Re: Babylon the great
Kindest Regards, Jeannot, and welcome to CR!
Jeannot said:
Following is a glib, not-to-be-taken-too-seriously, excursion on this subject:
Is this a work of your own? If not, would you be kind enough to credit the author, not least for reasons of plagiarism.
While it may be glib, and not to be taken seriously, it would seem a great many around here do hold views not at all unlike that portrayed:
Has anyone wondered why the supposed center of Christianity, from the fourth century to the sixteenth, has been in Rome, of all places?
Could it be because Rome was the capital of the "greatest" empire ever to exist on the face of the planet, from something like 500 B.C. until around 410 A.D.? After that, the focus shifted to the Eastern half of the Roman empire (after Rome was sacked), and the Byzantine empire rose to the fore until Constantinople was sacked during the Crusades. The Eastern orthodox "branch" or "denomination" stems from here. It is also of the influence of the Byzantines that the Pope, for a time, was Greek (the great schism). Rome has long been a center of influence, politically and culturally. Why would a religion not gravitate to the center of such a mass of power?
The "Roman Catholic" church is a contradiction in terms. What else was both "Roman" and "catholic"? The Empire, of course!
I fail to see the point. What has the Christianization of the empire to do with contradiction? Besides, you are neglecting the "Holy Roman Empire" under Charlemagne.
No "J" in Hebrew, none in English either until 1555 +/-. So his name could not begin with a "J." Iesus, or Yeshua, take your pick. Either way, proper translation (not transliteration) would be in modern English: "Joshua," meaning "salvation is of G-d."
shows up sometime around 30 CE (I dunno what this is in the Jewish calendar). He mostly hangs around an out-of-the-way province in a corner of the Empire. He gathers around himself some teenaged thugs—dagger-wielders and sword-carriers. The Romans, for some reason, perceive him as an enemy and execute him in an excruciating (literally), humiliating way.
Teenaged thugs? Sword carriers? I don't buy it. Take a look for yourself (rather than taking the author of this at his/her word). John could be said to be a "teenager," but hardly a thug or sword carrier. Some of the disciples were married, and it is presumed with children. Which would make them comparable in age with Jesus, in some cases older. And who wouldn't carry a sword on a desolate stretch of highway where travelling by foot at the blinding speed of 4 miles per hour you are an easy mark for brigands and highwaymen? The only disciple noted to have used a sword was Peter in the garden, and Jesus fixed what Peter mucked up. This author has some serious issues, not least with following text and translating correctly.
But his followers continue to practice his brand of Judaism in both Galilee and in Jerusalem. But soon they find their movement being taken over by an epileptic Pharisee who wants to broaden the movement to his fellow citizens of Rome. Now, some Jews (eg, Josephus) as well as some "Xtians", (e.g., Saul/Paul), begin to toady toward Rome.
Just want to be certain I am following correctly: is this saying Paul is a Jew, or a Christian? The way it reads, it is two different people. BTW, epileptic? I have heard migraines, I have heard a number of different medical proposals presented, by this is the first I had heard of Paul (I presume Paul is the Pharisee being spoken of as taking over the movement) being stricken with epilepsy. Frankly, I don't buy it, but hey, to each their own. Besides, there were already Jews in Palestine "toadying" to Rome since about 50 B.C. when the other J.C. (Julius Ceasar) conquered the area and annexed it to the empire.
But the Xtians are much better at it, and in a couple of centuries – after some unpleasantness -- they find themselves in control of the Empire!
Much better at what? Surviving the onslaught of the Romans? Ask a Jew, and I think he may disagree, the Jews are still with us today. It is a great miracle, and significant mark of time, that the nation of Israel was reinstated after 1900 odd years.
The only reason the Christians came to power is through Constantine, who granted them assylum for helping him gain victory over Maxentius.
Now, they are in a position not only to persecute Jews, but also Pagans and "heretics." Wow! God must be really smiling on their enterprise!
You mean like how you now here are in position to mock and persecute Christians, so G-d must now be smiling on your enterprise? I am not understanding your point. It is not OK for Christians to mock and persecute others (which I agree with) but it is perfectly OK for you to do so (which I very much
disagree with)? Looks to me like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?
Meanwhile, back in Palestine in the first century..... James and his followers, the Ebionites, etc.,
Proof, please?
who continue to worship in synagogues find themselves outmaneuvered and outgunned by the Paulists. All they have going for them is that they actually knew Jeshua—James as his own brother. But Paul, an enthusiast who never knew Jeshua, knows somebody more powerful, a figure he calls "Christ Jesus" who has appeared to him in a vision.. Being an assiduous letter-writer, and an indefatigable travelling administrator, Paul sets up his "church" (ekklesia) far and wide.
Of course, there is no possible way the Creator of the universe(s) could have had anything at all to do with any of this, right? [/sarcasm] Assuming, (and that's a pretty BIG ASSumption) that G-d had nothing to do with His son, His son's work, the spread of Christianity, etc., implies that Christianity in particular, and religion in general, are merely creations of humanity. Leaving G-d out of the equation implies that there is no value in religion at all, with the possible exception of consolidation of political power. This flies in the face of the personal experiences of countless millions across the centuries, not just Christians.
The Jamesians (Jacobites) go into underground mode, particularly after the smashing of the Temple in 70. (James himself had been executed in 62) The canonical "gospels" are now written (actually, given their final edit) in the light of Paul's letters and influence, so they are anti-Jewish, pro-Roman, and feature a Jeshua who has become Christ Jesus.
If this is the interpretation you prefer, more power to ya! How does it manifest in your life, in how you relate to others?
The Jamesians attempt to preserve their own traditions in things like THE GOSPEL OF THE EBIONITES and perhaps the Gnostic GOSPEL OF THOMAS.
Proof, please?
The latter, for example, has the following exchange:
THE DISCIPLES (to Josh): "After you are gone, who will be great over us?"
JESHUA: "In the place where you are to go, go to James the Just for whose sake Heaven and Earth came into existence." (!!!)
I see...the acknowledged canonical texts have no value, but the spurious apocryphal texts do have value...but G-d doesn't exist anyway, so...what?
]Hmmmm. No Peter. No Simon. No Cephas. (Gradually, Paul seems to have won "Cephas"—Peter—over to his side)
Which, of course, is a bad thing?
We all know that the most commonly accepted version of history is usually written by the victors. And the 3rd-4th century historian (and bishop to Constantine) Eusebius, tells us that the Temple was destroyed as a punishment for the Jews' rejection of Josh. Neat move! Now, not only are the Jews demonized, but the Romans are seen as doing God's will.
More support for the human manufacture of religion? Then religion is a waste of time, there is no heaven, there is no G-d, there is no reason to believe anything by anyone...so why bother?
And so we were on our merry way, with pronunciamentos from Christ's Vicar on Earth in the center of Roman pomp and power. This Vicar speaking for an itinerant Galilean rabbi.
Interpretation is a subjective thing. Many have interpreted the teachings of Jesus, some invoking "speaking in Jesus' name," but not all. But since the author of this seems "hell bent" on interpreting the end result of Jesus' work on behalf of all of Christianity as being pointless, it does raise some serious issues in my mind as to the motivation behind it.
Of course, all of this is just my "glib, not-to-be-taken-too-seriously, excursion on this subject."
*Moderator hat on* While we have tried to open the door a bit for alternate views in Christianity, I want to make it clear that posts denigrating Christianity, or otherwise casting an unfavorable light on it, are not appreciated. This specifically is the type of thread that would be better suited to the Alternative section. *Moderator hat off*
