Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 4 posts ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: Historical Christianity "real" Christianity?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:04 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:00 am
Posts: 91
Religion: Catholic
How do we respond to criticisms toward Christianity that it's not "real" Christianity, or not the Christianity of Jesus's time?

I saw the following online elsewhere, and have paraphrased some of the sentences (but the message is the same):

Quote:
Jesus was made up after the fact to make the narrative fit the convenient needs of the new religion, but hints peek through. For example, He was most likely a disciple of John the Baptist until John was arrested, but later the narrative had to be warped to make Jesus more important. Jesus was not born in Bethlehem...Joseph likely was not from there.

Much of what we call Christianity was fabricated by St. Paul on the way to Damascus. St. Paul claimed to be another apostle, speaking directly to the late great Jesus, and concocted the whole "Jesus comes to save us from original sin" stuff. He got into vicious feuds with the real followers of Jesus, who hung out in the Temple trying to persuade other Jews about the Messiah. Fortunately for Paul, when the Jews rebelled in 71AD, the Temple cult was mostly massacred and since Paul had been preaching to large numbers of gentiles in the eastern Roman empire, his brand of Christianity survived. So Christianity is not even real "Christianity".

There's no doubt that the religion we now call "Christian" was primarily dreamed up wholesale by Paul/Saul and has less to do with the actual person of Jesus. Aslan makes some good points (and draws heavily on the "A Marginal Jew" series of books by a Jesuit priest). Jesus was a wandering prophet who likely learned under John the Baptist, who most likely was associated with the Essene cult that lived down the coast from where he did his baptisms...

Recall that Paul was the one who preached to gentiles, and eventually was forced into a deal by the temple cult that he would not try to corrupt Jews with his preachings. The real followers of Jesus were not interested in gentiles. Paul also wrangled the agreement that his followers did not also have to become Jewish, which demonstrated that the followers of Jesus did not care about gentile followers or consider them part of their sect


I have heard arguments in the past that "real" Christianity is supposed to resemble the Essenes, and it's not the Catholic Church or any existing Christian church today. How much merit do these arguments have?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historical Christianity "real" Christianity?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:31 am 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76656
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
What merit? None. How do you respond to it? By writing a library of thick, tightly argued, densely footnotes books (like those by NY Wright) that none of the people who believe that kind of stuff will ever read.

I'm going to recommend a book for you, it is not a book about how to win arguments, because only knowledge can win you an argument, but it is a book about how to talk to people about anything.
The book is "Tactics' by Greg Kukol. Read it.


Last edited by Doom on Tue Mar 23, 2021 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historical Christianity "real" Christianity?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2021 1:44 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:23 pm
Posts: 4642
Location: A Little West of New Orleans
Religion: Roman Catholic
Church Affiliations: Cursillo & KofC
As a whole, it is poppycock. There are some indications that Jesus was connected to the Essenes as he celebrated the Last Supper Passover in an Essene neighborhood on the day that the Essenes celebrated Passover. The Essenes seem to have been more “Christian-like” than the Sadducees and the Pharisees. This in no way gives any foundation to the idiocy of the person attacking Christianity that you have quoted.

We have the Apostolic Fathers. Some of them were disciples of the Apostles. Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome both prove this charlatan wrong, as they both prove to be thoroughly Catholic in religion. Ignatius was consecrated bishop by Peter and was a disciple of John. Clement was a disciple of Peter. The person quoted is either an ignoramus or a liar. Due to the dressing he uses, I would guess a liar and a malicious liar at that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Historical Christianity "real" Christianity?
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:38 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2021 12:29 pm
Posts: 7
Religion: Catholic
"Jesus was made up after the fact to make the narrative fit the convenient needs of the new religion, but hints peek through. For example, He was most likely a disciple of John the Baptist until John was arrested, but later the narrative had to be warped to make Jesus more important. Jesus was not born in Bethlehem...Joseph likely was not from there."


I would point out that what you have here is a series of assertions without any supporting facts or reasoning. The Gospel accounts hold up quite well to historical criticism but there aren't any elements of that being offered here.

It's easy to just SAY "oh, that is "warped" or "most likely".....

What a serious reviewer will insist on is specific REASONS for each of these dismissive assertions. THAT is not so easy to do....


Regards,
SDS


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 4 posts ]   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


Jump to: