But a Christianity without Paul means a Christianity that follows Mosaic Law, which reduces it's appeal somewhat (then again, there are Christian sects that practice it, and there are nations that have converted to Judaism outright). Also, Baghdad didn't exist in Jesus' time. In other news, was there a Persian Jewish community during this time?
Jesus in an Independent Jewish Judea
- Thread starter DominusNovus
- Start date
But a Christianity without Paul means a Christianity that follows Mosaic Law, which reduces it's appeal somewhat (then again, there are Christian sects that practice it, and there are nations that have converted to Judaism outright). Also, Baghdad didn't exist in Jesus' time. In other news, was there a Persian Jewish community during this time?
scholar
Banned
Ah, my apologies. Ctesiphon was almost at the same location, so I just equate the two in my mind. There was some Judaic peoples in Persia (particularly the remnants of the exile in Babylon, among whom one might find the closest thing to a unified religious hierarchy outside of Judea), and others elsewhere. Pagan Arabia had some very, very, strong Jewish influences. While not fully emphasized until after Muhammad, there were strong monotheistic movements for the centuries preceding him based around the God of Abraham because Abraham and most Jewish prophets, were added to their pantheon and most bought into the idea that they were descended from Ishmael, brother to the progenitor of the tribes of Israel.
True, reduced appeal is one of the main reasons why I put forward the notion that it may not be as likely to break from the Judaic faith and go after the Gentiles. I'm not sure how much the other laws would prevent conversion.
Just one nation actually converted to the faith: the Khazars, which was a political decision in order to avoid having to pick either Islam or Christianity. Ethiopia claimed to be descended from Solomon and an offshoot of the twelve tribes, with the rest of the region converting later through culture and intermarrying. So, if you want, you can argue two. So there was potential, but both had highly unique sets of circumstances.
That's actually a really interesting question. A lot of the moderating of Jesus' views and of the events that surrounded him that followed the revolt in an attempt to distance themselves from Judaism (and thus hopefully Roman hatred of them as much as they now hated Jews for their revolt), wouldn't have occurred methinks.
elkarlo
Banned
Jesus and his non pro-uprising stance, dissapointed a lot of Jews, They thought he would be for a rebellion.
elkarlo
Banned
And also, life was pretty wild at that time as well. Esp compared to pre 1960s. I think most of us would be massively shocked at what Roman life was like. So, living righteously at that time would have been a challenge
elkarlo
Banned
But isn't Zealot pretty biased, and was making a conclusion, rather than interpreting facts? Kinda like 1422?
I wouldn't comapre it to 1422, whic is pure pseudo-history. Zealot is a relatively straight forward attempt to piece toghether the world that a historical jesus would have lived in as well as what type of views on that world he would have espoused.
The author does admit there are few to extremely little non bibilical historical refferences to the actual jesus however.
As Mitchell pointed out, it is nothing like the pseudo history that is 1422. He isn't coming to a conclusion first and then trying to find facts that support it. By his own account, Aslan has always been fascinated about Jesus and wanted to learn more about him. So he looked at the world Jesus lived in and compared that to the sources on him-and then worked up from there to eventually come to the conclusion he came to after analyzing all the evidence.
He also contradicts plenty of muslim ideas about Jesus, so its not like hes coming at this from the perspective of a muslim, despite him being one. He's coming at it from the perspective of an impartial scholar.
The book isn't perfect, nor is it the be all end all. But it definitely is a well researched book.
It's not like the Romans made you live in any certain "Roman way". I highly doubt the life of your everyday Jewish farmer or say the lives of the poor in the city of Jerusalem, changed much from the Hasmonean and Herodian period to Great Revolt.
elkarlo
Banned
Ok, as a lot of the reviews didn't look very kindly upon Aslan. Thank you.
No, of course not, most villagers live's most likely did not change at all under the Romans, save for visiting the temple.
I meant as in life in the Roman empire. There would have been a lot of depravity to be seen. And a lot of bored rich people doing some pretty outrageous stuff. I think for many city dwellers, this would have made conversion to Christianity either appealing, or odious. As it was very different from the materialistic society of the time
That can be found in plenty of other mystery cults and 'alternative' religions of the time as well though. Christianity had the benefit of being far more organized than those religions AFAIK, which went a long way in them building up a respectable following (it also didn't hurt that the 3rd century crisis was a time of real hardship and tragedy empire wide).
But what gave Christianity the edge it needed to become the dominant religion was Constantine (though more importantly his successors) promotion of it. If aspiring wealthy Romans understand that they may be more favored by the emperor if they were Christian, they will start converting to Christianity. That allowed Christianity to enter the mainstream, and once it was promoted by the state, it became far more attractive.
But what gave Christianity the edge it needed to become the dominant religion was Constantine (though more importantly his successors) promotion of it. If aspiring wealthy Romans understand that they may be more favored by the emperor if they were Christian, they will start converting to Christianity. That allowed Christianity to enter the mainstream, and once it was promoted by the state, it became far more attractive.