Christian Origins

[Zimm3r]

I am currently taking a history class and we are arriving on the origins of Christianity, the text book doesn’t seem that bad but the teacher, from what she said, says she will lecture on Dionysus and how that led into Christianity (not the normal they are similiar and so Jesus is the same as Dionysus but that it evolved into it). From what she says she seems to say the the Dionysus cults had ecstatic experiences where they were “born again” (not like reincarnation but resurrection she says). From what I have googled I have found NO ONE who tries this and the only mentions of ecstasy they don’t mention it as foundations of Christianity. Even reading the book doesn’t do this.

This is the pages of the book that deals with it; it presents as a jewish cult turned religion after Paul and after the expectation of immediate second coming wasn’t fulfilled that, like Buddhism was popular and so with the fall of the Roman Empire people joined it as it was attractive compared to the Roman Pagan gods… Well it will be interested to witness the lecture tomorrow…

Textbook Pages

dl.dropbox.com/u/12781104/Christianity%20Origins/IMG_0215.jpg
dl.dropbox.com/u/12781104/Christianity%20Origins/IMG_0216.jpg
dl.dropbox.com/u/12781104/Christianity%20Origins/IMG_0217.jpg
dl.dropbox.com/u/12781104/Christianity%20Origins/IMG_0220.jpg
dl.dropbox.com/u/12781104/Christianity%20Origins/IMG_0221.jpg
dl.dropbox.com/u/12781104/Christianity%20Origins/IMG_0225.jpg

 

[latingirl]

Sadly teachers and textbooks are often very biased and wrong. I wish you the best of luck with this but it seems from what you posted that the teacher is actually forcing their beliefs on you with the whole pagan origin fallacy. I believe there is a technical term for such a fallacy which assumes that because two things are similar (such as the cult of Mithra and Christianity) that they have a common origin.

 

[Pugsly]

I am currently taking a history class and we are arriving on the origins of Christianity, the text book doesn’t seem that bad but the teacher, from what she said, says she will lecture on Dionysus and how that led into Christianity (not the normal they are similiar and so Jesus is the same as Dionysus but that it evolved into it). From what she says she seems to say the the Dionysus cults had ecstatic experiences where they were “born again” (not like reincarnation but resurrection she says). From what I have googled I have found NO ONE who tries this and the only mentions of ecstasy they don’t mention it as foundations of Christianity. Even reading the book doesn’t do this.

This is the pages of the book that deals with it; it presents as a jewish cult turned religion after Paul and after the expectation of immediate second coming wasn’t fulfilled that, like Buddhism was popular and so with the fall of the Roman Empire people joined it as it was attractive compared to the Roman Pagan gods… Well it will be interested to witness the lecture tomorrow…

Textbook Pages

1. Many universities of modern, Western civilization have become indoctrination centers of Leftism.
2. Leftism is a fear-based philosophy that is entirely premised on a god-free, evolutionary model of the world.
3. Hence, Leftism views all “evil” coming from ignorance or a raw manipulation of the Strong…and a predominantly Christian population represents both ignorance and oppressive Strength. Therefore, Leftist professors have assualted Christianity with every form of lie and slander for quite some time now.
4. Over the last several hundred years, it is popular among these professors to attempt to “illustrate” how the Bible is flawed, filled with error and how Christianity is rooted in older, pagan rites and ritual.

 

[Pugsly]

I am currently taking a history class…
Textbook Pages

Here is more on Leftism…

I believe…there really is no such thing as a Christian Leftist. Leftism is a fear-based view of a world that evolved randomly and without purpose. At its core, it is a god-free philosophy that worries about Survival. It sees the world as divided between the Dangerous and the Empathetic.
The Dangerous are like wild animals, out to dominate, use and manipulate. The Dangerous group is also composed of the stupid people who help the forces of manipulation.
The Empathetic greatly fear the domination and potential abuse by the Strong…so they have devised 3 ethics to contain them.
Nature Ethics: The Empathetic know the whole world evolved randomly, therefore all of Nature is equal and should be treated with respect and care. (that there really is no moral difference in killing a dolphin or a baby boy.) Thus, defending natural equality is THE MORAL BASIS for Leftism. (The Green movement is based on this ethic)

Survival Ethics: Health and Safety are primary goals. No war is worth dying in, no cause worth the sacrifice. Leftist feel morally obligated to rid the world of sharp edges…no smoking, no running in school, no large sodas, no Twinkies…etc. (Health and safety concerns have exploded under Leftism)

Victim Ethics: The Strong can dominate only if the Weak fail to band together in powerful herds…so the Left tends to herd in Victim groups…Women, Latinos, Americans with Disabilities…etc. The fear of being manipulated NEVER rests among Leftist.

Now, understandably, Western Christians get swept up in Leftism because they want to be seen and recognized as empathetic and loving to the Weak and to be good stewards of our natural resources. And, when Leftism shows its ugly side…eg…when Leftist manipulate others or a group like PETA makes a moral equivalence between Jews in the Holocaust and a plate of BBQ chicken…Christians just ignore it and tell themselves…that the world is still divided between the good (empathetic) and the evil (manipulators). And that “true christians” are on the side of Love…which they believe is Leftism.
Many Christians then become indistiguishable from Leftists in wearing T-Shirts that tell everyone how they gave blood, raced for the cure or put on rubber bands to show others that they are empathetic. Leftism then becomes their religion…as Christians turn against “orthodox” Christians…Jews turn against “orthodox” Jews…etc. Leftist Christians begin to look down on the “stupidity” of the humble and faith-filled believer who simply obeys God and studies the Bible as best they can.

 

[utunumsint]

I am currently taking a history class and we are arriving on the origins of Christianity, the text book doesn’t seem that bad but the teacher, from what she said, says she will lecture on Dionysus and how that led into Christianity (not the normal they are similiar and so Jesus is the same as Dionysus but that it evolved into it). From what she says she seems to say the the Dionysus cults had ecstatic experiences where they were “born again” (not like reincarnation but resurrection she says). From what I have googled I have found NO ONE who tries this and the only mentions of ecstasy they don’t mention it as foundations of Christianity. Even reading the book doesn’t do this.

This is the pages of the book that deals with it; it presents as a jewish cult turned religion after Paul and after the expectation of immediate second coming wasn’t fulfilled that, like Buddhism was popular and so with the fall of the Roman Empire people joined it as it was attractive compared to the Roman Pagan gods… Well it will be interested to witness the lecture tomorrow…

Textbook Pages

This sounds like a first year introduction to world religions class. I read a few of the pages and it does a few things that are typical in textbooks that try to find external ways to explain the spread of a religion, and do not really look at the content of the religion.

For example, it lumps in Christianity with eastern cult religions like Mithraism in its appeal to the Roman world for its deeply emotionally charged rituals. Thus implying that it is just the appeal to emotions that caused Christianity to be popular. There is no analysis here of the truth claims made in the Bible. These are glossed over with buzz words like “Christians claim, or Christians believed”. You can tell which explanation the text book authors prefer by the emphasis they place on what they are presenting.

Another example is the move from a Judeo centric religions to a more universal religion. This is explained as caused by the meeting and greater participation in Christianity by Helenistic Jews and Greeks. The visions and debates held in the early church by Peter, then Paul, and finally in the council of Jerusalem are glossed over. The place of the Holy Spirit in the change is completely ignored. This is just a natural cultural process explainable through historical and socialogical pressures, and there is no need to take seriously the Biblical claims or accounts of the process.

The bottom line, is that you will find a string of courses in University that start off with something like “The Psychology of Religion” or the “Sociology of Religion”, or the “History of Religion”, etc… Most of courses will attempt to view religion in an through the leans presented and only provide passing reference, usually with the third person buzz words like “Christians believe…” to what the said religion actually believes.

There is a place for this kind of study, and if you have a properly grounded faith, you can gain from it. But if you take seriously the reductions to psychology, sociology, or history, and start taking their external explanations of the origins of a religion as primary, you do yourself a disservice. Understand that these accounts often offer a very superficial explanation of the internal realities presented within the religion.

I hope this helps.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I’m reading through the account of the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity. Notice the focus on similarities in external features of worship that don’t really touch on the central teachings of either faith. This is another superficial syncretistic account of religions. In the attempt to study world religions as a single unified topic, and finding commonalities between then, the secular researcher often loses sight of the great differences in doctrines, and focuses exclusively on external superficial similarities. This sleight of hand can only work on people who have no investment or formation in either religion, or who get caught up in these glitzy facile explanations.

Also there is the frowning reference to Christianity’s fierce intolerance of other religion’s beliefs. A nod to the text book author’s adherence to academic orthodoxy: relativism.

More later.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Another point is the way the text book discusses the emergence of doctrines in the church like the authority of the pope and the Trinity. It clearly favours a thesis of discontinuity with each doctrinal development as opposed to the Catholic concepts of the deposit of faith that gets clarified through time in councils under the guidance of the holy spirit. There is a reduction here to politics at this point. The author makes it seem like the doctrine of the Trinity just suddenly appeared at Nicaea, and that the office of the Pope was just suddenly invented by Leo I. All part of human political machinations, with Constantine being chiefly responsible for the Trinitarian doctrine and Leo for the papal authority grab. (The authors try to preserve some semblance of integrity by saying the authority of the papacy are debatable. But that is just an excuse for the authors to launch into an attack of the Papacy.)

And I just love how Augustine’s doctrines are summarized in one paragraph! Its just so spiffy! I mean one of the greatest theologians in Christian history…with one paragraph!

My advice, and this is what I did in university, is study the primary sources. Read Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. Read church fathers. Read the Bible!!! Don’t rely on these first year text books. Form your own opinion.

God bless,
ut

 

[Marc]

It’s really just a cursory textbook that compresses centuries of development to a few pages. It’s tough not to decide it’s a conspiracy but modern universities has been suspicious of orthodox Christianity for so long that it’s taken for granted that Christianity is just one force among many. It truly puzzles (as it should) the modern scholar that a small, persecuted Jewish sect became the dominant organizer of the post Roman world. And a modern professor seeking tenure will never cite any supernatural causes but more often cite cynical causes.

That said, these “new” explanations the text and your professor might give aren’t necessarily untrue. Religion is a universal phenomenon and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that there can be remarkable accord. And it isn’t just superficial. Doctrinal differences undergird similar emotions, expressions, or moral principles that most religious practitioners find essential to their faith. But there are enough variations among doctrines that modern scholars will try to explain but always with naturalistic blinders. And Christianity had many “innovations” that really made it stand out especially from the religions it directly competed with; among them: doctrinal rigidity, monotheism, catholicity, and bodily resurrection. If you cannot accept the literal resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth then you have to “grasp at straws” to find out where the “idea of resurrection” came from. If you cannot accept providence as an explanation then you simply describe the Church as “well positioned”. And you have to equivocate “Christianity” with its heresies because you really only have one chapter. As Chesterton has said, “not believing in God is to believe anything.”

I do think there’s still “veins” of truth in modern religious studies. I often contemplate some of the remarkable mysteries, I guess I could say, that crop up when comparing religions. Sovereignty backed by religion pops up at just about the same time in China and in Europe (Tang dynasty and Charlemagne). The “trade” of religions, while it seems like a device made by pluralism, really was a fascinating interplay especially as local religions gave way to the undulating reaches of Christianity’s, Islam’s and Buddhism’s spread through the trade routes. It can be well argued that modern western values are spreading the same way.

It sounds like your teacher is just so enamored with her own novelty that she’s not gonna bother to ground her theory in a larger reality. I take an even more detached view and and say she’s simply applying her own version of universal religious expression.

 

[Zimm3r]

Thank you everyone for your responses, class was canceled today so she is now going to present this on Friday does anyone have any suggested articles or resources, least so I don’t just misstate something that she can then “catch” me in. I am much better versed in philosophy but not so well on early church history and the roots of it before Christianity I do understand the political atmosphere at the time Rome has recently conquered this back water settlement some 40 years ago the Jews were mostly given autonomy as long as they pay taxes but the two position of power (the prefect over the providence and the leader of the Jewish temple (so Caiphus and Pilate) ) has extremely stressful jobs and they were often removed because they were unable to appease everyone. Caiphus was the longest lasting temple leader as he was able to play nice with everyone, and Pilate was an aspiring politician but later would only become know because of Jesus. Any other sources that go in more depth? Have I missed anything/ misunderstood anything?

I also found her supplemental readings to be humorous at the least, especially the one on philosophy and morals ( dl.dropbox.com/u/12781104/DOC.pdf ) I get the sense she doesn’t like philosophy very much.

 

[Pugsly]

Thank you everyone for your responses, class was canceled today so she is now going to present this on Friday does anyone have any suggested articles or resources, least so I don’t just misstate something that she can then “catch” me in. I am much better versed in philosophy but not so well on early church history and the roots of it before Christianity I do understand the political atmosphere at the time Rome has recently conquered this back water settlement some 40 years ago the Jews were mostly given autonomy as long as they pay taxes but the two position of power (the prefect over the providence and the leader of the Jewish temple (so Caiphus and Pilate) ) has extremely stressful jobs and they were often removed because they were unable to appease everyone. Caiphus was the longest lasting temple leader as he was able to play nice with everyone, and Pilate was an aspiring politician but later would only become know because of Jesus. Any other sources that go in more depth? Have I missed anything/ misunderstood anything?

I also found her supplemental readings to be humorous at the least, especially the one on philosophy and morals ( dl.dropbox.com/u/12781104/DOC.pdf ) I get the sense she doesn’t like philosophy very much.

**I would not suggest that you get into a Christian vs pagan confrontation with your college professor…In military terms…it is unwise to attack a fortified position from a position of weakness…ie…Your teacher controls the discussion and your grade **

 

[Zimm3r]

**I would not suggest that you get into a Christian vs pagan confrontation with your college professor…In military terms…it is unwise to attack a fortified position from a position of weakness…ie…Your teacher controls the discussion and your grade **

I figure it is better then let her control a class of 150 with bad history, also I am not to worried about my grade being then killed in retaliation

 

[Zimm3r]

I have read the section in handbook of christian apologetics where Peter Kreeft deals with this but it seems that all the links I have found and things I have read are on people claiming Jesus was a myth and not this, all be it related topic, of revisionist history and how to specifically deal with these alternative histories of the roots of Christianity. Are there any good resources on the proto roots of christianity, especially Palestian from when it was conquered by the Romans in 63 BC to early christianity and deals with any alternate attempts?

 

[utunumsint]

I have read the section in handbook of christian apologetics where Peter Kreeft deals with this but it seems that all the links I have found and things I have read are on people claiming Jesus was a myth and not this, all be it related topic, of revisionist history and how to specifically deal with these alternative histories of the roots of Christianity. Are there any good resources on the proto roots of christianity, especially Palestian from when it was conquered by the Romans in 63 BC to early christianity and deals with any alternate attempts?

Here is a good link on claims that Christianity recycles pagan myths catholic.com/tracts/is-catholicism-pagan

For the proto roots of Christianity, I am not sure what you are looking for. Maybe you want historical sources that describe Jewish history at the time of and before Christ? A good source for this would be Josephus’s Antiquities and the Jewish wars.

Anyway, let me know if this is what you are looking for.

Thanks,
Ut

 

[Aloysium]

I figure it is better then let her control a class of 150 with bad history, also I am not to worried about my grade being then killed in retaliation

yikes!!!

you are then, going to learn a lot about the harsh the realities of academia

i would suggest using this an opportunity to learn how to communicate and work with ppl that have very different views

there always exists the possibility that she will learn something from you, but in my cynicism, i see it as remote - sounds like she’s pushing a view, hoping to indoctinate the class to her vision; in this case you will be the enemy

there is no point to antagonize the prof

good luck

 

[Zimm3r]

yikes!!!

you are then, going to learn a lot about the harsh the realities of academia

i would suggest using this an opportunity to learn how to communicate and work with ppl that have very different views

there always exists the possibility that she will learn something from you, but in my cynicism, i see it as remote - sounds like she’s pushing a view, hoping to indoctinate the class to her vision; in this case you will be the enemy

there is no point to antagonize the prof

good luck

I didn’t mean to make it sound like I was going to be antagonistic I have had professors in the past with different views and it has worked out just fine sometimes their just happy to have discussions on things one professor was glad because I was the only one able to answer the questions about the book even though I disagree with it

 

[utunumsint]

I didn’t mean to make it sound like I was going to be antagonistic I have had professors in the past with different views and it has worked out just fine sometimes their just happy to have discussions on things one professor was glad because I was the only one able to answer the questions about the book even though I disagree with it

Good for you! It can be difficult to maintain that fine line between politely disagreeing and being antagonistic.

That said, some people (even professors) have such uninformed and unexamined views on subjects like this, that it becomes hard not to get irritated.

Is this a first year class? Is Christian origins a subject that your teacher has spent a lot of time studying or publishing books on? For example, I have an undergrad in comparative religions and classical studies. But that does not make me an expert in antiquities. I focused mostly on Augustine, Anselm, and Ambrose (mostly from a historical perspective for Ambrose). It was only after my undergrad that I read Eusebius and Josephus. I’m still plowing through the church fathers in my spare time.

Anyway, my point is that your teacher may have a very specialized focus in his/her PHD and have a very superficial and limited knowledge of Christian origins.

God bless and good luck in your studies,
Ut