6 ms·
Reasonably written from a historical perspective, but it's missing a few points:
1)
The 'monotheistic' religions, particularly Christianity and Buddhism (thou
Reasonably written from a historical perspective, but it's missing a few points:
1)
The 'monotheistic' religions, particularly Christianity and Buddhism (though Buddhism is not exactly 'monotheistic' it's not 'pantheist' in the classical sense) - represented a fundamental shift from pantheism.
It's wrong to claim that 'Pantheism = many gods' and 'Monotheism = one god'. This the literal meaning, but it's not remotely accurate.
Pantheistic gods were almost always a soap opera of 'super human like' people who loved, fought and interacted with each other like a superior cast of beings.
'Pray to me and I'll smote your enemy'
'Give me offerings or I'll hurt you'.
Montheism wasn't just about having 'one god' - monotheistic religions were about ideas not so much rites and rituals (as mentioned in the article). Particularly - monotheistic religions required moral and conscientious behaviour.
Jesus had only two commands: 'Love God and love one another'. In a more secular sense that could be 'Recognize the divine and knowing that - do your best with what you have to make the world a better place'.
Buddhists are required to be 'more enlightened' and more civilized people lest they be reincarnated as animals, if they want to 'escape the cycle of reincarnation'.
Christian and Buddhist religions centre around moral philosophies at least in terms of how they apply to the real world.
The Christian God is not a 'bearded buy in the sky' (even though he is often presented as such). He's 'unknowable' and completely transcends our understanding. 'I am that I am'. This is not like the Greek gods who all have very tangible attributes and are mostly interested in human like things - i.e. power.
Similarly, though Buddhists are technically 'atheists' in that they don't have a 'God' per say - they do have a kind of 'monotheism' in that they present very specific ideals of 'nothingness' etc.. They definitely present a metaphysical construct for us. And it's not a bunch of angry super-dudes.
Monotheism is a huge leap forward in terms of our metaphysical evolution.
2)
It's not fair to use the word 'exclusive' so many times in this text.
The most powerful element of Christianity is that it was open to anyone. For the first time slaves were equal to kings. This was a very, very powerful idea, and obviously scared the bananas out of the elite.
Status and class were clearly delineated in terms of class in Greek mythology. Higher status = more 'godliness'. That's an artifact of human culture ... but it's rejected in Christianity (and Buddhism).
Your 'status' in Christianity is dependant on how good you are, not 'how much money you have'. For the first time, you couldn't just buy your way out of bad deeds (at least in theory, obviously not in practice, quite often).
Christians were the first international solidarity movement. They were the first 'social movement of equal peoples'. The first to feed the poor as moral action, not just a political action. Moreover - they were organized. What the article failed to mention was that Constantine had a political motivation to be Christian because he could leverage the international network of organized and efficient non-state bureaucracy that the Christians had. Their 'system' had efficiency on some level - and authenticity.
A strict historical articulation of the facts, I think fails to illustrate what it was that made Christianity so widespread.
I think the key to understanding is that 'common era' religions such as Christianity and Buddhism are completely unlike their predecessors.
> Montheism wasn't just about having 'one god' - monotheistic religions were about ideas not so much rites and rituals (as mentioned in the article). Particularly - monotheistic religions required moral and conscientious behaviour.
I think you should take a look at judaism.
> Christians were the first international solidarity movement. They were the first 'social movement of equal peoples'. The first to feed the poor as moral action, not just a political action.
The greeks would like to have a word on that one.
> I think the key to understanding is that 'common era' religions such as Christianity and Buddhism are completely unlike their predecessors.
There are oh-so-many parallels and straight up plagiarisms in christianity I don't know how you can say that and back it up. The truth is all religions are evolutions from the ones before, adapted to fit in with their times.
"I think you should take a look at judaism."
I get what you are saying - but Judaism was the religion that went through the gambit to produce Christianity.
Yes - Yahweh in the old days, was very much like a 'Greek God'. Arguably, he's just one of the pantheon of those gods! After all - 'Bal' the God of the Canaanites, kind of 'existed' and Yahweh was just 'more badass' than him.
But Judaism evolved and provided the foundation for what I described. Yahweh went from a 'personified entity' to basically 'an unknowable centre'. In practice, today - the Jews have a powerfully distinct moral motivation built into their religion. Rabbis have long been an important source of intellectual and motivation for a lot of people.
"The Greeks would like to have a word with you"
The Greek philosophers, yes, the religionists, no. And if you'd argue that some of these social ideals are 'Greek founded' - I'll give you that argument. But it was the Christians who got people inspired, and into to it for real. Not the Greeks. Otherwise, Constantine would have bought into a different religion.
"There are oh-so-many parallels and straight up plagiarisms in christianity I don't know how you can say that and back it up."
The difference between Greek polytheism and Christianity is more than obvious.
Aside from some obvious creation-myth overlaps borrowed from other Mesopotamian/Egyptian stories, if you actually look at the Bible (New Testament) page by page, it's so much like any other religion that one can even wonder how they can be compared.
Buddhist, Christian and Muslim works are a totally different ballgame than the works before them. At least in religious terms. And at least in the West, the Asian lineage is not so clear I suppose.
> The Christian God is not a 'bearded buy in the sky' (even though he is often presented as such). He's 'unknowable' and completely transcends our understanding. 'I am that I am'. This is not like the Greek gods who all have very tangible attributes and are mostly interested in human like things
'I am that I am' was said by Jesus who ate, defecated and did everything else like any other human being, and he is considered being the God by Christians, so he's very much like the Greek gods walking around the Earth all the time, eating with humans. Read the Odyssey.
Even more so, the act of Jesus' mother being impregnated by the God is something that Zeus did in many many occasions (producing god-children with the human mothers) and was retold for centuries before Christ exactly in the areas where the Christian myths started to spread. The impregnation story is obviously an one-upmanship one (well my God is a son of God too!) and not present in the earliest Gospel.
Once that simple one-upmanship trick got to be popular, there was a need to explain the logic of God producing a child who's still himself while not directly being involved in the sex act (which would be too dirty for the God), and the Trinity was invented: the God is at the same time the father, the son and the holy ghost, the third one, the most 'transcendental' one, the only one being involved in the sex act.
Learning about the ancient Greek gods helps making sense of a lot of weird Jewish and Christian stories. Also learning about the Mesopotamian and Egyptian gods and stories.
"'I am that I am' was said by Jesus who ate, defecated and everything else like any human being, and he is considered God by Christians, so he's very much like Greek gods walking around the Earth all the time.
"
First - "I am that I am" is God - to Moses. Not Jesus.
And by the way - that very line betrays your argument: the Monotheistic 'God' is nothing like Zeus, who would never say something so abstract :). Zeus was knowable. 'God' is a metaphysical concept.
And no - Jesus not 'like the Greek gods because he 'ate and defecated'.
Zeus was a powerful war lord, who ran around screwing women, got pissed off at others, demanded offerings - he was not a moral example, nor did he demand morality. He was like a superhuman Chieftain.
Zeus was the Donald Trump of religions. (Bad joke).
Jesus wanted his followers to 'have faith and love one another' - and not necessarily make offerings, worry about money, or get too involved in rituals. All are equal before God, and are judged for their actions - not their power, money or social status. Yada, yada, yada. Nothing like the Zeusinator.
There are really few if any theological similarities between Zeus and Jesus. They are 'far apart' on the religion scale :)
"earning about the ancient Greek gods helps explaining a lot of weird Jewish and Christian stories. Also learning about the Mesopotamian and Egyptian gods and stories."
Yes - some bits of narrative are similar, and the 'nativity' bit is a rather common theme in the era. But it's not about the 'magic tricks' :).
Put another way: Greek pantheism is about the Greek Gods. Christianity is about the teachings of a man (or son of god, or god incarnate, depending on ...)
And finally - a lot of formal Christian groups that do not believe Jesus was a God. That's been a big debate since the beginning i.e. Nicaeae etc. :)
"I am" is said by Jesus seven times in the Gospel of John, that's more important for a Christian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_(biblical_term) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_(biblical_term)
> There are really few if any theological similarities between Zeus and Jesus. They are 'far apart' on the religion scale
To properly compare you have to compare Yahweh, the god from Jewish scriptures (a.k.a the Old Testament for the Christians, for who Yahweh is a father-god) and Zeus, the Greek father god. Both are hungry for the animal sacrifices. The God personally visits Abraham who prepares a meal (freshly baked bread and flesh) for him and the God eats, under a tree. Not "transcendent" at all.
For their children: Jesus, the son of the God and a human mother, and Heracles, the son of the God and a human mother. Heracles rises to Olympus as he dies, unlike the other mortals, just like Jesus rises to heaven.
And both Jesus and Heracles visit Hades (Hell) only to get out of there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell
Learning about the Greek gods is really enlightened.
By the way, the name of the Jewish father-god is Yahweh, and "Jesus" comes from the Greek "Iesous" rendition of a Hebrew common name "Yehoshua" (Joshua) which means "Yahweh is salvation." Also a convenient element for the later "the father is also a son" idea. Only, there were a lot of Joshuas living around for more centuries.
"I am" - and - "I am that I am" are two different things. :)
And yes, I agree - 'Yahweh' from Jewish antiquity is more comparable to Zeus, for sure. (Though Yahweh evolved a lot over time, and was something else by the time Jesus came)
But you were comparing Jesus to Zeus. Those two are not very comparable.
Zeus belongs in the Egyptian/Roman/Mesopotamian camp. a little bit like Yahweh.
Jesus belongs more with Buddha, and Mohammed.
The former were 'myths to believe that explained things', the later were 'historical figures' and 'teachers' of 'how we ought to be as moral and spiritual beings'. These are very different eras, different kinds of religions, is my whole point.
FYI - that's why in 2016 there are tons of Buddhists, Muslims and Christians, and basically zero followers of 'Zeus'. Which further validates 'how different Jesus is to Zeus & Co'
> 'Yahweh' from Jewish antiquity
The Christians actually call that what you call "Jewish antiquity" "the Old Testament." And they don't pronounce the name of the God, just like Jews stopped doing that, but only after names like "Yehoshua" (Joshua and Jesus) and "Yohanan" (John) (both constructed from Yahweh) already became common.
This simple "his name can't be told" rule is the primary spark for the whole "transcendental" buildup and people naming "the only" "God" for any formally unrelated belief. And the Jews got that idea (keep the name secret) from the Egyptians.
> But you were comparing Jesus to Zeus.
No, check for yourself, I have explicitly compared the father of Jesus with Zeus, Zeus being the inseminator just like Jesus' father.
> Jesus belongs more with Buddha, and Mohammed.
No, Mohammad was a jealous supremacist murderous warlord, killing hundreds of people even after they surrender, torturing the captives, taking the female slaves as sex slaves, ordering the killings for revenge to somebody making some funny poems about him, ordering stonings of others for having extramarital sex, but for himself organizing "legal" sex with a 9-year old, inventing special messages from God to allow him having more wives than other Muslims etc (all documented in the religious texts). Jesus was just an apocalyptic religious hippie announcing that "the end is coming soon" who died once he tried to cause the change in the middle of Jerusalem, the governmental, financial and religious center of Judea at the peak of its yearly activity (overturning the tables in the "banks" there effectively(1)).
Buddha is not comparable to both Jesus and Mohammad, as Buddha was the one who recognized that he can chose to not believe in the religious dogma of his environment (Hinduism) and be free and happy instead, not ending in the Hindu equivalent of Hell (which was for them "being reborn again") but simply dying (which is called the "nirvana" -- simply ending being "blown out" like a candle, that's the meaning of that word). But the Buddhists, conveniently for them, made a new religious dogma out of Buddha.
----
1) The term "bank" actually comes from Italian "banca" which simply means "the table" -- the tables were used as "the banks" to perform the money transactions in the old times. Jesus actually disrupted the banks in the city. Which were very stressed at the Passover, the time he decided to do it. But it wouldn't be enough to sentence him to death, the reason for that was that there were the witnesses who confirmed him claiming to be the "King of the Jews" -- he was sentenced for leading the "regime change" during the times of the festival. By the oldest Gospel, Jesus, poor believer, didn't understand why the God didn't intervene then ("Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?")