The Triumph of Christianity

Originally posted by @thinkofone
My post was in response to the following:
<<We can only wonder what Jesus would think about this “triumph.”>>

It wasn't directed at you.

I still wonder what Jesus would think about this “triumph.” I wonder if he’d think a triumph was even a goal, and if so what resulted, counts as a triumph. And, isn’t it a bit early to declare a triumph?

Originally posted by @js357
I still wonder what Jesus would think about this “triumph.” I wonder if he’d think a triumph was even a goal, and if so what resulted, counts as a triumph. And, isn’t it a bit early to declare a triumph?

My post was a bit abstract, but the point I was trying to make was that there's a wide gulf between Christianity and the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry. As such, Jesus would see Christianity a complete perversion of His gospel and not at all a "triumph".

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World [2018]

[quote]From the bestselling authority on early Christianity, the story of how Christianity grew from a religion of twenty or so peasants in rural Galilee to the dominant religion in the West in less than four hundred years.

Christianity didn’t have to become the dominant r ...[text shortened]... 's read any of Bart D. Ehrman's 30 or so books ~ or this one ~ have any thoughts about his work?[/b]

This line itself... is it actually from Ehriman?

I would have thought he would have been more well versed to know that Matthew was a tax farmer, which would imply literacy and a very middle class existence.

They would also probably want to note that the brothers Zebedee were the sons of a fisherman that likely was a man of some means, owned his own vessel, etc., and may even have represented the equivalent of an upper middle class. Here, too, we could theoretically see them as literate.

Christ's temporal father Joseph was a carpenter, and Christ was able to spend lots of time in the synagogues discussing law. A carpenter was an artisan, and this is skilled labor in those days, also a member of the local middle class at a minimum.

The other occupations are unknown. If they were largely urban dwellers who were loosely affiliated with these other men, it might be true that they also had some artisans among them who were men of means.

Another important thing to remember: these 12 men, if you accept their testimony, probably had dozens & dozens of others who were Christians at the time. We have stories about Christ gathering large crowds in the low thousands and preaching to them. I believe the number that atheist historian Will Durant suggested to be accurate was that there would have been the 11 apostles plus Judas and another outer circle of more than a hundred people who would have been followers.

Remember, as well, that Christ would have fully inherited John the Baptist's crew...

Of course, if you reject what the Bible says and believe it was strategically manufactured to create a favorable narrative, then there is almost no reason to discuss this sort of thing because it's pure speculation.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Of course, if you reject what the Bible says and believe it was strategically manufactured to create a favorable narrative, then there is almost no reason to discuss this sort of thing because it's pure speculation.

Feel free to not discuss it then, by all means.

Originally posted by @fmf
Feel free to not discuss it then, by all means.

Ehrman seems to be a total hack. If you want to post something credible from a respected atheist, it’d be best to find someone else.

Ghost posted some claptrap from Ehrman about two weeks ago that was easily debunked after about 10 minutes on Google.

You’re unlikely to generate an interesting discussion when your OP is about a foggy-brained boob whose understanding of Christianity barely surpasses your own and Ghost’s.

Originally posted by @philokalia
This line itself... is it actually from Ehriman?

I would have thought he would have been more well versed to know that Matthew was a tax farmer, which would imply literacy and a very middle class existence.

They would also probably want to note that the brothers Zebedee were the sons of a fisherman that likely was a man of some means, owned his o ...[text shortened]... en there is almost no reason to discuss this sort of thing because it's pure speculation.

This is an excellent post.

Ehrman’s a boob who apparently attracts the same in his followers.

Originally posted by @fmf
The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World [2018]

Bart D. Ehrman interviewed about his new book at https://www.npr.org

Podcast 43 mins

https://tinyurl.com/y95vxbud

Originally posted by @fmf
Bart D. Ehrman interviewed about his new book at https://www.npr.org

Podcast 43 mins

https://tinyurl.com/y95vxbud

Does he reference the “talking snake” in Genesis or say God is an “outside agent” in a Christian’s life and that books of the Bible were written “decades apart?”

Does he define Christianity as “people talking about themselves and what Jesus’ life meant?”

Trying to figure out where you and Ghost came up with that nonsense.

Originally posted by @fmf
Bart D. Ehrman interviewed about his new book at https://www.npr.org

Podcast 43 mins

https://tinyurl.com/y95vxbud

The first 28 minutes are about how the Roman empire came eventually to adopt Christianity officially (and the misconception that it happened during Constantine's reign), about the role of miracles in conversions, about why the message of love set the new religion apart from its competitors, and how and why pagans were converted ~ including how many were required to convert to Judaism first before converting to Christianity (and why most Jews didn't convert and what they made of Jesus).

If you're not interested in how Ehrman lost his faith and went from being a born-again fundamentalist to a "Christian agnostic" [as he puts it and explains in the podcast if you listen] as a result of being a Biblical scholar, then don't listen past the 28-minute mark.

I don't think Ehrman is quite a hack, but the guy willingly misportrays things in debates to bolster his position and does his best to feign outrage at the opposition's view as "absurd" when, in reality, there is no way he actually believes it is as absurd as he says it is.

I cannot really act like this is some major grievance, though, because this is so common of an attitude in debates from both sides.

Originally posted by @fmf
Bart D. Ehrman interviewed about his new book at https://www.npr.org

Podcast 43 mins

https://tinyurl.com/y95vxbud

31-33 mins - Ehrman's love for the Bible and how he sees himself as a Christian agnostic.

36 mins 30 secs - talking about his next book "The invention of the afterlife".

39 mins - end - talking about evangelical Christian support for Trump.

Originally posted by @philokalia
I don't think Ehrman is quite a hack, but the guy willingly misportrays things in debates to bolster his position and does his best to feign outrage at the opposition's view as "absurd" when, in reality, there is no way he actually believes it is as absurd as he says it is.

Provide a link please to an extended clip of one of these debates. I'd be interested to see an example of what you claim is him "feigning outrage".

Originally posted by @fmf
The first 28 minutes are about how the Roman empire came eventually to adopt Christianity officially (and the misconception that it happened during Constantine's reign), about the role of miracles in conversions, about why the message of love set the new religion apart from its competitors, and how and why pagans were converted ~ including how many were require ...[text shortened]... you listen] as a result of being a Biblical scholar, then don't listen past the 28-minute mark.

How does a “Biblical scholar” make elementary errors about the Bible? On what basis do you claim he is a “Biblical scholar?”

Originally posted by @thinkofone
My post was a bit abstract, but the point I was trying to make was that there's a wide gulf between Christianity and the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry. As such, Jesus would see Christianity a complete perversion of His gospel and not at all a "triumph".

I think Christianity failed to launch (as such) when its early bishops of Rome agreed to being installed in a state-approved religion by Constantine, which by acquiescing, morphed it. But they were made an offer they couldn't refuse. The invention of movable type once again put scripture into the hands of the commoner where it belongs but "organized" or corporate religion had become entrenched by that time as the interpreter of truth . I see more independent Christian thinking on this forum than I expected, but still there is Christian-on-Christian intolerance and corralling of independent views.

Originally posted by @js357
I think Christianity failed to launch (as such) when its early bishops of Rome agreed to being installed in a state-approved religion by Constantine, which by acquiescing, morphed it. But they were made an offer they couldn't refuse. The invention of movable type once again put scripture into the hands of the commoner where it belongs but "organized" or corpo ...[text shortened]... cted, but still there is Christian-on-Christian intolerance and corralling of independent views.

Some see the perversion as having happened much earlier:

"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ."

- Soren Kierkegaard, The Journals

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart." - Thomas Jefferson to William Short, Monticello, 13 April 1820[1]

Pasted from <http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/dupes-and-impostors-quotation>