Christianity as a pagan religion

[angellous_evangellous]

Im not sure gmarks compilation was any less Roman, just less educated.


Luke/Acts author, reading like a Greek novel could have been very similar to Paul.

Gmatthew still copied Gmark so that community could very well be very Roman having more serious Roman Proselytes that wanted to hold on to traditional Judaism tighter.

I wish there was a way to know more, so it wasn't just a guess in the dark

I will study it further -- I do believe that the Gospels don't utilize Greek/Roman rhetoric and philosophy as much as Paul. But that judgment comes not from seeing that in Gospel scholarship but in not seeing any parallels made to the Gospels from Pauline studies. That is, I've read everything in English about Paul's education and use of it in his letters, and I haven't come across anything that compares him to material in the Gospels.

That's not to say that the Gospels are "less Roman." My entire point is that Christianity is the product of Greco-Roman culture. That's obvious to folks like us - less obvious to folks who don't situate Christianity in its basic historical context.

I am aware also of the problematic use of "pagan," and I recognized that in the OP. I'm using the term in its most common modern usage -- setting Christianity on a level playing field with all of its contemporaries.

 

[outhouse]

I will study it further -- I do believe that the Gospels don't utilize Greek/Roman rhetoric and philosophy as much as Paul. .

Luke /Acts even more so

The way I was taught was that they all followed Aristotle's teachings.



This right here, which there are only about 5-6 people tops in this forum that understand the details of rhetoric and persuasion, is why its so hard to accurate details out of these text. leaving much a guessing game.

My entire point is that Christianity is the product of Greco-Roman culture.

That's a fact.


That's why I always posit that he was not famous while alive. Had he been we would have more signs then absolutely none, from Aramaic Jews.

not seeing any parallels made to the Gospels from Pauline studies

That's the beauty and why the epistles from Pauls communities are so valuable in historic research, they were not gospels or epics, just pater famailias writing to one another, that in my opinion uses rhetoric is a different prose.

 

[outhouse]

I am aware also of the problematic use of "pagan," and I recognized that in the OP. I'm using the term in its most common modern usage -- setting Christianity on a level playing field with all of its contemporaries.

Which is tough because all of Judaism is based on pagan religions. Their gods, the Mesopotamian influence, just about everything.


Finding what is original to Israelites, then not perverted by Christianity and Islam, gets to be a rather small basket.


They are all plagiarized religions, and we can only look at what new was added with the evolution of belief.

 

[von bek]

That's not to say that the Gospels are "less Roman." My entire point is that Christianity is the product of Greco-Roman culture. That's obvious to folks like us - less obvious to folks who don't situate Christianity in its basic historical context.

This is a vital point when examining religions that have definitive historical origins. As a Buddhist, when I approach the earliest Buddhist texts and commentaries, they must be placed in the historical context of India in the 5th century BCE. There are movements, schools, and specific teachings that the Buddhist tradition is responding to and critiquing. Without that context you will fail to grasp the significance of certain passages. For instance, at times the Buddha will make a statement that is actually turning a teaching from the Upanishads on its head, drawing a conclusion that is in opposition to the original teaching being referenced. Understanding historical context only deepens my appreciation for the Buddha's genius. He was not teaching in a vacuum, and neither was Jesus.

 

[von bek]

This is a vital point when examining religions that have definitive historical origins. As a Buddhist, when I approach the earliest Buddhist texts and commentaries, they must be placed in the historical context of India in the 5th century BCE. There are movements, schools, and specific teachings that the Buddhist tradition is responding to and critiquing. Without that context you will fail to grasp the significance of certain passages. For instance, at times the Buddha will make a statement that is actually turning a teaching from the Upanishads on its head, drawing a conclusion that is in opposition to the original teaching being referenced. Understanding historical context only deepens my appreciation for the Buddha's genius. He was not teaching in a vacuum, and neither was Jesus.

To clarify one small point, I do believe that there are truths that the Buddha taught that have nothing to do with culture but are in fact accurate descriptions of reality, regardless of place or time. (Teachings such as the Four Noble Truths, anatta, and Dependent Origination fall into this category. I also believe that rebirth is an actual teaching of the Buddha and not a cultural concession, but that is a topic that takes us far away from the OP so I will not pursue it any further here.) Again, I simply want to reiterate that you must understand historical context when grappling with a historical religion. To bring the discussion back to Jesus, it is a huge mistake to isolate the New Testament texts from the wider cultural discourses taking place across the Roman Empire. Paul knew Greek philosophy, this knowledge is not irrelevant to the letters he composed.