stuff up stuck that in there...

Well, and if he did not say this, and all he said was smart things that your average wise man would have known anyway, why was he crucified?  The crucifixion is, at the least, a documented event;  and if we "file off" the inconvenient burrs of Jesus actually claiming to be God's son in some unique manner . . . why would they crucify someone for just saying smart things?

You were talking about the Jews "rejecting" Christianity. That's all I was referring to.

Well, and wasn't Paul's documented persecution of the new sect a question of Judaism rejecting Christianity?

[Haffner]

You were talking about the Jews "rejecting" Christianity. That's all I was referring to.

Sometimes a certain saying crosses my mind (I heard this a long time ago): what if there are in existence each particular God/set-of-Gods of each religion...or NOT to any?

Nietzsche already asked that one, I think. Shucks.

[karlhenning]

That's another aspect of the question, of course.  If the idea is that Paul was a 'revisionist', why would he be content with being a latecomer to the party?  Why didn't he "reinvent" the narrative so that he was one of Jesus's many original followers?  Even if, like Nicodemus, for instance, a secret follower who didn't publicize his following of Jesus for fear of losing social standing, &c.

[Haffner]

That's another aspect of the question, of course.  If the idea is that Paul was a 'revisionist', why would he be content with being a latecomer to the party?  Why didn't he "reinvent" the narrative so that he was one of Jesus's many original followers?  Even if, like Nicodemus, for instance, a secret follower who didn't publicize his following of Jesus for fear of losing social standing, &c.

Karl's point about Paul helps me also to see what his friend Luke wrote about the Jesus, the Apostles, etc. in an interesting light.

[MN Dave]

Oh, I don't know.  Any average wise man would likely have enough humility to own when he hears something new, in which insight he sees merit.  Even a fresh angle on an idea which he has already pondered a bit.

And, too, so few of us are as bright as your average wise man, of course.  Lots of us have intellectual laziness, &c.

I'm saying it was nothing new.

Well, and if he did not say this, and all he said was smart things that your average wise man would have known anyway, why was he crucified?  The crucifixion is, at the least, a documented event;  and if we "file off" the inconvenient burrs of Jesus actually claiming to be God's son in some unique manner . . . why would they crucify someone for just saying smart things?

Oh heck. Why not?

Well, and wasn't Paul's documented persecution of the new sect a question of Judaism rejecting Christianity?

Sure. But why should they have embraced it?

[MN Dave]

That's another aspect of the question, of course.  If the idea is that Paul was a 'revisionist', why would he be content with being a latecomer to the party?  Why didn't he "reinvent" the narrative so that he was one of Jesus's many original followers?  Even if, like Nicodemus, for instance, a secret follower who didn't publicize his following of Jesus for fear of losing social standing, &c.

You'd have to ask him.

[karlhenning]

Sure. But why should they have embraced it?

Well, some of them did. All the original followers of Jesus were Jews, you know.

[karlhenning]

You'd have to ask him.

You see no merit in my speculation? Ah, well; we accept these minor reverses philosophically . . . .

[MN Dave]

You see no merit in my speculation? Ah, well; we accept these minor reverses philosophically . . . .

It was some fine speculatin'.

[karlhenning]

You are kind, mon vieux