Yeah, I’ve said for a long time that lots of modern Christianity is just retellings of older mythology. For example, the story of Lucifer is the story of Prometheus told through an Abrahamic lens. When Christianity was trying to get off the ground, the Christians needed ways to relate to modern audiences. And modern audiences at the time were largely comprised of Greco-Roman working class, who were already intimately familiar with that existing mythology.
Comment on This whole exchange
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Jesus was a monotheist Jew of the time, hence the whole “I didn’t come to break the law but to fulfill it” and even frequently references Solomon (past prophet of the Jewish faith), and his first followers were literally Christian Jews (they accepted Jesus as a new prophet and added him to the list). The Romans used these incipient communities, his image and his words (plus a lot of Paulian stuff, which is where the contradictions come) to Frankenstein their way into creating a new religion, and the rest is history.
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 1 day ago
I have never really discussed Jesus’ religion irl, mostly because I don’t care, but I see your UN and I have been curious, why would Mary/Joseph/jesus not also be considered Christian Jews? Were they not the first to accept Jesus as a new prophet? I understand he probably was raised Jewish, but seeing as his core religious belief was not accepted into general Jewish faith, is he not at least the founder of Christianity? I figure at the time it made sense to not have a direct divide because Jews didn’t have the time yet to decide if Jesus was the real thing or not, but if Jesus was able to be on the TV/radio at the time and the majority of Jews rejected him as the messiah immediately, would they still use that interim term? I understand that the term Jewish encompasses a large cultural element, but as far as religious identity, it feels strange to group people who believe Jesus was the son of god with people who think that’s a lie and heretical.
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Oh I mean, certainly they would be, right? It’s just Abrahamic monotheism plus the wise words of big J (who didn’t even like to be called “good” and prayed often asking God for help!). I guess you could say Jesus went against some of the mores of the time and religious adjacent things, kinda like someone going against the 5 daily prayers in Sunni Islam, but he never went against the basic concept of “God exists, he’s good and he will judge us for our deeds” so idk if I can take him away from Judaism/Abrahamic monotheism, he was just a reformer of the things surrounding it like religious misogyny and quickness for judgment, for instance. Regardless, he was a “Jew” of the time, idk if some uneducated folk believe he just woke up one day in a vacuum and said “hey here’s me and here’s the whole Bible and a brand new religion, enjoy!” 😅
MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 1 day ago
Thank you for clarifying. I stay away from religious stuff for the most part now, but it’s interesting to see where the lines are drawn between sects. Totally understand why having a new name etc makes sense mostly after there’s an established religious text and doctrine, which at the time of Jesus there would not have been. Appreciate the response.
starlinguk@lemmy.world 1 day ago
There were tons of Bibles, but the Romans only accepted this one. The assumption is that the others weren’t very nice about the Romans. Think about it, a bunch of stories written during an occupation that barely mention the oppressors? And when they do they’re nice about them? That makes no sense.
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yeah definitely the others were burned down until only the OFFICIAL RELIGIOUS BOOK OF THE EMPIRE was allowed, with all the additions, subtractions and modifications they thought should happen. 🥲