ChatterBank13 mins ago
Why or how did Christianity become a religion
44 Answers
Was it because of social / political events. Were the people disenchanted with the then existing religion or did their lives have a void they felt needed filling.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sigma. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Quickly reading the link contents it seems to me less than unambiguous (the argument for misinterpretation of the recorded statements appears to me quite strong) - perhaps with the proviso as to the Greek language and translation. Yet, there is a distinct problem regarding the issue of veracity regarding his quoted claims due to the effects of the "delay" in putting things in writing and the witnesses being long gone by then - how much is misquotation, how much myth (and only the rest is accurate) ? Thank you for pointing me in one direction at least, but I still feel as uncertain about this as I do about the existence of God in the first place.
There has been more than one programme on TV in recent years that suggests that originally there may have been as many as 13 gospels, many giving differing versions of events. In particular the role of Mary Magdalene.
The suggestion was that the early church leaders kept the ones that agreed with their agenda and "lost" those that didn't. In particular the more misogynistic ones were favoured.
I can't offer concrete evidence on this just reporting what the programme says and at the end of the day it's not my religion so I'm not overly bothered. Still food for thought.
The suggestion was that the early church leaders kept the ones that agreed with their agenda and "lost" those that didn't. In particular the more misogynistic ones were favoured.
I can't offer concrete evidence on this just reporting what the programme says and at the end of the day it's not my religion so I'm not overly bothered. Still food for thought.
Ankou,
You may include me as an anti-christian as I dislike organised religion in general (no problem with individual believers). My personal take on it isn't that one version or another is "more right" but it does serve as evidence of my belief that most religious leaders use religion as a means of manipulating people for their own means.
You may include me as an anti-christian as I dislike organised religion in general (no problem with individual believers). My personal take on it isn't that one version or another is "more right" but it does serve as evidence of my belief that most religious leaders use religion as a means of manipulating people for their own means.
goodness me, what a response, naomi: 'Go and do it yourself!' Perhaps you should be posting on GetlostBank instead of AnswerBank? I simply wanted to know what your evidence was. It seems you don't have an answer - which of course IS an answer.
RevSermon, your answer is more helpful. However it doesn't seem to me that missing gospels, if any, are necessarily going to be more accurate or undefiled than those we have. I think, as Ankou says, the Bible is all the evidence we've got. Anyone is free to reject it wholesale, but there isn't any alternative evidence, and no basis on which we can say that we know better than the Bible about his teachings.
RevSermon, your answer is more helpful. However it doesn't seem to me that missing gospels, if any, are necessarily going to be more accurate or undefiled than those we have. I think, as Ankou says, the Bible is all the evidence we've got. Anyone is free to reject it wholesale, but there isn't any alternative evidence, and no basis on which we can say that we know better than the Bible about his teachings.
jno, no, it isn't the answer, and neither is it GetlostBank. It would be a complete waste of time for me to give you my answer because you wouldn't believe me. Therefore the best way for you to find the answer you're looking for is to research it yourself.
Having said that, the question you posed is ill thought-out. Religious agenda aside, if you simply consider the number of times ancient texts have been re-written and translated from one language to another, it's clearly quite ridiculous to suggest that the content of the resulting item remains as the original.
Incidentally, there are many other gospels, but it suited the Church, for its own reasons, to include only four. I wonder why? ;o)
Having said that, the question you posed is ill thought-out. Religious agenda aside, if you simply consider the number of times ancient texts have been re-written and translated from one language to another, it's clearly quite ridiculous to suggest that the content of the resulting item remains as the original.
Incidentally, there are many other gospels, but it suited the Church, for its own reasons, to include only four. I wonder why? ;o)
Jno,
I basically agree with you except I would say the "other" gospels are equally valid and are therefore "alternative evidence". If anyone has strong evidence to the contrary I couldn't really argue as I'm only reporting what I have heard on another source (i.e the tv).
By the way if anyone is close to Naomi and Ankou could they bang their heads together. I like both of them but I wish they'd stop bickering. Sorry guys!
I basically agree with you except I would say the "other" gospels are equally valid and are therefore "alternative evidence". If anyone has strong evidence to the contrary I couldn't really argue as I'm only reporting what I have heard on another source (i.e the tv).
By the way if anyone is close to Naomi and Ankou could they bang their heads together. I like both of them but I wish they'd stop bickering. Sorry guys!
naomi, I'm happy to believe any well-sourced facts and consider any cogent opinion; so please don't try to use that as a reason for not offering any. I asked your opinion on when Jews became Christians; it's a bit odd to tell me to use Google to find out your opinions, isn't it? I did try googling 'what does naomi24 think?' but alas I drew a blank.
As for rewritten gospels not being original: no - but that applies to the non-canonical gospels too.
RevSermon, as far as I can see, the four gospels chosen were those most consistent with one another (though there is a good deal of difference among them) and also the earliest. As I recall, there was some criticism in the early days of the religion that some churches were using only one gospel and that this wasn't enough to give a full picture. All that seems like the sort of reasoning any editor today would use. Of course it pays Dan Brown to come up with conspiracy theories about how Amelie Tautou's lineage from Jesus was suppressed; but I think, if I had been one of the early church fathers, I'd have decided pretty much as they did. If they chucked out Peter's gospel because it claimed the cross talked - well, I might have done the same.
As for rewritten gospels not being original: no - but that applies to the non-canonical gospels too.
RevSermon, as far as I can see, the four gospels chosen were those most consistent with one another (though there is a good deal of difference among them) and also the earliest. As I recall, there was some criticism in the early days of the religion that some churches were using only one gospel and that this wasn't enough to give a full picture. All that seems like the sort of reasoning any editor today would use. Of course it pays Dan Brown to come up with conspiracy theories about how Amelie Tautou's lineage from Jesus was suppressed; but I think, if I had been one of the early church fathers, I'd have decided pretty much as they did. If they chucked out Peter's gospel because it claimed the cross talked - well, I might have done the same.
jno, I didn't tell you to google to source my 'opinions'. I told you to google to source the evidence you seek.
//As for rewritten gospels not being original: no - but that applies to the non-canonical gospels too.//
It applies to all ancient documents that have been re-written and translated over and over again, and therefore, by your own admission, the texts you are claiming to be 'Gospel' are not in fact 'Gospel'. In your introduction to the link you provided you've described the content as 'possible different interpretations', so what do you do? Pick the one you like best?
I fail to see the point in your question regarding Jews becoming Christians.
Although Dan Brown claims some of the references in The Da Vinci Code are fact, the book is fundamentally a work of fiction. However, Dan Brown wasn't the first to come up with the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child with her. As far as I'm aware that theory was first promulgated by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln in the book entitled Holy Blood, Holy Grail - and in my opinion, there's no reason they might not be right.
//As for rewritten gospels not being original: no - but that applies to the non-canonical gospels too.//
It applies to all ancient documents that have been re-written and translated over and over again, and therefore, by your own admission, the texts you are claiming to be 'Gospel' are not in fact 'Gospel'. In your introduction to the link you provided you've described the content as 'possible different interpretations', so what do you do? Pick the one you like best?
I fail to see the point in your question regarding Jews becoming Christians.
Although Dan Brown claims some of the references in The Da Vinci Code are fact, the book is fundamentally a work of fiction. However, Dan Brown wasn't the first to come up with the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child with her. As far as I'm aware that theory was first promulgated by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln in the book entitled Holy Blood, Holy Grail - and in my opinion, there's no reason they might not be right.
you fail to see the point in my question about Jews becoming Christians? If you look at the top of the page you'll see it's to do with sigma's topic...
As far as the gospels being accurate go, I've never said they were. I don't know if they are, and neither do you; so you have no grounds for saying they aren't. Being edited does not necessarily make them untrue, that's just your assumption. I've tried asking you which evidence you do believe, but you seem determined not to say - which is sensible, because if you admitted to accepting anything, someone might challenge you on it.
Claims that Jesus married Mary Magdalene derive from at least the gospel of Philip, where she's called his companion and said to go walking with his sisters. More recently (but well before Dan Brown) you'll find them in this book:
http://www.amazon.co....qid=1264120931&sr=1-1
As far as the gospels being accurate go, I've never said they were. I don't know if they are, and neither do you; so you have no grounds for saying they aren't. Being edited does not necessarily make them untrue, that's just your assumption. I've tried asking you which evidence you do believe, but you seem determined not to say - which is sensible, because if you admitted to accepting anything, someone might challenge you on it.
Claims that Jesus married Mary Magdalene derive from at least the gospel of Philip, where she's called his companion and said to go walking with his sisters. More recently (but well before Dan Brown) you'll find them in this book:
http://www.amazon.co....qid=1264120931&sr=1-1
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.