Christianity - Sacrifice and Meal, Among Other Substitutions

[Coder]

I believe:

You may hear some mythicist historians compare Jesus to Osiris. Such "gods" may be involved in the development of Christianity, but the use of any analogies to such "gods" was primarily motivated by the work towards Roman religious unification of monotheism (e.g. Judaism) and Greco-Roman polytheism.

One must understand that the theology was an outgrowth, a natural consequence of some substitutions that were the seeds.

What seeded the theology? Mainly the goal of religious unification (a known Roman pattern for economically practical socio-political control). Two main obstacles to unification were differences in animal sacrificial holidays and practices, and circumcision. Paul who was a Greek-educated elite (e.g. like the Roman Senate), was also Jewish. He was probably selected to help bridge the Jewish and Greco-Roman practices. Then tada! You have a new apostle.

So here are the seeds of Christianity (unification motivation):​

• Animal sacrificial practices among Jews and polytheists were an obstacle to unity
• Ending animal sacrifices (they even sacrificed dogs) was also probably a western civ. advancement
• Circumcision an obstacle to unity
• Belief in "gods" and "sons of gods" (polytheist) an obstacle for polytheistic transition to monotheism

The solution:​

• Jesus is "son of god" ==> "Son of God", human-like image God of as substitution for human-like polytheist "gods"
• Jesus is messiah for Jewish people
• Jesus is sacrifice for Romans
• Jesus is sacrificial lamb (Passover) for Jewish people

The Details of the Sacrifice​

The Romans liked the power and dominance of the sacrifice and the meal of eating the sacrificed body.

Roman Sacrifice, Inside and Out* | The Journal of Roman Studies | Cambridge Core

Roman Sacrifice, Inside and Out* - Volume 106

www.cambridge.org

"...how Romans thought about sacrifice... sacrifice as violence and sacrifice as ritual meal."

The Roman church substituted this with theatrical sacrifice:

• Jesus is sacrifice
• Graphic depiction of violence, crucifix, dripping blood
• Eating the "body" of the sacrifice
• Blood theatrics with drinking red wine

The unleavened bread and lamb aspects were for Jewish unification. Clever attempt but as we know, the Jewish people understandably did not accept the new religion.

Notice that in Roman church, the "blood" (the wine), is not commonly used any longer. That's because there's no more need for the Roman sacrifice theatrics.

Now you know why early Roman Christians were eating the "body" of the "sacrifice" and why the "sacrifice" was "re-presented". Because this is the ritual that the Roman polytheists were accustomed to.

The Seeds of Resurrection Theology​

Some ideas/themes related to "gods" associated with resurrection (e.g. osiris) may be possible here (and possibly with the sacrificial aspects).

These elements were used for Roman religious unification:

• Jesus as "son of god" ==> "Son of God", human-like "god" figure for polytheists
• Jesus as ritual sacrifice, including meal

However a further consideration is the resurrection of the sacrifice. Unlike the animal sacrifices, the concept of resurrection is important because an image of "God", can't be said to have died.

(Honestly, out of respect for God, I don't like discussing God is such terms. It's simply the reality of the stories that were used.)

 

[Tamino]

That's an interesting theory about the origin of Christianity. However, I'm not convinced... I don't think that the whole development was intentional to that degree. I don't think that St. Paul or anyone else planned it all out in advance, I think they mostly made it up as they went. And sometimes they saw those connections to pagan myths or incorporated pagan concepts.

It's just that I have been studying history for a long time. And my overall observation is this: it's pretty easy to see patterns and infer intention when looking backwards... Hindsight being 20/20 and such. But in the moment while it's happening... Well, people have big plans and try stuff, but they don't know yet what's going to work and what isn't.

 

[Coder]

I believe:

people have plans ... but they don't know yet what's going to work and what isn't.

Hi, thank you, yes:

Jesus as Jewish messiah and as unleavened bread as meal, didn't work for bringing Jewish people on board. However, the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple, which ended that portion of animal sacrifice in the empire. The Greco-Roman polytheists were apparently more cooperative, however their houses of worship were also destroyed/converted over time. Nor am I suggesting of course, that the Jewish people should have cooperated, and nor is the Roman church saying this any longer either. The Jewish non-acceptance of Christian theology is not only understandable, it stands as a true witness to the errors of a theology that arose from socio-political motivations of the Roman empire. The Jewish Scriptures are not the "Old Testament", their monotheism is a "true testament" to monotheism.

I think that I understand what you are saying about not all being pre-planned. That's a reasonable point and I don't agree to some extent. I am merely saying that they determined during the process, that animal sacrifice and circumcision were key obstacles (from their perspective). And certainly we all agree that the end of animal sacrifice may be considered a general social advancement (even though the forceful methods were wrong). Some of the leaders (e.g. Senate) were sophisticated/well-educated, right?

Yes and also the crucifix (and probably other symbolism) evolved. I didn't mean to imply that the "theater" was all pre-planned. As you say, they determined what worked - it was a process.

What was in place by the time of the early part (letters) of the book called the "New Testament" was the issues related to ritual sacrifices and meals, and basic concepts of encouraging the end of religious circumcision, resurrection, and the bread as "body" and the wine as "blood".

 

[1213]

...
What seeded the theology? Mainly the goal of religious unification (a known Roman pattern for economically practical socio-political control). Two main obstacles to unification were differences in animal sacrificial holidays and practices, and circumcision. Paul who was a Greek-educated elite (e.g. like the Roman Senate), was also Jewish. He was probably selected to help bridge the Jewish and Greco-Roman practices. Then tada! You have a new apostle.
...

Actually I believe it could be true that original Christianity was hijacked and twisted to this materialistic Christianity.

Good thing is that we still have the Bible and can see what true Christian means and what are the teachings of Jesus. In a way it is a miracle that Bible has survived, when everyone who reads and understands it, can see that the teachings of Jesus are very different than what is commonly seen as Christinity.

 

[Tamino]

Ok I think you are conflating two unrelated things here.

I am merely saying that they determined during the process, that animal sacrifice and circumcision were key obstacles (from their perspective).

If I get what you're saying, "they" are the Roman elite and they wanted to unify religion in the empire?

It's plausible to me that they wanted to calm the situation in Judaea and support such Jewish sects that would integrate into the empire and wouldn't violently rebel . I guess I can even see Paul trying to shape young Christianity into that direction, but his apocalyptic vision and separation of Christians from unbelievers seem like it does the opposite.

And certainly we all agree that the end of animal sacrifice may be considered a general social advancement (even though the forceful methods were wrong). Some of the leaders (e.g. Senate) were sophisticated/well-educated, right?

Uhm. No. A lot of philosophers and politicians supported animal sacrifice. Only certain philosophical groups were against (the Pythagoreans) Even from a my modern perspective I believe that it is a perfectly legit practice.

Where do you make this jump?! Integrating the pesky atheist Jews, yeah, that sounds like a valid motive for the Roman Senate. But ending animal sacrifice in all of the empire? Why would they want to do that?

Animal sacrifice is a strongly regulated and ritualized form of violence - far more tame than the blood sports practiced in the arena. The sacrificial animal has to be carefully chosen and well cared for, since it needs to be healthy and calm for the ritual. The violence of killing it is an aspect, but not even the main part of the rite (as detailed in the article that you linked above) And the entire process, as well as the communal meal following the sacrifice strengthens the social bonds in the community, it reaffirms its social order and the relationship with the divine.

It's also a practice common to many religions and cultures in the empire and thus a unifying factor. Why would the Romans want to get rid of that?

 

[Coder]

Where do you make this jump?! Integrating the pesky atheist Jews, yeah, that sounds like a valid motive for the Roman Senate. But ending animal sacrifice in all of the empire? Why would they want to do that?

For one reason, it (along with religious circumcision) was a major obstacle to religious unification of Judaism and Polytheists. Judaism had holidays and practices associated with sacrifices that were different in major ways from Roman practices. Once the Romans conquered Jewish lands, finding religious common ground was an entirely new task that they naively thought that they could achieve. That's why I think that they called in a specialist, Paul. Later, they cruelly destroyed the Jewish temple and Jewish sacrifices were halted.

You see, for Romans, I think the religious unification was not the only issue, it's all related to their domination and religious subjugation was part of their domination. The Romans may have considered that their process of mixing religions was at least civil to all involved, but they didn't understand that monotheism and polytheism don't mix when the monotheists are sincere about respect for God.

 

[Ebionite]

What seeded the theology?

One of the sources was the cult of Sol Invictus.

From the temple of Campus Martis there's a representation of a triad of deities.

 

[Coder]

One of the sources was the cult of Sol Invictus.

Interesting, thank you. Do think that this also relates to sacrificial practices and selection of Sunday as day of worship, especially once they realized that generally, the Jewish people were not going to be participating in the new unification religion?

Adding a note that I respect and honor the Jewish people for not compromising their belief in one God and their right to freedom of religion.

 

[Tamino]

For one reason, it (along with religious circumcision) was a major obstacle to religious unification of Judaism and Polytheists. Judaism had holidays and practices associated with sacrifices that were different in major ways from Roman practices. Once the Romans conquered Jewish lands, finding religious common ground was an entirely new task that they naively thought that they could achieve.

I think you are vastly overestimating the importance of the province of Judaea.
Would they seriously try to change ALL religious practice in the empire for the sake of integrating one small group of people with a weird religion?
When they just could - and did! - violently suppress these people and destroy their main temple?
It's not like monotheist and polytheists were groups of equal size and importance in the first century... The Jews were the odd ones out.
I really don't think the Roman Senate would make a plan to change their own hallowed traditions and rituals, the "mos maiorum" of their esteemed ancestors - all for the sake of unifying their religion with a weird atheist cult far off in the Eastern provinces

 

[Ebionite]

Interesting, thank you. Do think that this also relates to sacrificial practices and selection of Sunday as day of worship, especially once they realized that generally, the Jewish people were not going to be participating in the new unification religion?

Adding a note that I respect and honor the Jewish people for not compromising their belief in one God and their right to freedom of religion.

It relates to Christian beliefs regarding sacrifice because the "Lord's Day" was originally associated with belief in the resurrection, IIRC. Modern sacrificial practices would be the rite of communion, which connect to the doctrine of the resurrection via Paul:

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1 Corinthians 11:26

Paul was the primary vehicle of the new unification religion, although to be fair Peter's vision indicated that there was a path for those who were not of the twelve tribes.

 

[Coder]

I believe:

Would they seriously try to change ALL religious practice in the empire for the sake of integrating one small group of people with a weird religion?

#1 I would say that they had the most normal religion (however, you probably mean from a Roman perspective)
#2 Wasn't the population large? e.g. several millions

Paul was quite urgent to end the practice of religious circumcision. Why such a major issue? Obstacle to unity. Otherwise, various followers of Jesus would not care whether some practiced circumcision and some did not. No, the Romans wanted to meld the population into one homogenous group. This was their routine modus operandi. Conquer, assimilate, be a citizen, behave. Quite explicit as Paul explains no more Greek and no more Jews. This mentality as we know, carried on for many centuries after that.

>> When they just could - and did! - violently suppress these people and destroy their main temple?
Yes, but they still didn't join the new religion and that was the goal as seen for the past 2000 years. This itself shows you the mentality of the origins of the religion in Roman empire, because that mentality didn't start in the year 1000, it started in the early centuries and continued ever since. So, absolutely the goal was Jewish unity in the new religion, and only relatively recently did that mentality finally begin to fully fade away.

 

[Tamino]

#1 I would say that they had the most normal religion (however, you probably mean from a Roman perspective)

If you want to look at policies of the Roman Senate, of course "normal" must be seen from a Roman perspective.

#2 Wasn't the population large? e.g. several millions

True. I checked the numbers... Estimates give around 6-7million Jews in the first century versus a total population of the Roman Empire around 60-75 million.
So a minority at around 10%... Not enough to move ruling Romans to abandon or change their tradition I think.

Don't blame me. Paul was the one quite urgent to end the practice of religious circumcision. Why such a major issue?

Because he wanted to convert non-jews to Christianity

Obstacle to unity. Otherwise, various followers of Jesus would not care whether some practiced circumcision and some did not.

Oh, but they cared! There was a known debate among early Christians about whether you need to be a Jew first, and which Jewish laws you still need to observe.
I don't think that the Roman Senate or political elite was involved or interested at this point in time - I think it was an internal early Christian debate.

No, the Romans wanted to meld the population into one homogenous group. This was their routine modus operandi.

Not quite. The routine was to get allies in the border regions. And if the political and military opportunity presents itself: invade, establish a colony. Build infrastructure, appoint a governor, gather up taxes. Recruit people for the military and send them to the other end of the empire so they don't ally with the locals. Press locals to pay homage to the Emperor and otherwise leave them alone, as long as their religion doesn't spark rebellion.

This mentality as we know, carried on for many centuries after that.

The mentality of proselytizing and changing everyone's religion is a very, very Christian idea. Evangelization was NOT a thing among pagan Romans.

Also a key point that I seek to illustrate to Christians is that the eating of the "body" which was a core tenet of early Roman Christianity and for many centuries onward (and still today), was simply to satisfy the needs of the Greco-Roman tradition of eating the sacrifice.

Maybe a little bit, at a way later point of the process, when Christianity was already pretty large.

 

[Coder]

Definition: Pre-Christian movement: The supposed new religious movement among Jewish people before it became a gentile religion.

Oh, but they cared! There was a known debate among early Christians about whether you need to be a Jew first, and which Jewish laws you still need to observe.

I think Paul was more "flexible" about Jewish religious laws, not because of religious reasons but because Paul wanted the Jewish people to cooperate because Paul wanted to spare the Jewish people the Roman conflict.

In fact, can you show me outside of the Christian books, where a new religious movement was happening among some Jewish people (e.g. a man named Peter) before it was called "Christianity"?

 

[Coder]

The mentality of proselytizing and changing everyone's religion is a very, very Christian idea.

Then why no longer? Reasonable people today accept the idea of freedom of religion. Where did this approach of forcefulness originate? Where did this approach of punishing "heretics" and destroying Jewish and polytheist temples originate? Really? These are teachings from Jesus/Christianity?

 

[Coder]

"As the Romans extended their dominance throughout the Mediterranean world, their policy in general was to absorb the deities and cults of other peoples rather than try to eradicate them, since they believed that preserving tradition promoted social stability."

"The Romans looked for common ground between their major gods and those of the Greeks...adapting Greek myths..."

Religion in ancient Rome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Judaism no different from Roman perspective. If you consider "common ground" between Greco-Roman polytheism and Judaism what religion do you arrive at? Christianity

The polytheists had visible gods. Statues and pictures of the "gods" and "divine" and "divi filius" emperors, that you could see in public.
Jewish monotheism had none of this. The human-like figure of the "image of the invisible God" was simply a bridge between polytheism and monotheism. Why do you think that he is called mediator? Not mediator between God and man, but mediator between polytheism and monotheism. Then, presented to Jews as mediator between God and man. 1 Corinthians 9:20 "To the Jews I became like a Jew,..."

"...There was no principle analogous to separation of church and state in ancient Rome. During the Roman Republic (509–27 BC), the same men who were elected public officials might also serve as augurs and pontiffs..."

"...thus sanctioning Roman expansionism and foreign wars as a matter of divine destiny..."
Is that the approach to "evangelism"?

 

[Tamino]

Judaism no different from Roman perspective. If you consider "common ground" between Greco-Roman polytheism and Judaism what religion do you arrive at? Christianity

I still think you are confusing consequence with intent.

Yes, one could characterize Christianity as "Judaism mixed with some pagan elements".
But that doesn't mean that Christianity was intentionally constructed with this purpose in mind.

 

[Coder]

I still think you are confusing consequence with intent.
...
But that doesn't mean that Christianity was intentionally constructed with this purpose in mind.

Hi, as mentioned, I agree to some extent with regards to details and the resulting religion. However I believe that the impetus was Roman. I simply say to consider that if one had the task of "designing" a religion that suited polytheists but also accommodated Jewish monotheists, then one might imagine and see that the result fits. This doesn't mean that the details were all preconceived and agree, you make a good point about that.

You also make a good point about Judaism being 10% of population. And so we see that gradually, e.g. after the formation of the Roman church, the Roman empire reduced forcefulness in the approach to convert Jewish people. The Jewish people may have seen that the Roman church was at least better than the raw Roman empire. Today, my understanding is that the Roman church is essentially teaching that no conversion of Jewish people is to be attempted any further.

Amazingly ironic, that the Roman church was setup with so many features to accommodate Jewish people, including messiah, and it became mainly a gentile-only religion. Now, gentiles believe in the Jewish messiah, but the people of the messiah are generally not involved. Further, gentiles even believe that the Jewish messiah is God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe:

You may hear some mythicist historians compare Jesus to Osiris. Such "gods" may be involved in the development of Christianity, but the use of any analogies to such "gods" was primarily motivated by the work towards Roman religious unification of monotheism (e.g. Judaism) and Greco-Roman polytheism.

One must understand that the theology was an outgrowth, a natural consequence of some substitutions that were the seeds.

First, let me say that you wrote a great post. Lots of thought in there, and things well worth considering.

I do have this one question. Much of what you write seems to assume that unity is good and diversity is bad. May I ask why you think this?