It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I have, in fact, read the Bible through-and-through multiple times in an attempt to reach God. I have not reached him, and from what I have learned about this amazing creator of all things, I do not wish to reach him. Jesus, I believe, was a great man. A kind man with a gentle heart who taught wonderful lessons which should be remembered always. God, however, is frankly a prick.
what correlations can be made between the rise of cargo cults and the rise of Christianity? i.e. What was the profound and powerful "force" that prompted the rise of Christianity?
This seems to be where the bulk of our biblical "truth" comes from. A situation where attitudes are changing, but change is never easy. I have little doubt that one day jesus will be found not at the right hand of god, as much as sitting between Apollo and Osiris.
"My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working."
- - John 5:17
Yet it is known amongst sociologists that religion is directly related to dysfunction in societies in which it proliferates. This presents quite a dilemma. I agree christians are just like anyone else with only one belief being the difference, why is religion (christianity) synonymous with societal ill health?
Originally posted by pthena
My guess would have to be Jerusalem's encounter with Rome,
If I remember correctly, Jerusalem was part of the Parthian Empire, Herod the Great hooked up with a Roman general who would later become Emperor. They took Jerusalem for Rome. (I'm just doing this from flawed memory, fact check required)
Rome became a model for the Jews of what empire meant. Messianic ambitions arose in some quarters based upon some post-exile "prophecies" of Jerusalem becoming the World capital.
The framework of the Gospel of Matthew is pretty much a "proof" that Jesus was the expected son of David (complete with genealogy). There's a bit of a chicken/egg conundrum here though.
1) Did Jesus originate this "Kingdom of God" idea, or did his "Kingdom of God" redefine and derail someone else's previous violent overthrow of Rome plans? Thus saving his generation from rebellion.
2) Did Jesus live during the time he was supposed to have lived, or did he live closer to the time of the failed rebellion that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem, so that his prediction of defeat by Rome was more timely?
Anyways, your general thought isn't really too far from my own.
I believe that Christianity did in fact rise much like a "cargo cult" would have. However, I believe that initial force was actually Jesus Christ. However, I also believe that much of the prophetic texts of the Jewish belief system were more likely assigned to Christ and not simply fulfilled by his actions.
Originally posted by pthena
The assigning of the pre-existing "prophecy fullfilled-ness" is very self evident especially in Matthew.
I read Caesar's messiah by joseph atwill recently and found the argument of why the teachings of Jesus would have been codified in the way they were (Gospels). As a counter revolution against the violent Messianic movements. The "cargo cult" encounter would still be the meeting of Jerusalem and Rome. The irony being that the violent Messianic and the counter peaceful movement both arise from the encounter.
This doesn't place the actual teaching period of Jesus in any particular time period for me. Anywhere between the time Herod took the throne all the way up to the destruction of Jerusalem. There are elements of temporal context teachings interspersed with timeless teachings. The temporal don't all seem to be the same context. I think that's why many people conclude that Jesus is a composite. I don't particularly agree with that conclusion.
I think there is something about this that is more than manufactured as Atwill presents it.
In conclusion,
I really don't see Rome being in the mix a whole lot concerning the Messianic movements of the first century. Indeed I see them as almost exclusively Jewish.
Luke 19:11 As they heard these things, he went on and told a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the Kingdom of God would be revealed immediately. 12 He said therefore, "“A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 He called ten servants of his, and gave them ten mina coins, and told them, ‘Conduct business until I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent an envoy after him, saying, ‘We don’t want this man to reign over us.’
15 “It happened when he had come back again, having received the kingdom, that he commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by conducting business.
- - WEB
Originally posted by pthena
Do you mean by this, a final conclusion, or a tentative conclusion?
By bringing up Atwill, I was not suggesting that Jesus or his followers were Romans or acting as agents of Rome. I was suggesting that there was a need in the first century for someone to counter the rise of Messianic movements.
You brought up the "cargo cults" which by definition is the native population mimicking actions that they had seen in order to reap some reward. This is seen in this parable here:
Luke 19:11 As they heard these things, he went on and told a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the Kingdom of God would be revealed immediately. 12 He said therefore, "“A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 He called ten servants of his, and gave them ten mina coins, and told them, ‘Conduct business until I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent an envoy after him, saying, ‘We don’t want this man to reign over us.’
15 “It happened when he had come back again, having received the kingdom, that he commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by conducting business.
- - WEB
This would be the primary aspect as a "cargo cult". This doesn't mean that Jesus, his followers, or the Gospel writers were necessarily Roman, or Roman agents. They would have been following the example of Jeremiah who recommended making peace with Neo-Babylonian Empire before the exile of 500s BC or so.
If a movement following the "appeal to Rome" cult coexisted with an "overthrow Rome and rule the World from Jerusalem" cult, they would have, of necessity, been at odds with one another. Is it possible that Jesus actually lead an armed group that opposed Messianic Zionism? Yes, I think it is possible.
that there was apparently no counter to the rise of Messianic movements. Everything done to "counter" the movement did in fact only strengthen it.
. . .
But...it IS a parable....so I really can't say much concerning this passage...
Originally posted by qualm91
reply to post by LastStarfighter
You are incredibly condescending. My answers do not contradict each other in the slightest. I never once said in this post that God "wasn't there", I reiterated multiple times that I believe in a god of some sort just not The God. I wasn't declaring at all that it is ridiculous to believe in God, either.
I would like to thank you for your contribution, though, because you proved a point that I was getting at. You are essentially attacking me and trying to insult me because you didn't like what I had to say, but from what I gather, you are someone who believes in God. And aren't people who believe in God simply supposed to provide us "nonbelievers" with answers and help us find the way instead of breaking us down and making us feel like trash?