Rome in transition

[Ahanu]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

OK, so does this imply that at least some amount of the Gospel story and other parts of the New Testament are *edited* or rewritten to better suit the new hosts right around 325 AD? I haven't seen anything that hints in this direction...

Me neither!

China Cat Sunflower said:

We know that Peter is still carrying a sword at the very end.

While reading Matthew 5: 43-45, I assume that Peter is carrying a sword while Jesus is preaching this message. The weapon is bound to go noticed. So from the very beginning of Peter joining the revolution, he may have carried a sword. During the time, we know the famous belief was that a militant messiah, like Joshua, is going to victoriously defeat the roman empire and deliver the people like Moses did in the past. However, God shockingly dies with the Jews. The new exegesis sparks a revolutionary ideology which eventually is the winning idea that conquers the roman empire.

But there's no loving one's enemies.

After the fall of the temple, life for the Jews completely change. Maybe the answer is around the fall of the temple somewhere. Maybe John the Baptist and Jesus knew it was coming. Well, this is what I was thinking when reading what ya'll were discussing. . .

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

OK, so does this imply that at least some amount of the Gospel story and other parts of the New Testament are *edited* or rewritten to better suit the new hosts right around 325 AD?

We know that the material has been redacted. I'm staying strictly within the story here. If one takes the posture that it's less important to have answers than learn the ability to construct the right questions, I don't think we need to question the historicity of the Gospel narrative. Before we ever get to the point where we question the literalness of the narrative we should be asking all these questions about practical origins.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

We know that the material has been redacted. I'm staying strictly within the story here. If one takes the posture that it's less important to have answers than learn the ability to construct the right questions, I don't think we need to question the historicity of the Gospel narrative. Before we ever get to the point where we question the literalness of the narrative we should be asking all these questions about practical origins.

OK, I think I see your point. Goodness, all it takes is a look at Theosophist literature and one can get the impression that the Jesus story is simply a retelling of the same old pagan superhero. Sheesh, come to think of it, I remember from somewhere an association between the names Jesus and Zeus.

Maybe there is something to all of the DaVinci Code / HBHG bs floating around, I don't know. But there is an awful lot that just doesn't add up.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

While reading Matthew 5: 43-45, I assume that Peter is carrying a sword while Jesus is preaching this message. The weapon is bound to go noticed. So from the very beginning of Peter joining the revolution, he may have carried a sword. During the time, we know the famous belief was that a militant messiah, like Joshua, is going to victoriously defeat the roman empire and deliver the people like Moses did in the past. However, God shockingly dies with the Jews. The new exegesis sparks a revolutionary ideology which eventually is the winning idea that conquers the roman empire.

Thanks for your interest, Ahanu!

Conquers the Roman Empire? I think an equally valid argument could be made that Christianity may have hastened the fall of the Western Empire, rot from within so to speak. It's hard to say without better source material and my Latin is severely limited. I do think you bring a good point about the expectation of a militant messiah. Seems I recall reading somewhere that after Jesus and especially after the Temple was razed that a number of men were put forward as potential Messiahs. The most famous being Simon bar Kochba.

Originally Posted by Ahanu

After the fall of the temple, life for the Jews completely change. Maybe the answer is around the fall of the temple somewhere. Maybe John the Baptist and Jesus knew it was coming. Well, this is what I was thinking when reading what ya'll were discussing. . .

Absolutely. The fall of the Temple was a huge blow to the Jewish cultural psyche. That was what distinguished the Jews from the other Hebrew tribes was their hold on the Temple proper. A couple of generations later and the Romans booted the Jews completely from Palestine, seems to me around 125 AD or thereabouts, the repercussion from the Bar Kochba revolt.

You broach an interesting thought, wondering if Jesus and John Baptist could "foresee." I believe in a metaphysical reality, a something that does interact with the material reality. But I can't help but wonder just how involved it can and does get with the affairs of human politics. And religion is politics and politics is religion at this stage of history.

[juantoo3]

I mentioned the Albigensian Crusade earlier, I wanted to show that the differences in interpretation have always been there (in spite of some protests to the contrary). In the West where the Vatican held sway its influence was often enforced militarily. Most of us know some of these things in a general sense, but for those who might want some resources to explore these historical highlights of Church history:

The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the heresy of the Cathars of Languedoc.

When Innocent III's diplomatic attempts to roll back Catharism[1] met with little success, he declared a crusade against Languedoc, offering the lands of the schismatics to any French nobleman willing to take up arms. The violence led to France's acquisition of lands with closer cultural and linguistic ties to Catalonia (see Occitan). An estimated 1,000,000 people died during the crusade.[2][3]

The Albigensian Crusade also had a role in the creation and institutionalization of both the Dominican Order and the Medieval Inquisition.

emphasis mine-jt3

Albigensian Crusade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catharism was a name given to a religious sect with dualistic and gnostic elements that appeared in the Languedoc region of France in the 11th century and flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries. Catharism had its roots in the Paulician movement in Armenia and the Bogomiles with whom the Paulicians eventually merged. They also became influenced by dualist and perhaps Manichaean beliefs.

Like many medieval movements, there were various schools of thought and practice amongst the Cathari; some were dualistic, others gnostic, some closer to orthodoxy while abstaining from an acceptance of Catholic doctrines.

Catharism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All big medieval inquisitions were decentralized. Authority rested with local officials based on guidelines from the Holy See, but there was no central top-down authority running the inquisitions, as would be the case in post-medieval inquisitions. Thus there were many different types of inquisitions depending on the location and methods; historians have generally classified them into the episcopal inquisition and the papal inquisition.

The first medieval inquisition, the episcopal inquisition, was established in the year 1184 by a papal bull entitled Ad abolendam, "For the purpose of doing away with." The inquisition was in response to the growing Catharist heresy in southern France. It is called "episcopal" because it was administered by local bishops, which in Latin is episcopus. The episcopal inquisition was not very effective for many reasons. The bishops often did not reside in their dioceses, living in far-off cities such as Rome and rarely, if ever, visiting. When they did visit, bishops were busy and had many other responsibilities. Also, the procedures used in this inquisition were not effective. For example, according to the Ad abolendam, it was required to reveal the name of the accuser to the accused, and this would often lead to the revenge killing of the accuser before the trial.

Medieval Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[juantoo3]

Some other historical notes of merit:

In the history of the Roman Catholic Church, the Avignon Papacy was the period from 1305 to 1378 during which seven popes, all French, resided in Avignon:

Pope Clement V: 1305–1314
Pope John XXII: 1316–1334
Pope Benedict XII: 1334–1342
Pope Clement VI: 1342–1352
Pope Innocent VI: 1352–1362
Pope Urban V: 1362–1370
Pope Gregory XI: 1370–1378

In 1376, Gregory XI moved the papal residence back to Rome and died there in 1378. Due to a dispute over the subsequent election, a faction of cardinals set up an antipope back in Avignon:

Clement VII: 1378–1394
Benedict XIII: 1394–1423 (expelled from Avignon in 1403)

This was the period of difficulty from 1378 to 1417 which Catholic scholars refer to as the "Western schism" or, "the great controversy of the antipopes" (also called "the second great schism" by some secular and Protestant historians), when parties within the Catholic church were divided in their allegiances among the various claimants to the office of pope. The Council of Constance in 1417 finally resolved the controversy.

Avignon Papacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At one point there were 3 popes simultaneously in office, in Rome, Pisa and Avignon.

Pope Martin V (c. 1368 – February 20, 1431), born Odo (or Oddone) Colonna was Pope from 1417 to 1431. His election effectively ended the Western Schism (1378–1417).

He was elected pope on St. Martin's Day (November 11) at the Council of Constance by a conclave consisting of twenty-three cardinals and thirty delegates of the council, which after deposing antipope John XXIII (1410–15), had been for long divided by the conflicting discourses of Pope Gregory XII (1406–15) and antipope Benedict XIII (1394–1423)

Pope Martin V - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about this guy:

Pope Alexander VI[1] (1 January 1431 – 18 August 1503), born Roderic Llançol, later Roderic de Borja (Italian: Borgia), who was Pope from 1492 to 1503, is the most controversial of the secular popes of the Renaissance and one whose surname became a byword for the debased standards of the papacy of that era.

At first, Alexander's reign was marked by a strict administration of justice and an orderly method of government, in contrast to the mismanagement of the previous pontificate, as well as by great outward splendour. But it was not long before his passion for endowing his relatives at the church's and his neighbours' expense became manifest. To that end he was ready to commit any crime and to plunge all Italy into war. Alexander VI had four children by his mistress (Vannozza dei Cattani), three sons and a daughter: Giovanni, Cesare, Goffredo (or Gioffre or, in Catalan, Jofré) and Lucrezia.

In spite of the splendours of the Pontifical court, the condition of Rome became every day more deplorable. The city swarmed with Spanish adventurers, assassins, prostitutes and informers; murder and robbery were committed with impunity, and the Pope himself cast aside all show of decorum, living a purely secular life; indulging in the chase, and arranging dancing, stage plays and orgies (culminating in the debaucherous Banquet of Chestnuts of 1501) within the Vatican itself.

Pope Alexander VI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We forgot the "r," all this time the word was "celebrate."

[juantoo3]

Now that I got some of the off-track stuff out of the way, here is some Jewish history pertaining to the situation on the ground in the earliest days of Christianity:

Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135) (Hebrew: מרד בר כוכבא‎) against the Roman Empire was a second major rebellion by the Jews of Iudaea and the last of the Jewish-Roman Wars.

Simon bar Kokhba, the commander of the revolt, was acclaimed the Messiah, the divine king prophesied to restore Israel. The revolt established a Jewish state for over two years, but a massive Roman army finally crushed it. The Romans then barred Jews from Jerusalem.

Jewish Christians hailed Jesus as the Messiah and did not support Bar Kokhba. They were barred from Jerusalem along with the rest of the Jews. The war and its aftermath helped differentiate Christianity as a religion distinct from Judaism.

Bar Kokhba revolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simon bar Kokhba (Hebrew: שמעון בר כוכבא, also transliterated as Bar Kokhva or Bar Kochba) was the Jewish leader who led what is known as Bar Kokhba's revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, establishing an independent Jewish state of Israel which he ruled for three years as Nasi ("prince," or "president"). His state was conquered by the Romans in 135 CE following a two-year war. He became the last king of Israel in history.

Simon bar Kokhba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first Jewish-Roman War (years 66–73 CE), sometimes called The Great Revolt (Hebrew: המרד הגדול‎, ha-Mered Ha-Gadol), was the first of three major rebellions by the Jews of Iudaea Province against the Roman Empire (the second was the Kitos War in 115–117 CE, the third was Bar Kokhba's revolt, 132–135 CE). It began in the year 66, stemming from Greek and Jewish religious tension.[1] It ended when legions under Titus besieged and destroyed Jerusalem, looted and burned Herod's Temple (in the year 70) and Jewish strongholds (notably Gamla in 67 and Masada in 73), and enslaved or massacred a large part of the Jewish population.

First Jewish-Roman War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Josephus, a first-century Jewish Roman historian, Herod the Great fortified Masada between 37 and 31 BCE as a refuge for himself in the event of a revolt. In 66 CE, at the beginning of the First Jewish-Roman War against the Roman Empire, a group of Judaic extremist rebels called the Sicarii took Masada from the Roman garrison stationed there.

The works of Josephus are contested. But nevertheless, as the sole record of events that took place then, according to Josephus, the Sicarii were an extremist group.

According to some modern interpretations of Josephus, the Sicarii are considered an extremist splinter group of the Zealots.[1] The Zealots (according to Josephus), in contrast to the Sicarii, carried the main burden of the rebellion, which opposed Roman rule of Judea (as the Roman province of Iudaea, its Latin name).

The Sicarii on Masada were commanded by Elazar ben Ya'ir (who may have been the same person as Eleazar ben Simon), and in 70 CE they were joined by additional Sicarii and their families that were expelled from Jerusalem by the Zealots with whom the Sicarii were in conflict shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple.

Masada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[juantoo3]

So we end up with a Jewish Rabbi who isn't Jewish, who is executed but doesn't die, executed in Roman fashion but not by Romans...and a criminal threat to the Roman political authority posthumously becomes a unifying religious icon and rallying point for the Roman people, under penalty of law.

Just to recap:

From 165 BCE to 63 BCE, the formation of an independent Jewish kingdom, known as the Hasmonaean Dynasty. This is the era of the Maccabbees.

A Roman campaign of conquest and annexation soon followed. Gradually the rule over Judea became less and less Jewish, until it came under the direct rule of Rome.

Some 34 years or so later (3 BC, +/-), the man we know as Jesus is born (thought by some to have occurred in the late summer or early autumn of the year).

33 years later (30 AD, +/-), the man we know as Jesus dies a criminal's death in the spring at the hands of the Romans at the instigation of the Jewish priests, ostensibly for posing a threat to the religious establishment and possibly for posing a threat to the civil establishment.

In 66 CE, Judeans began to revolt against the Roman rulers. The revolt was defeated and the Temple was destroyed in the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The siege of Masada followed shortly after, marking the end of this war. This is the period Josephus writes about as I recall.

Judeans continued to live in their land in significant numbers, until the Bar Kokhba revolt. Most of the Jewish population of central Judaea was essentially wiped out, killed, sold into slavery, or forced to flee, banished from Jerusalem until 1948 (another story for another day). By the way, this also meant that there were no Christians in Jerusalem either. For intents and purposes at this point and for some time yet to come, Christianity was viewed as an offshoot of Judaism.

Christians didn't have it easy. Nero was the first Roman Emperor to scapegoat the Christians, blaming them for the fires that levelled a lot of the old city of Rome. Christians were dipped in barrels of tar and set alight to illuminate Nero's garden parties, among other more famous tortures like being thrown to lions and executed by gladiators.

There were at least 3 major persecutions of the Christians over the ensuing 200 years or so, and several minor ones. Even so, Christians were by and large tolerated well enough that their numbers grew and they were even allowed at times to hold various public offices and conduct public business. They were even allowed a presence in the military. So Rome had a love/hate relationship with Christianity. When it was convenient, Rome tolerated them. When it was convenient, Rome butchered them. Until the time of Constantine the terms of tolerance or not were what Pagan Rome dictated at the moment.

So it took some intestinal fortitude to be a Christian during the period leading up to Constantine. No doubt there was some comforting element offered that the Pagan pantheon could not provide, perhaps the hope of eternal life and resurrection into a peaceful heaven rather than the arbitrary whims offered by Pagan superstitions? Perhaps the idea of common good and social welfare, (no stranger to Judaism even before Jesus), developed into an art that provided comfort and shelter and consolation that the Pagan pantheon could not beyond the appeasement of bread and circuses?

Along comes Constantine, no doubt a remarkable man no matter how history cares to view him. The son of the Ceasar of Britain, history recalls that British Christians joined the ranks of his soldiers and helped him defeat Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge. It was in payment for this debt of gratitude for this victory in 313 AD that Constantine officially lifted the sanctions that were imposed on Christians. No longer was it a social handicap to be a Christian. From this point Christianity exploded and never looked back.

The Christianity of this point in time was fragmented, holding a number of differing beliefs and traditions. There were no established canons, no set books (or "letters") that were read, indeed many texts still exist that were held at that time and later deemed non-canonical. So there were a lot of differing views, much like how Christianity is today.

What did these early, pre-Roman Catholic Christians believe? We can't say for sure. No doubt our pride and loyalty want us to believe that we believe now as we did then, but there isn't much to confirm that with. Indeed, some of the Gnostic texts and other texts that were ostracized by Rome in 325 AD and later suggest that at least some Christians held views quite unlike those commonly held today, views that seem to hold an even stronger influence from earlier Greek pagan, mystical and philosophical traditions. Even in what history remains, simply in considering the Arius - Athanasius controversy that framed the first Council at Nicaea, it is apparent that there was no "one" set way to be a Christian. And until one specific "denomination" if you will gained the political upper hand, there were no winners to these arguments. Arius lost at Nicaea- yet- Constantine was baptised on his deathbed as an Arian Christian!

Constantine was a great benefactor to Christianity, but he conducted his public and private life as a Pagan throughout until he was on his deathbed. After a few fits and starts, it was several emperors later before any could actually be said to have been Christian in more than just name.

Did the pre-Catholic Christians believe in a trinity? Hard to say...some probably did, some probably didn't. There are trinitys in certain Pagan pantheons, and there is evidence that Pagan practices were adopted and adjusted...given a fresh coat of paint and a new name, so to speak, and called Christian. This is how we end up with certain Pagan holidays (like Christmas and Easter) being celebrated in Christianity instead of the Jewish Holy Days (like Passover).

To this end I found it remarkable the stated anti-semitism of Constantine, word for word the same I have heard in more recent contexts (from Catholics!). Considering that Constantine was in a position to shape future policy within the emerging Christian institution, it begins to make sense to me how particularly at this stage in time Christianity began to take on Pagan attributes as it distanced itself from its Jewish roots. No doubt another reason was expediency, PR, "spin," in an attempt to mold the formulaic church into something appealing to a Pagan audience.

Was Jesus defacto G-d in flesh, rather than a remarkable human teacher of righteousness? In light of some of these other contextual events it becomes a bit harder to say. Of course we want him to be, but will it destroy our faith if he is not? It is hard to deny how much the "Savior" story resembles other Pagan savior and hero myths that long predate the formative era of Christianity. Myths where gods embue their human offspring with supernatural powers to heal, feed masses, teach wisdom and work miracles, even returning from the dead. It is coincidences like these that raise what I feel are legitimate doubts as to the factual authenticity of the Christian savior mythos. Even his name, Jesus, is a pagan name!, his Jewish name Yashua having been forsaken by the church in its quest to distance itself from Judaism.

The more I look, the more loose ends I find. It doesn't add up.

Either I blindly accept the routine traditions with all of the...inaccurate non truths...as part and parcel of the deal. Or I hold out for the truth of reality and personal experience. Seems to me the Christianity Jesus, James, Peter and Paul taught was more Jewish than it is now. A LOT more. Want truth? Be careful what you pray for...you might get it.

[greymare]

you, see 123, now THAT is interesting. I love how you explain it. very educational. you should do that for a living.

[juantoo3]

Thanks grey, but I'll wait for the fallout to hit the fan first before I start taking any bows...

<where's an embarassed smiley when you need it?>

[greymare]

Im sure it will only be "constructive critisim" lol.

[Joedjr]

Hi juantoo3,
Thanks for taking the time to post all this. I've seen some of the things before and now have read more. My early learning was from the hands of the RCC, but the nuns never really taught history of the church ( maybe if they knew it, they would not have been nuns). Imagine if the church laid out it's dirty laundry for all to see, what would be their form after that point?

Joe

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by 123

Either I blindly accept the routine traditions with all of the...inaccurate non truths...as part and parcel of the deal. Or I hold out for the truth of reality and personal experience. Seems to me the Christianity Jesus, James, Peter and Paul taught was more Jewish than it is now. A LOT more. Want truth? Be careful what you pray for...you might get it.

What are the essential elements of Christianity? What are the active ingredients it MUST contain regardless the many flavors and various packaging available? Theologically it's pretty simple, isn't it? So what we're really agonizing over here is the presumptive authenticity of one's choice of creative anachronism.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Society for the Creative Anachronism. It's a bunch of people who enjoy dressing up in period wear and pretending to be knights, and ladies, and such. They have these week long camporees where they stage mock battles and such. There's no way of knowing what it was to be the earliest "Christians", just like there's really know way of knowing what it was really like to live in the medieval era. We have these impossibly idealized, iconically simplistic notions of what Judaism of the day might have been. But it's a lot like how kids think that all Eskimos live in igloos. It's mighty disappointing to find out you've been punked by first grade sociology. Especially after you've built the sugar cube igloo!

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

What are the essential elements of Christianity? What are the active ingredients it MUST contain regardless the many flavors and various packaging available? Theologically it's pretty simple, isn't it? So what we're really agonizing over here is the presumptive authenticity of one's choice of creative anachronism.

Sorry for the delay in responding, been away a few days...

The essential elements of Christianity? Is this a rhetorical question? Depending who one asks I suppose most would start with the Apostle's Creed or some like, without realizing that was something that stemmed from Nicaea and Roman consolidation.

For me I think it is the teachings of the man Jesus (Yashua). The wisdom, the idealist concept of keeping G-d in mind in everything we do, the "do unto others," things like that. Agonizing over a choice of creative anachronism? I suppose that may be one way of looking at it.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I don't know if you're familiar with the Society for the Creative Anachronism. It's a bunch of people who enjoy dressing up in period wear and pretending to be knights, and ladies, and such. They have these week long camporees where they stage mock battles and such. There's no way of knowing what it was to be the earliest "Christians", just like there's really know way of knowing what it was really like to live in the medieval era. We have these impossibly idealized, iconically simplistic notions of what Judaism of the day might have been. But it's a lot like how kids think that all Eskimos live in igloos. It's mighty disappointing to find out you've been punked by first grade sociology. Especially after you've built the sugar cube igloo!

I hear ya regarding not *really* knowing about what it was like in that day and time. Of course, that same caveat extends across all cultural and sociological guesswork. Since we can't travel in time, all we have are a few trace remnant compositions from a handful of authors (each of whom presents his own validation issues, ), some presumably traditional cultural echoes, and a little bit of verifiable and cross referenced historical moments of significance, all set into a backdrop heavily imbued with Greek (and to a lesser extent Babylonian) philosophical underpinnings. Throw in a handful of hairbrained ultra-nationalists pining for the good ol' days, some power-hungry politicos schmuzing with the occupying government who really just wants peace and taxes (on their own terms, of course), and some disenfranchised anti-establishment types in a desert commune and I think that gives as valid a version of what it was like as any.

Philosophically, how can one determine what it is like anywhere at any time? Even if one is present at an event, that one view is only one view. One view out of possibly thousands? What I am trying to say is are we trying to look at this through the eyes of a Jewish convert or student of Jesus, a Roman soldier sent to keep the peace, a rival student of religion like an Essene, or a Jewish priest? Each will have a differing POV, and each view is a valid one from a sociological standpoint.

What do I want to believe? I am still trying to figure that part out. My "creative anachronism" at this point in time suggests that Jesus was teaching Jewish faith in a manner that made it uniquely simple and all too obvious. G-d isn't "out there." G-d is everywhere and everywhen. Not in a "He's watching for you to mess up and strike you to hell" sense, but more like the dad with his hand on the back of the bicycle while you're trying to learn to balance for yourself sense. Jesus made G-d real. This is hard to make sense of, but with Jesus one didn't need to go through a bunch of blood letting ritual and appeasement of religious officials to reach out to G-d. I sense that one didn't need to all along, but by his time everyone had gotten so caught up in the ritual and routine they had lost sight of the reasons why. They just did it because it was expected, "it's how we've always done it." It had become superstitious routine rote...kill three turtle doves, two goats and a heifer, drop a couple of gold sheckles in the pot and do obesience on your knees and you are absolved of whatever ritual uncleanness for the moment (until next time...).

The bad thing about human nature is that some things never change.

Jesus opened a door into a whole new way of looking at the matter. No longer was it mandatory to go through "elders" and "superiors" in order to reach out to the Heavenly Father. Heaven wasn't for the select few ascetics and ultra-righteous goodie-goodies anymore...heaven was in reach even for the wretched and down cast, the sinners who couldn't help themselves and anguished over their plight. These masses were no longer hostage to those who held themselves above and lorded over the "poor in spirit." The weak were strengthened and the great were brought low, and all were put on notice that G-d respects no person.

That is my creative anachronism. What do you see?

[greymare]

I like your understanding of it all 123.