What Caused Christianity? An Examination of What Triggered the World's Largest Religion

Historically speaking, Christianity is a first century spin-off of monotheistic Judaism. The label “Christian” comes from the book of Acts. According to the author of Acts (believed to be Luke), the name was attributed to the “disciples” of this new faith first in Antioch sometime in the middle of the first century.

So, what’s in a name? The word “Christ” literally means “Anointed One,” and Christians universally believe (then and now) that the A.D. 1st century figure named Jesus of Nazareth was (and, in fact, is) the “Anointed One.” The central point of Christianity is that Jesus of Nazareth is “the Christ.”

The Controversial Origins of Christianity

The central person of Christianity is Jesus of Nazareth or, as he is also called, Jesus Christ. It makes sense then to start with Jesus. The first problem with this approach is that there are some who argue that Jesus never even existed. That he is a fictitious or mythical figure of antiquity. If this is so, Christianity collapses.

Skeptics and Christians alike concede that the best records for the life, ministry, and teachings of Jesus Christ are the first-century Christian writings we know as the New Testament, particularly the Gospels.

This leads to the second problem. While only the most radical critics and skeptics of Christianity question the historicity of Jesus, the overwhelming majority of them scoff at the New Testament being fully accurate and trustworthy. Most will accept at least portions of the New Testament as being authentic, but some refuse to consider any of its content, unless corroborated by non-Christian sources.

With the New Testament then undermined and even (in some cases) Jesus himself being dismissed as a nothing more than myth, one can appreciate the apparent fog people today have when looking back to the first century to find the origins of Christianity. Is it even possible to return to the beginning?

Can we know the Truth?

Accepting that anything of history can be known (or that anything period can be known) relies on acceptance of what philosophers call the correspondence theory of knowledge or truth.

The correspondence theory essentially holds that statements which accurately correspond with or reflect known facts or affairs should be considered “true.” This theory has, in various forms, been upheld by some of the giants of philosophy, including Aristotle, Bertrand Russell, and Alfred Tarski.

Next, confidence in historical inquiry requires a rejection of cynicism. The cynic is likely to challenge and question virtually all conclusions or claims concerning ancient antiquity that contradict his or her interests, presuppositions, or biases. If, for example, a person is bitterly cynical about the oppression of the poor by the rich, he or she will likely automatically believe stories from the past which fit that mold and reject out of hand those that challenge it.

Taking this example a step further, a person bent on seeing the world (including its history) through the rich versus poor lens will probably see the publication and circulation of biblical texts and the growth of Christianity as a conspiracy to empower and enrich the haves at the expense of the have-nots. Any evidence (no matter how slight or indirect) which bolsters this perspective will be gladly embraced. Any evidence which contradicts it will be jettisoned.

Unless a person is therefore willing to accept the correspondence theory of truth and set aside any personal cynicism, the quest for the historical Jesus or at least the origin of Christianity is doomed to failure.

When did Christianity Begin?

Assuming we can accept that truth is knowable (at least in part) and that skepticism need not (and should not) include cynicism, then we must turn our attention to the time in which Christianity began.

There is widespread agreement that Christianity, at least in its primitive form, began in the first century. No one questions, for example, the presence of Christians in the Mediterranean world by the 50s and 60s AD. We know, for example, that Nero pinned the blame for Rome’s fire in the mid-60s AD on Christians.

What’s more, even the most liberal historians and scholars agree that the major books of the New Testament, including the Gospels, were written and in circulation by the middle of the 2nd century. Most put their completion and circulation earlier than that.

Who started Christianity?

If Christianity’s growth can be traced to the first century (early enough to be relevant and on Rome’s radar screen by the 60s AD), then its origin must be in the early to mid part of that century.

With this in mind, we return our attention to Jesus. The Jewish historian Josephus makes two references to Jesus – at least one of which is accepted as genuine and authentic. There are also references to Jesus in the writings of second century Greek satirist Lucian and Syrian philosopher Mara Bar-Serapion.

And what about the New Testament? While skeptics immediately and understandably discount the supernatural, there are still literary signs of “creedal statements” referring to Jesus as well as stories about Jesus which all four of the Gospels agree on. This seems to affirm, at the very least, a reliable core of evidence for the life of Jesus.

Scholars have dated the creedal passages to the years 30-50 AD, well within the primary timeline of Jesus and the generation that followed him. According to scholar Gary Habermas, these affirmations “preserve New Testament material, and are our earliest sources for the life of Jesus.”

Luke Timothy Johnson, a moderate in the Jesus scholarship debate, cautions against any extreme in the examination of Jesus in history. Says Johnson: “I find as much fault with the premise that one can read history directly off the pages of the Gospels as I do with the premise that one must junk the Gospels in order to do history.”

What is certain is that a core group of adherents emerged about this time claiming to have been eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life and teachings. These included some of the authors of the New Testament, such as Peter, James, and John. The apostle Paul was not a direct eyewitness, but claimed a supernatural encounter with Jesus and close association with others (like Peter) who were eyewitnesses.

Conclusion

While some may legitimately question Jesus’ divinity and others may argue that his record has been embellished, it is abundantly clear that something triggered the birth of Christianity – and did so in the first century. The New Testament has provided an explanation for that trigger.

Charts of Apologetics and Christian Evidences by H. Wayne House and Joseph M. Holden

Aug 13, 2007 10:53 AM

Pink :

.
While some may legitimately question Jesus' divinity and others may argue that his record has been embellished, it is abundantly clear that something triggered the birth of Christianity - and did so in the first century. The New Testament has provided an explanation for that trigger.
.
Interesting is as good a word as any.
.
You leave us up in the air.
.
Does the New Testament actually talk about the triggering or is it more about the birth?
.
I could argue that Christianity was born as a result of the convergence of a variety of impingements the came together in a confluence during the Roman occupation of Jerusalem?
.
And that it grew out of its birth due--in great part--to its wide spread appeal to underclasses in all societies?
.

Aug 13, 2007 1:48 PM

Brian Tubbs :

You clearly see Christianity as a movement based on teachings - teachings that perhaps originated with a man in first century Syrio-Palestine, but have been embellished and enlarged by the "church" over the last 2000 years. As such, you enjoy trying to deconstruct it.

I see exercises in deconstruction to be pointless IF Jesus never existed in the first place. If Jesus isn't real, then Christianity is nothing more than a religious system which grew out of fables, myths, and politics. I have zero interest in such a Christianity. Count me out.

But if Jesus IS real, well, that changes everything. And that is why I am a Christian.

Aug 13, 2007 2:03 PM

Pink :

.
I don't have the slightest problem that Jesus existed.
.
To deconstruct does not mean to destroy. In fact, the end result of deconstruction can be a very uplifting event for the subject involved. I think you can accept that.
.
I don't think you can find any statement of mine where I reject Jesus as being real. I might not agree with what others say is the truth; but, none of us is in complete agreement regarding Jesus.
.

Aug 13, 2007 2:47 PM

Boanerges :

I don't think you can find any statement of mine where I reject Jesus as being real

So then, you accept Jesus as being real? How did you come to that conclusion.... A few examples would be sufficient.....

Aug 13, 2007 10:43 PM

Migisi :

.
Poor Pink. They've got you mixed up with me. I can't recall you ever suggesting that Jesus wasn't real.

Aug 14, 2007 4:35 AM

Pink :

.
They've got you mixed up with me. 
.
I don't know. Maybe they think there's hope for you; but, that I'm one of those who, once was where they are, has "gone off the deep end ne'er to return".
.
Actually, from an analytical point of view it's kind of interesting, you being la femme and all.
.
I'm an old codger and it can be fair game to put me through the grinder. If you get my point. But, I gotta hand it to Brian--he doesn't cut you any slack. :)
.
From a sociological point of view there is a never ending litany of tests to verify that the "other" is exactly like "me" in the quest for absolute truth. The effort to police the boundaries of group identity seems to be a human instinct--as the children's song goes, "One door and only one and yet its sides are two. I'm on the inside on which side are you?" Sometimes we come to a place where we cannot abide the idea that someone else is the least bit different. Didn't you just mention robots in another place?
.
Odds Bodkins?
.
In our American society, it is generally agreed that the God of the Bible is in control of all that is. It is written into our minds from the gitty-up. Our currency says it and we learn that we are a "nation under God" in our public schools as well as when we watch any gathering where the Pledge of Allegiance is given. Our president always asks God to bless our nation and our congress opens with prayer. Some 70 to 90 percent of Americans believe in the God of the Bible. They had better if they know what's good for them--they could get the same treatment we're getting here. :) I remember the sense of group pride whenever anyone would offer up an opening prayer in one of the service clubs I belonged to and and ended it with, "...in Jesus' name I pray, Amen. "
.

Aug 14, 2007 5:27 AM

Pink :

.
It is interesting that Christianity has changed its face and nature over the centuries.
.
The most recent and major edition, more or less, goes by the name of Evangelicalism. But, Evangelicalism is really Fundamentalist Christianity and it grew out of the nineteenth century's millenarianism when it was predicted that Jesus would return on various dates. The confusion and complications of those failed prophecies brought about the idea that the Bible, as the Revealed Word of God, was truthful and that it was the men involved in the predictions who were to blame. So, the Bible's authority was identified as one of the main Fundamentals.
.
But, it can be reasonably argued that it was the Great Depression of the 1930s that gave us the full blown Fundamentalist Christianity that we live with today.
.

Aug 14, 2007 10:54 AM

Boanerges :

Evangelicalism is really Fundamentalist Christianity and it grew out of the nineteenth century's millenarianism when it was predicted that Jesus would return on various dates.

fundamental means simply - basic fundamentals.....

nineteenth century's millenarianism

"predictions of the Second Coming

* William Miller and the Millerite Movement expected the second coming on October 22, 1844. The fact that this failed to happen the way people were expecting was later referred to as the Great Disappointment. Some Millerites continued to set dates; others founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Advent Christian Church, which continued to expect the Second Coming but no longer set dates for it.
* The interpretation of the Second Coming is important in the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses, as these hold that it occurred in 1914, and instead of an apocalyptic Second Coming it is to be interpreted as an unseen presence, and the visible events of the final times will occur at a later date.
* The followers of Reverend Sun Myung Moon consider Rev. Moon to be the Lord of the Second Advent called by Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday at the age of 15 on a Korean Mountainside.
* Rudolf Steiner described the physical incarnation of Christ as a unique event, but predicted that Christ would reappear in the etheric, or lowest spiritual, plane beginning in the 1930s. This would manifest in various ways: as a new spiritual approach to community life and between individuals; in more and more individuals discovering fully conscious access to the etheric plane (clairvoyance); and in Christ's appearance to groups of seekers gathered together. See a series of his lectures on the subject.
* Master Beinsa Douno prediction for the Second Appearance of Christ: "Christ Impulse will gradually penetrate into the human being and will take over guidance during the further development of the humankind (sic.). We are still in the beginning of all this now. In the future Christianity - but not the external, official, Christianity, but the mystic, Esoteric Christianity - will become a world religion for the whole humankind (sic.). Christ will be placed in the center of the New culture. Remember, that Christ is a manifestation of the Love of God. And He will come as an internal Light in the minds and hearts of the people. This Light will attract everybody around Christ as a great center. The opening of the human minds and hearts and the reception of Christ from within

Aug 14, 2007 11:04 AM

Pink :

.
Once again, I repeat from long times past, when it comes to Fundamentalist Christianity, YOU don't know what you're talking about. I was there, I know.
.

Aug 14, 2007 11:13 AM

Boanerges :

Once again, I repeat from long times past, when it comes to Fundamentalist Christianity, YOU don't know what you're talking about. I was there, I know.

Sorry.. but your account, and the facts, do not reconcile each other. Those you claim who are "fundamental Christians" that created "fundamentalism" - are nothing more than cults and isms...... Not - fundamental Christianity... Fundamental Christianity is not a movement, or an 'ism'. It simple means FUNDAMENTAL..... The Apostle Paul was an Evangelical. Nothing has changed in 2000 yrs - other than the [cults and isms] that come and go. As it was then - as it is now.

The revealed word of God does not change according to the liberals decree, nor the cults, nor the isms....

M't:24:5: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
M't:24:23: Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

Aug 14, 2007 1:07 PM

Pink :

.
Why don't you straighten this know-it-all out on Fundamentalism?
.

Aug 14, 2007 2:03 PM

Pink :

.
In another thread, Brian spoke to the idea that in order to understand Christianity, we must go back to the origins and the definitions are too broad today. That is one of the reasons why I make the following statements:
.
It is interesting that Christianity has changed its face and nature over the centuries.
.
The most recent and major edition, more or less, goes by the name of Evangelicalism. But, Evangelicalism is really Fundamentalist Christianity and it grew out of the nineteenth century's millenarianism when it was predicted that Jesus would return on various dates. The confusion and complications of those failed prophecies brought about the idea that the Bible, as the Revealed Word of God, was truthful and that it was the men involved in the predictions who were to blame. So, the Bible's authority was identified as one of the main Fundamentals.
.
But, it can be reasonably argued that it was the Great Depression of the 1930s that gave us the full blown Fundamentalist Christianity that we live with today.

Aug 14, 2007 4:48 PM

Boanerges :

It is interesting that Christianity has changed its face and nature over the centuries.

No Phil.. Christianity has not changed one iota... The only thing that has changed are the multitudes that claim they are Christian.... A claim is nothing more than that.. a claim.....
The Bible cannot be rewritten, added to, taken away from, nor anything else. It is a sealed book. It can only be read and understood. The teacher, as has always been the case, is the Holy Spirit... Anything other than the Gospel message, is not, nor can be - Christianity.....

as stated clearly by the Apostle Paul - Galatians 1:8-9

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

and Jesus himself....

Matthew 7:21-29
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Aug 14, 2007 4:55 PM

Pink :

I don't know what's going on; but, every time I make a post in this thread, it's followed by a bunch of static. Anyone else having that problem? I'll try it again.
.
Here's the post I want to make:
.
In another thread, Brian spoke to the idea that in order to understand Christianity, we must go back to the origins and the definitions are too broad today. That is one of the reasons why I make the following statements:
.
It is interesting that Christianity has changed its face and nature over the centuries.
.
The most recent and major edition, more or less, goes by the name of Evangelicalism. But, Evangelicalism is really Fundamentalist Christianity and it grew out of the nineteenth century's millenarianism when it was predicted that Jesus would return on various dates. The confusion and complications of those failed prophecies brought about the idea that the Bible, as the Revealed Word of God, was truthful and that it was the men involved in the predictions who were to blame. So, the Bible's authority was identified as one of the main Fundamentals.
.
But, it can be reasonably argued that it was the Great Depression of the 1930s that gave us the full blown Fundamentalist Christianity that we live with today.

Aug 14, 2007 6:01 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Once again, we have a problem of definitions here. If we define and understand "Christianity" in a broad, anthropological context, then Pink's arguments are correct. Christianity, as a worldwide religious movement, has proliferated in the last 2000 years to include a wide range of congregations, denominations, cults, and perspectives.

From Wendell's perspective (and I must confess I am sympathetic to it), there's frustration that by viewing Christianity as an anthropological or cultural religion, we have allowed it to be redefined and twisted beyond its biblical roots.

What is Christianity and who has the right to define it? These are the questions which are at the heart of the debate and frustration in this thread.

Aug 14, 2007 10:24 PM

Boanerges :

What is Christianity and who has the right to define it? 
Jesus defined it.. Paul taught it and so did all the Apostles.. They were Jews - who accepted the Gospel message.... and left the Old Covenant for the New, as Jesus stated....
That is Christianity. Who cares what people claim. It means nothing. And furthermore, arguing against someones claims is futile and a waste of time. Arguing FOR something is completely different.
If I were to argue against say... an 'ice box' and what it means today, it is obvious that what was an ice box then, cannot be changed, simply because it evolved into something else. An ice box will ALWAYS be an ice box.. But, a refrigerator will never be an ice box, whereas a refrigerator can indeed be termed as an ice box, only in a classification, not definition. A refrigerator is not a toaster any more than an over is a coffee maker. Yet these all can be classified as kitchen appliances in todays world.

However, an oven or stove [is not] a fire pit - as was in the ancient days of the kitchen... and not so ancient...

and so forth, and so on.. and on and on and.. on...

Aug 15, 2007 7:51 AM

Brian Tubbs :

I agree, Wendell, but we must remember one important fact. God did not give the name "Christian" to Jesus' followers. It was a man-made title. As such, I am sympathetic to Pink in one important respect. "Christian" is a name that humanity continues to give to people who profess to believe in and follow Jesus, and that comprises a very large and diverse group.

Aug 15, 2007 7:54 AM

Pink :

.
The question is about the use of the word, Fundamentalism, in relationship to Christianity.
.
Wendell is claiming that Fundamentalism is not a movement that arose in the early twentieth century but that it has always existed in Christian circles.
.
I am saying that Fundamentalism is a movement within main line Protestant Christianity that arose in the early twentieth century and that it developed into a set of doctrines that many Christian churches accepted as part of the Gospel.
.
Wendell denies the existence of a Fundamentalist movement.
.
I have asked you to directly address this question.
.

Aug 15, 2007 8:01 AM

Brian Tubbs :

It all comes down to whether we mean fundamentalists with a capital 'f' or a small 'f.' If we mean small 'f,' then Wendell is right. A fundamentalist is one who stands by the fundamentals of the Word of God. If we mean capital 'f' as in the relatively modern Fundamentalist movement, then what you and I discussed earlier is the correct explanation. The Fundamentalist movement of the 20th century began primarily as the result of the publication of "The Fundamentals."

Aug 15, 2007 8:07 AM

Pink :

.
So, are you saying that Wendell is correct and that the word, fundamentalism (small or capital f) has been used in Christian circles since the beginning? Do the words, fundamental, fundamentalism, or fundamentalist appear in the Bible or Christian literature before the twentieth century? Further, does Fundamentalism refer to specific sets of Fundamentals? Three questions for you, Brian.
.
Wendell, being a true postmodernist, does want to decontexualize the meanings of the word as it has been used in Christian circles since the early 1930s when it was popularized--even included in the names of many churches. But, if we are to discuss a particular concept in Christian thinking, the word, Fundamentalist, must be seen as referring to a movement.
.
.

Aug 15, 2007 8:07 AM

Boanerges :

we must remember one important fact. God did not give the name "Christian" to Jesus' followers. It was a man-made title. As such, I am sympathetic to Pink in one important respect. "Christian" is a name that humanity continues to give to people who profess to believe in and follow Jesus, and that comprises a very large and diverse group.

I will agree with that...

Aug 15, 2007 8:55 AM

Brian Tubbs :

So, are you saying that Wendell is correct and that the word, fundamentalism (small or capital f) has been used in Christian circles since the beginning?

Is that what Wendell said? That the word "fundamental" or "fundamentalism" has been used since the beginning? That word, to my knowledge, has NOT been in use since the beginning of Christianity.

 Do the words, fundamental, fundamentalism, or fundamentalist appear in the Bible or Christian literature before the twentieth century?

I would say, to my knowledge, it is not in the Bible. And I'm unaware of any early Christian creed that uses the term. As to whether it was used before the 20th century, I don't know. I'll have to look into that.

 Further, does Fundamentalism refer to specific sets of Fundamentals? 

I'm not comfortable limiting it to just that. I am aware that dispensationalism has played a big role in the movement, and that other issues as well have come in. BUT....the modern movement we know as "Fundamentalism" DID originate as a response to the Germanic-European textual criticism of the 19th century and early 20th century and the growing liberalism in the church that reached into the 20th century. And it coalesced, as a movement, around "The Fundamentals" - the series of pamphlets published in the second decade of the 20th century which laid out the core tenets of the Christian faith.

Aug 15, 2007 9:09 AM

Pink :

.
Thanks.
.
:)
.

Aug 19, 2007 2:01 PM

Boanerges :

....we must remember one important fact. God did not give the name "Christian" to Jesus' followers. It was a man-made title. As such, I am sympathetic to Pink in one important respect. "Christian" is a name that humanity continues to give to people who profess to believe in and follow Jesus, and that comprises a very large and diverse group

I agree as mentioned above.. So then, I think this could be a good starting point at finding the original [Christianity](man-made name commonly used - or also 'the way' as was quoted in the 1st century)

Here is a list of the various names Christianity envelops:

Mainstream Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

Mainstream Christianity is a widely used[99] term, used to refer to collectively to the common views of major denominations of Christianity:

Roman Catholicism
Protestantism
Anglicanism
Orthodox Christianity

as against the particular tenets of other sects or Christian denomination. The context is dependent on the particular issues addressed, but usually contrasts the orthodox majority view against heterodox minority views. In the most common sense, "mainstream" refers to Nicene Christianity, or rather the traditions which continue to claim adherence to the Nicene Creed.[100][101]

Some groups identifying themselves as Christian deviate from the tenets considered basic by most Christian organizations. These groups are often considered heretical, or even non-Christian, by many mainstream Christians. This is particularly true of non-trinitarians.

Antinomianism
Christian anarchism
Christian communism
Christian existentialism
Christian meditation
Christian mysticism
Christian mythology
Christian naturism
Conservative Christianity
Emerging Church
Green Christianity
Jehovah Witness
Liberal Christianity
Mormonism / RLDS
Progressive Christianity
Theonomy

List of Christian denominations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

* 1 Catholicism
o 1.1 The Catholic Church: Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome
o 1.2 Other Churches that claims to be Catholic, But Who Are Not In Communion With Rome
* 2 Eastern Churches
o 2.1 The (Eastern) Orthodox Church
o 2.2 Western-Rite Orthodox Churches
o 2.3 Other Eastern Orthodox Churches
+ 2.3.1 Assyrian Church of the East
o 2.4 Oriental Orthodoxy
+ 2.4.1 Oriental Orthodox Communion
* 3 Anglicanism
o 3.1 Anglican Communion (in communion with the Church of

Aug 22, 2007 12:55 PM

Brian Tubbs :

This discussion got sidetracked into a debate over the meaning of fundamentalism. Let's get back to the ORIGINS of Christianity.

Pink writes: I could argue that Christianity was born as a result of the convergence of a variety of impingements the came together in a confluence during the Roman occupation of Jerusalem?

You could try to make that argument, but you'd be hard pressed to show how it could gain enough initial traction WITHOUT some contemporary validation of its truth claims.

Aug 22, 2007 1:00 PM

Pink :

.
Several things came together at the turn of civilization when the Roman world overtook so many of the other worlds that had existed in the mediterranean world in those days.
.

Aug 22, 2007 2:20 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Okay, but this doesn't necessarily mean that's how Christianity originated.

Aug 22, 2007 2:33 PM

Pink :

.
I don't know about that.
.
Maybe it works like a laser beam. Didja ever think of that?
.

Aug 22, 2007 5:54 PM

Boanerges :

but this doesn't necessarily mean that's how Christianity originated.

Phil: "I don't know about that. Maybe it works like a laser beam. Didja ever think of that?"

yeah, Brian.. did ya ever think about that possibility!!!!! I mean, Christianity works like a laser beam.. And you know everybody knows that, and that is the principle on how Christianity started!....

uhmmm.. yeah... sure...

Aug 23, 2007 3:58 AM

Pink :

.
heh heh heh

Aug 23, 2007 12:33 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I got a good laugh out of Wendell's response as well.

Pink, I don't know if you were being sarcastic or making a deep point. If the latter, it escaped me. Maybe my brain isn't firing on all cylinders (my wife will be the first to say that mine often doesn't work properly).

Aug 23, 2007 1:27 PM

Pink :

.
Do you have cylinders in your brain?
.
Interesting.
.
Perhaps my point was deep.
.
Generally, the streams of history do not converge in a single point; but, when they do, an opportunity is presented for a laser like single stream to result. I was suggesting that Christianity might have been the result of several factors coming together at the time when Jesus brought his Gospel to surface.
.
That either makes sense or it doesn't.
.

Aug 24, 2007 9:07 PM

redback :

Christianity, the global man-made concept or phenomenon, may have come together when disparate groups realised they had important things in common. And that may have come together coincidentally or semi-dependant on other events such as the dividing into "camps" for mutual survival. But an idea of a personal inner faith and the formalising of it into a 'cohesive' world-wide movement may have needed a wider laser beam.

I mentioned 'cohesive' because I was reading a snippet yesterday which marked the 435th anniversary of the 1572 St Bartholomew Day's Massacre of Protestants by Catholic zealots...in Paris..on the orders of King Charles 1X. Here's an "eyewitness" account, faithfully recounted for us:
http://www.reformation.org/bart.html

As the resident historian, Brian...does it sound an accurate re-telling? :)

Aug 25, 2007 8:28 AM

Brian Tubbs :

I got it. When I first read it, I was a little foggy. But I got it now.

Aug 25, 2007 8:35 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Redback, I think a lot of this really comes down to what one means by "Christianity." I partly agree with what you and Pink are saying when it comes to Christianity "as a man-made" religious movement. However, its founders had to have something more to go on than simply a convergence of different ethnic groups or interest groups. You have to rally around something or someone. There needs to be a tangible point of origin to something that dynamic.

With Islam, that tangible origin point was Mohammed. And it grew due to the man's charisma, teachings, and military campaigns. And that was later fueled by the compilation of those teachings into the Quran, and then the continuing military campaigns of his successors.

With Christianity, you have Jesus Christ. This is why I can't accept (even when I was in my periods of serious doubt) Migisi's argument that Jesus never even existed. It's preposterous to think that Christianity could've started without Jesus. I can understand skeptics and/or critics arguing that Jesus' teachings and/or miracles were embellished or distorted, but there had to be a tangible point of origin for Christianity. Jesus makes the most sense.

Aug 25, 2007 8:44 AM

Brian Tubbs :

If I can categorize people into two broad camps, LIBERALS typically argue that Jesus was a historical figure, but that his life and teachings were distorted by his subsequent followers, such as Paul. They love to go after Paul, because they see him as the most influential (he was) of Jesus' followers. And, of course, Paul was NOT one who walked with Jesus during the latter's lifetime. Paul claimed a supernatural experience with Jesus AFTER the latter's alleged ascension into Heaven, but we know what liberals think of the supernatural. The road to Damascus story is pretty much dismissed by liberal scholars.

Liberals, for all intents and purposes, present the following scenario:

Jesus lived in 1st century Syrio-Palestine, amassed a following, and was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

His most ardent followers claimed Jesus rose from the dead and began to worship Jesus as a god. Some liberals believe these resurrection appearances were sincere claims on the part of emotionally vulnerable and psychologically destraught disciples. Others regard them as fraudulent.

Then comes Paul, who - through his writings - lays the foundation for a systematic orthodoxy centered around Jesus and the extraordinary stories being told about his life and teachings.

And then, sometime, in the late 1st century, Gospels are written alleging to recount the life and teachings of Jesus. The first is Mark, and then Matthew and Luke. All are (according to the liberal view) falsely attributed.

In the next few centuries, Christians grapple with the right interpretations and teachings of "orthodoxy" and the canonization process begins.

That, in a nutshell, is what liberals believe about Christianity.

Conservatives, by and large, of course accept the New Testament at face value.

And then there are centrists who basically have feet in both camps.

And there are some extremists, who on the one hand dismiss ALL of it as legendary. Migisi seems in that camp. She's to the left of even the mainstream liberal community. And then, on the other side, you have extremists - which we've already talked about ad nauseum here.

But, by and large, you have the two camps - Liberal and Conservative.

Aug 25, 2007 9:25 AM

Pink :

.
Christianity ... may have come together when disparate groups realised they had important things in common.
.
Perhaps--I thought of it as a convergence.
.
As you well know, many Baptist and other Fundamentalists believe that God and Jesus had a change of heart that is exhibited in the Sermon On The Mount. The idea that Jesus came unto his own and that they rejected him seems to be seen by many as a shock to the Trinity. And, that is why Christianity is seen--by many--as a parenthetical dispensation. The idea that the Apostle Paul lets us know that we are "grafted in" to God's Grace supports dispensationalism in which so many believe.
.
Even so, my idea of the the Gospel of Jesus is so different from mainline Christianity that what I think doesn't seem to be of any importance anyway. :)
.

Aug 25, 2007 9:33 AM

Pink :

.
Liberals vs Conservatives
.
or
.
Sadducees v. Pharisees
.
The argument continues. The favorite conservative retort is, "That's why they are so sad, you see."
.
The apostle Paul was a Pharisee--he always believed in the resurrection of the dead--in an after life. The Sadducees didn't buy that.
.
.

Aug 25, 2007 9:50 AM

Migisi :

.
That, in a nutshell, is what liberals believe about Christianity.
.
You explained that very well, Brian. You've done your recon.
.
"If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."
- Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu, author of the 2,300-year-old treatise The Art of War.

.

Aug 25, 2007 11:18 AM

Migisi :

.
And there are some extremists... Migisi seems in that camp. She's to the left of even the mainstream liberal community.
.
Shin kick to Migisi for no reason. Boys do that when they like a girl. Tee hee.

Aug 25, 2007 1:22 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Not a shin kick, Migisi. Kind of an elbow to the ribs. :)

Anyway, no offense intended. Sorry if it came off that way.

Aug 25, 2007 2:37 PM

Migisi :

.
Whew! Just an elbow to the ribs. No big deal.
.
But be warned: Karate is my secret... (wink)

Aug 26, 2007 1:19 AM

redback :

"...but there had to be a tangible point of origin for Christianity...." I agree. I think my other posts, other topics went to that point. Here, I was looking at the point past the genesis...when it became a "movement" for want of a better term. (Pink refers to a 'convergence' and I'm thinking of an outer realisation that there is in fact a developing group) That's the intention of my reference to "man-made" a term both Boanerges and yourself, from memory, used.

So, is the link I cited giving me a fair idea of the events of 1572?

Aug 26, 2007 1:50 AM

redback :

"As you well know..."

Sorry, Pink. The dogma you cited really isn't something I "well know" let alone well understand even though those terms have been explained before. Ages ago, someone here gave an explanation of the "trinity" that seemed to make sense to me. Another (offline friend) told me the NT was simply God correcting mistakes He made in the OT and I recall Brian stating somewhere that God changed his mind citing a Bible verse I can't recall now. The Anglicans up the road tell me via their 'agent' :) God has never changed His mind.

Every so often, I gain a tenuous hold of some of this stuff for it to only slip away. So, I guess my idea of Jesus' gospel is something that has to be capable of stating in plainer English.

Just as a truck is joined by another truck and another...someone says: "We have a convoy!" and there can be many reasons why there's a build-up of trucks on the open road. I recall my motorbike days where we said the same thing on the open road. Twas all I was referring to for the "formation" of global Christianity ie whatever passed for 'global' in those days. At the genesis, they were Christians in fact, but not by label it seems to me. Christianity became a label of convenience. Christianity became a religion then a lobby group?

But I recall at some stage in the past, Christianity being described here as a faith and definitely NOT a religion. So, what's true Christianity?

Aug 26, 2007 8:55 AM

Pink :

.
Sorry, Pink. The dogma you cited really isn't something I "well know" let alone well understand even though those terms have been explained before.
.
The idea to which I referred IS well known in the circles of many informed Evangelicals. It is the Dispensation of God's Grace to humanity. [He] is letting the Gentiles into something that only Jews had theretofore had available to them.
.
I gave you credit for knowing that. And, you have pointed out that it was a mistake on my part to have done that. I am sorry.
..

Aug 26, 2007 9:49 PM

redback :

"...IS well known in the circles of many informed Evangelicals..."

I guess I am at least not an informed Evangelical...whew! Only 15000 labels to go. ABC :)

I'm not so up on the jargon that I can immediately substitute the detail for the label. I've had it explained before and it's probably still all there within me I guess...subject to senior moments. Sorry.

Whether or not God is changing His mind, 'dispensing' favours to some in an untimely(?) or selective fashion while occasionally getting angry with others or keeping some of it all secret for some of us to the very end...is all tucked up in Biblical interpretation...and 3C.

In the post to which I responded, you had also mentioned a "shock to the Trinity" and other comments that I was trying to "consolidate" on a Dog Day Afternoon.

I'm guessing in Brian's silence that the rivers did indeed run red with the massacre of over 100,000(?) Protestants by Roman Catholics. (I understand there are now Anglican Catholics and Catholic Anglicans) But I'm not sure how dispensation works on the ground and how much of Christianity still holds a grudge within and a grudge without.

Aug 27, 2007 11:26 PM

redback :

"Whether or not God is changing His mind..."

Once this idea enters, the question arises: Has God changed his mind since the completion of the Bible ie it's unrecorded. And Christianity's concept of faith which is apparently not "blind" in the emotion-laden sense of the word but based on absolute trust in such a God. I read about the concepts of 'open' and 'classic' theism:

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15632.htm

What caused Christianity is an interesting way to frame the question. It needed Christ, it needed timing/climate and it seems to have needed some 'deconstruction' of the Bible to create the breakaway brand. So, was Ignatious the first fella to coin the phrase...and was he only takling of Roman Catholicism, not that breakaway sub-group, the Protestants?

Aug 28, 2007 5:55 AM

Brian Tubbs :

You're asking if Ignatius was the first to coin the term "Christianity"? If not, what "phrase" or term?

Aug 28, 2007 6:23 AM

Pink :

.
What I got from his post was that Ignatius was the first to coin the word, Protestant.
.
Maybe I should reread the post?
.

Aug 28, 2007 6:25 PM

Brian Tubbs :

...or is he talking about deconstruction?

Redback, help. :)

Aug 28, 2007 11:38 PM

redback :

Maybe I'm talking about the grass growing? Tis like fishing here where there's 24 hours+ between little nibbles. ABC

I'm no historian nor Biblical scholar. I hate -isms or whatever other labels are used. Remember? :) :) This topic is called 'What Caused Christianity' and the unanswered substance of my posts go to that. The topic incites research despite discouragement. I found a website that referred to Ignatius being recorded as the first person to use the term 'Christianity'. (I can't relocate it but I thought Ignatius's role may be vaguely familiar to you guys):

"TERM: Any word or expression used to name something."

But Ignatius IMO seemed to suggest only Roman Catholics were Christians. I asked Brian earlier about the massacre of Protestants. Today I read that it's the 474th anniversary of the killing of the last Inca Emperor, Atahualpa. He was given the choice of converting to Christianity and being strangled...or being burned at the stake. So, like a complying Christian, twas garrotted!

The way I join the dots: In 1533, God accepted that twas OK to coerce conversion? A bare 40 years later, twas OK to kill Protestants? Did God change His mind about these things? These things were never part of 'Christianity'? Protestants are still not part of Christianity? God despairs coz Christians still can't get it right, so what hope heathens? God is limited to the recorded Biblical judgements so His hands are tied?

OR, because it was only ever intended as a disengenuous or superficial topic question, the answer is: a microsecond after Christ's birth, Christianity was "caused". But then, Jesus pre-existed the Earth?

Aug 29, 2007 8:06 AM

Pink :

.
Tis like fishing here where there's 24 hours+ between little nibbles. ABC
.
Patience is the mark of the best fishermen.
.
:)

Aug 29, 2007 8:17 AM

Migisi :

.
Well, Red, you've presented some very tough questions for the Christians to answer. Wonder how they'll do.
.
Did intimidation (threat of death unless one converts) cause Christianity grow and spread? Definitely. Religion by and of force, not by or of free will.

Aug 29, 2007 8:53 AM

Brian Tubbs :

This topic is called 'What Caused Christianity' and the unanswered substance of my posts go to that.

One should seek to UNDERSTAND before seeking to be understood. I therefore have not "answered" the "substance" of your posts, because I sometimes haven't fully understood where you're coming from.

 The topic incites research despite discouragement.

There is no discouragement from me for you or anyone else to research this or any other topic.

 I found a website that referred to Ignatius being recorded as the first person to use the term 'Christianity'. (I can't relocate it but I thought Ignatius's role may be vaguely familiar to you guys):

The first use of the term "Christian" is from the writer of the book of Acts (almost certainly Luke - or Saint Luke, if you're Catholic). According to Luke, the followers of Jesus were called this first in Antioch.

As to who went the next step - from "Christian" to "Christianity," I don't know. Perhaps Ignatius. I don't know. Will have to look that up.

"TERM: Any word or expression used to name something."

But Ignatius IMO seemed to suggest only Roman Catholics were Christians.

That's probably a medieval Catholic spin on what Ignatius said. The Roman Catholic Church was not in existence at the time of Ignatius. Unless you want to argue that the primitive church WAS the Roman Catholic Church. Staunch Catholics will of course argue this, but they are wrong to do so.

 I asked Brian earlier about the massacre of Protestants. Today I read that it's the 474th anniversary of the killing of the last Inca Emperor, Atahualpa. He was given the choice of converting to Christianity and being strangled...or being burned at the stake. So, like a complying Christian, twas garrotted!

There have been egregious human rights abuses committed in the name of Christianity. That, however, doesn't speak to the questions of whether Jesus was the Son of God, whether the Bible is true, or whether the central tenets of Christianity are true.

The way I join the dots: In 1533, God accepted that twas OK to coerce conversion? A bare 40 years later, twas OK to kill Protestants? Did God change His mind about these things? These things were never part of 'Christianity'? Protestants are still not part of Christianity? God despairs coz Christians still can't get it right, so what hope heathens? God is limited to the recorded Biblical judgements so His hands are tied?

Your conn

Aug 29, 2007 11:03 AM

Migisi :

.
If you're asking why God didn't intervene to stop those actions, then you're calling up the larger question of why God allows evil. We've already discussed this in other threads and in other articles and blogs.
.
Refresh my memory. If you could point me to those threads, articles, blogs, I'd appreciate it. Was there a consensus or conclusion in any of them as to why God doesn't intervene to stop evil, but instead allows it?
.

Aug 29, 2007 7:56 PM

redback :

"then at least pay me the courtesy..." I guess, tone aside, tis is a 2-way street for all of us here. The ensuing posts expand on your article and progress beyond it and unless ALL here return to re-read it and start again, I choose not to.

" I therefore have not "answered" the "substance" of your posts, because I sometimes haven't fully understood where you're coming from."

Really?? From where I sit, posts incl in support of you, go unanswered simply because of the deluge of more dynamic posts from the key players here. That's totally OK so no excuse fumble needed. :) Who has the primacy in the 'understanding' stakes here? Until I prove I understand you...or vice versa...discussion is off??? And your approach is not to respond until...?

You still don't understand where I'm coming from...and you do READ my posts? :) Perhaps you can't work out the hidden motive you're vainly looking for or the 'sceptic' or 'cynic' pigeonhole your article wants me in? :) Do you understand 'fair dinkum'? Please look it up. I am not a Christian on its identifiable practices and other faith-based issues. But I am interested in learning more about it in a manner way beyond Sunday School offerings.

When, for example, ancient Catholics killed ancient Protestants, the context for me is the visible part of "what is Christianity" not the specifics of the Bible you rely on. The One True Faith has external AND internal problems of self-identification. The fact it claims to be more popular doesn't do it for me. I believe Christianity needs to be identifiable and if greater than one's personal faith, accountable.

The topic suggests its a worldwide phenomenon. So what "caused" it, when did it take ownership of its belief system, what ancient events other than word-of-mouth increments, may have made it a force to be reckoned with...are interesting to me. Even if they explore issues you didn't intend to.

"Your connecting of the dots is flawed to say the least." I agree I'm a flawed human so what's your excuse? :)

BUT I was actually re-visiting Pink's ponderings about the "causation" of Christianity as I don't always give the big fella credit. :) I'm not restricted to his approach nor yours so my join-the-dots was not about facts. Maybe you missed the ??? Maybe you missed the alternative question: "These things were never part of 'Christianity'?" In fact, I was concerned I may have left off a question or

Aug 29, 2007 8:51 PM

redback :

Every so often, I ponder whether I should ratch-up my assertiveness here. Every so often I ponder the value of giving a response at all when the topic has progressed so far past it. I'm still here trying to be distracted from some heavy real-time stuff...so occasionally, my irreverence may seem over-the-top, but I aint here to insult anyone.

"Well, Red, you've presented some very tough questions for the Christians to answer. Wonder how they'll do."

I've mentioned before I've never expected a Christian to have all the answers by virtue of their claimed label...whatever the intricacies of that label mean to them. So, it aint a contest for me. But my credibility or "credentials" here seems forever in doubt. That's life. "Cry a river...build a bridge...get over it" as an American said on TV only the other day. :)

I went on an internet search re God "changing" His mind. Whether He does or He doesn't, whether they're strategic decisions He knew He'd have to make one day based on mankind's fully anticipated unravellling free will...there is a Christian belief that if it aint in the Bible, God can't act different....or as I mentioned..His hands are tied. Well, maybe there's a difference between one Christian's belief and global Christianity's actions...and neither necessarily in sync with God. A God who remotely possibly may be bigger than the Bible.

The multi-questions I posed here overlap, and face outwards, not into the micro (or minutia) of an isolated Bible verse. The article seemed to encourage that but I've been mistaken before.

An aside: My specialist has agreed to knock $30 of each $97 visit courtesy of this Seniors Card...so combined with super-cheap fares, 10% off a cappucino etc, was worth the wait.

Aug 30, 2007 3:32 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Migisi, you know the threads about evil. You were a major participant in them.

As for consensus....are you kidding? Consensus? Here?

Aug 30, 2007 5:06 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Okay, redback, I'll give this a go. I do read your posts and I find them interesting, even though I don't always understand them. If that makes sense. :) The fault of not understanding them may very well be (probably is) mine.

I assure you that I'm not looking for any hidden motive. I tend to take people at face value. As for "fair dinkum," I must admit I wasn't familiar with it until recently. But I know what you're looking for - and that is something that's real.

You are coming at this (it seems to me) from the standpoint that "actions speak louder than words." You therefore assess Christianity according to what you see in people who profess to be Christian.

That sounds reasonable, but what I'm trying to get across - and where my frustration comes through - is that you're assessing a God thing by HUMAN qualities or characteristics.

Psalm 118:8 - "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."

People who profess to be Christian will disappoint you. But the centerpoint of Christianity is the Lord Jesus Christ, not those people who profess to be his followers.

Aug 31, 2007 1:24 AM

redback :

I'm trying to re-think everyone else's posts so yours aren't excluded from that. :) But, sorry...when an American asks me where I'm coming from...here of all places...where 'attitude' can and does re-surface, first glance seems ambiguous. But I respect your faith...and the frustration arising here.

"You are coming at this (it seems to me) from the standpoint that "actions speak louder than words"

Partly, slightly, almost 'NO'. :) I'm coming at this from my oft repeated "at least 3 sides to a coin" approach. And also remember my 3C? If it makes sense or not, one way...try another. If it makes sense at least both ways...and that's my test if all my skills AND baggage allow. :) :)

Brainstorming, I see x elements. One is the Bible and what independent sense I make of it. One is the visibility and/or historical events or actions that Brand Christianity links to (as if they have a monopoly on it eg morality, values, ethics etc...or that Christianity denies ownership of). One is how individual professed Christians walk their own talk and my direct witness. One is how Christians and others attempt to interpret the Bible. Another is God. One is an attempt to prosyletise which mostly relates to what I need to do to be a Christian. (I recognise the good intent but it is a different exercise and can obfuscate)

Please consider: Whenever I clumsily post or respond to anyone here, I'm working all the above...like maple syrup over a stack of pancakes. Am I assessing God things by HUMAN qualities? There's a plethora of questions I raise, the gentle digs I give eg recently to Migisi in the post above on the relevance of evidentiary standards in spirituality. The fact Migisi and others reverse it may mean the gentle dig is not acknowledged OR tis another side of a coin. Is this coming through?

A lifetime ago, I had a legislated position and the (mis)fortune to interview thousands of people...1,000 pa? All the variables of evidence and motives. I had a clear duty to seek further evidence that could possibly bolster say 'Brian's' legal appeal or give him a better outcome regardless of the arguments he presented to me for decision. And I fully considered 'Brian's' lesser access to evidence and sought evidence denied him.

So, I think I've developed a pretty decent skill in analysis, being independent and objective. Some might say God gave me these skills that have primarily been directed to the good of others. My dear friend, by her actions, b

Aug 31, 2007 1:34 AM

redback :

Re the fishing analogy, Pink. I was out fishing all day once...outside Sydney Harbour in a professional boat, in the Pacific Ocean. A patient fisherman also knows when to shift the boat, check the lines etc...and a good fisherman doesn't let the big one get away all the time. :) :)

Aug 31, 2007 4:34 AM

Pink :

.
My experience tells me the best fishermen are young boys and old men.
.

Aug 31, 2007 8:11 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Hmmmm. Deep thought.

No pun intended. :)

Aug 31, 2007 8:21 AM

Pink :

.
The big ones go deep.
.
heh heh
.
That's what my grandfather told me.
.

Aug 31, 2007 9:31 PM

redback :

I found that 'deep sea' fishing with only a line over the boat...near our Bondi (sewerage) outfalls...certainly attracts the fish. Deep thought here too. :)

Sep 1, 2007 6:03 PM

redback :

On reflection, whenever I over-explain, tis counter productive. My posts tend to explain how I respond, not WHY I'm here. That I can't really pin down now but I could some years ago.

I don't expect definitive answers, just dialogue. The posts above seem to reflect an ego thing rather than an attempt to say I may be able to offer something worthwhile among those with far greater skills in the topics here. But just because I feel I may have something interesting to add, doesn't make it so to an audience.

In fact, I think I come across here as a fair dinkum...wanker!