Thursday, October 2, 2025

Ehrman on Christian Success as Syncretic, Missional, Monotheist, Creedally Unifying & Effective at Requests for Divine Blessings

In the following guidebook, we learn that the main reason Christianity was successful in the first two centuries, is because it incorporated Greco-Roman (or Indo-European) mythologies about the nature of the gods and humans, along with it being a uniquely missional proselytizing religion combined with being a monotheistic exclusivist religion, which made it superior to any other religion of the time. 


Christianity was also more powerful than the other pagan religions, in the minds of many pagan converts, because Roman pagans became convinced that the Christian God was more useful and powerful than the pagan gods when it came to providing divine favor. In other words, many Gentile Romans converted to Christianity because they believed that the Christian God could provide more favorable results in life than the pagan gods. This made me think of Constantine's vision where he believed he was told, "In this sign (the cross or Christ's name) you will conquer."


As Bart Ehrman puts it (from a section below):


Pagans, as a rule, worshipped their many gods because the gods were powerful and could provide for humans what humans could not provide for themselves out of their own resources: rain, crops, health, safe childbirth, victory in war, life, peace, happiness, and so on. ... Divine power also explains why pagans began to convert to worship the Christian God: It was a matter of who was better able to provide what was needed in life. Christians succeeded in convincing pagans that Christ and his Father were more powerful than their gods; that they alone could provide what is needed for this life; and that they could, in fact, provide eternal life. Once they were convinced of this, pagans converted. There did not need to be massive conversions between the days of Paul and the days of the emperor Constantine to make Christianity a major player on the religious scene by the early 4th century. Usually, it is estimated that about 5 percent of the empire had converted at that time. .... So far as we know, there were no other religions like Christianity in the ancient world, that is, religions that were both missionary and exclusivistic. Judaism may have been exclusive, but it was not missionary; a number of Greco-Roman religions were missionary, but they were not exclusivistic. Christianity succeeded, in no small part, precisely because it alone among the religions of antiquity insisted on the exclusivity of its views. Because converts needed to renounce their former religions, Christianity destroyed all other religions as it grew. 


From How Jesus Became God Course Guidebook by Professor Bart D. Ehrman by thegreatcourses.com:


Loc 170-200:


Apollonius of Tyana

 

About 2,000 years ago, a remarkable man was born in a remote part of the Roman Empire. His mother was told that he would not be a mortal but, in fact, would be divine. She gave birth to him in a miraculous way. As an adult, this man collected disciples around him who came to believe that he was the Son of God. And he did miracles to prove dead. At the end of his life, he ascended to heaven. This man was Apollonius of Tyana, a pagan philosopher active some 50 years after Jesus and widely known in his own day. We know about the life of Apollonius from the writings of his later follower Philostratus, who based his account, he tells us, on earlier eyewitness reports. Later, there were debates between the followers of Jesus and the followers of Apollonius, concerning which was the Son of God and which was a fraud. We see these debates in a battle of words between the pagan Hierocles and the Christian Eusebius. But it is important to note that these were not the only two miracleworking Sons of God in the ancient world. There were, in fact, a was widely known throughout antiquity. To understand how ancient people could believe that a human could be a god or a god could be a human, we need to know more about religion in the Greco-Roman world.

 

Ancient Polytheism from Jews and, eventually, Christians. Scholars sometimes call these Greco-Roman religions “pagan,” which in this context does not have a derogatory connotation. Greek and Roman polytheists had thousands of different religions, but they had numerous features in common.

  •  function, purpose, and place imaginable.

 

  • Such worship pleased the gods, and in return, they could help ...

 

  • Polytheist religions did not maintain that there was a vast chasm that separated the divine from the human realms. This is the common conception today, especially in the Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), but it was not a widely held view in antiquity.

 For ancient Greeks and Romans, the divine realm and the human realms were heavily populated, and both humans and divinities...sometimes overlapped; thus, gods could be, in some sense, human, and some humans could be, in some sense, divine. It may be easiest to imagine the divine realm for ancient pagans as a kind of pyramid, with the very top spot occupied by the one ultimate god; the next tier, by the great gods of Greece and Rome; the next, by local and less powerful divinities; the next, by daimonia (spirit beings less powerful than the gods but more directly involved ... Below that tier were the humans, who themselves could be ranked in terms of their power, intelligence, and beauty. In this understanding, there is not a chasm separating the divine and human realms but a kind of continuity.


Models of Divine Men

 

In this ancient view of the divine realm, gods could sometimes be or become humans, and humans could sometimes be or become gods. There were three basic models for “divine men” in this world. Sometimes it was understood that gods could and would come down to earth in human form to make a temporary visit for purposes of their own. Sometimes it was understood that a person was born from the sexual union of a god and a mortal; thus, that the person was, in some sense, part divine and part human. Sometimes it was understood that a human was elevated by the gods to their realm, usually after death, and at that point divinized, made into a god.

 

Gods Becoming Human

 

There are numerous stories in the ancient myths about gods temporarily assuming human form to meet, speak, and interact with humans. These stories in many ways are similar to later Christian beliefs about Christ being a preexistent divine being who came to earth as a human, only later to return to the heavenly realm. The pagan stories, of course, can be found in ancient Greek and Roman mythology. One interesting example that serves to illustrate the point is the account told by the Roman author Ovid of the temporary “incarnation”of Jupiter and Mercury and their meeting with the poor elderly couple Philemon and Baucis. Incarnation sometimes did that, according to the mythical tales related by Ovid. Ovid was one of the great authors of Roman antiquity, who narrated stories that had been passed down for centuries, especially in his book Metamorphoses. In the story we are interested in, Jupiter, the chief god, and Mercury, the messenger of the gods, temporarily took on human form and visited a region of Asia Minor. Only Philemon and Baucis, a sweet elderly couple, welcomed the gods into their home. As a result, even though everyone who had rejected the gods was to be destroyed, these two were given any wish they desired. They asked to be made head of the gods’shrine and to die in unison. Here, we have a tale of gods who visit humans, in human form, for a relatively short time. They are indistinguishable from other humans; they interact with humans; and their interactions bring both judgment and blessing. Ovid’s Story and the New Testament The story of Jupiter and Mercury appears to lie behind an interesting account found in the New Testament, in the book of Acts, an account of the missionary activities of Jesus’s followers after his death Traveling in the same region of Asia Minor, the apostles Paul and Barnabas are mistaken, by a miracle they perform, as Zeus and Hermes. (Zeus was the Greek version of the Roman Jupiter; Hermes, the Greek version of Mercury.) The people in this region remembered the story of Philemon and Baucis and did not want to replicate the mistake of those who were judged by the gods. These two stories show one of the ways that ancient people imagined how something like divine men could exist: Gods could assume, temporarily, the guise of humans in order to visit people and interact with them.

 

... Humans Born of the Gods

 

In the ancient world, it was not uncommon for an exceedingly powerful or intelligent person to be thought of as more than human. In some cases that status was because he was not, in fact, a mere mortal but had one of the gods as his father. This was the case with Alexander the Great, rumored to be the son of Zeus. o A humorous account of such a birth is told by the Roman playwright Plautus in his work Amphitryon. Here, Alcmena, the mother of Hercules, is made pregnant by Zeus’s Roman counterpart, Jupiter. The god disguises himself to resemble Alcmena’s husband, Amphitryon, in order to spend a long night frolicking in her arms. o It is not clear that anyone actually believed that this story was history, but it was seen as a plausible view: Sometimes gods had sex with women, and the result was a demigod, part god and part human.

 

Apotheosis

 

A third way a human could also be or become divine involves a process known as apotheosis into a god. We have seen an instance of this already in Ovid’s story of the elderly couple Philemon and Baucis. More commonly this divinization of a human involved great philosophers or, more commonly still, incredibly powerful rulers. The Roman historian Livy tells of how Romulus, the founder the divine realm as a god at the end of his life. The Roman biographer Suetonius discusses the idea that Julius Caesar was thought to have been made a god after he died. In Caesar’s case, it is not surprising that his adopted son, Octavian (who was later to become Caesar Augustus, the had become a god. If his father was a god, what did that make Octavian?

 

The Cult of the Emperor

 

With Caesar Augustus, we have the beginning of the emperor cult, the practice of honoring emperors, both dead and living, as gods. Note that the word cult is not derogatory in this context but refers to the care of the gods. ... Thus, the Roman orator Quintilian speaks of gods who were born divine and of other gods who had “won immortality by their valor,” that is, those who had been made gods because of their amazing deeds. In the Roman world, this normally happened after an emperor had died, based on a vote of the Senate, seen to ratify an emperor’s divine status. But it often happened for living emperors, as well, as can be seen, for example, in an inscription from Pergamum dedicated to the god Augustus Caesar or one in Miletus dedicated to the emperor Caligula, who is called the god Sebastos. How are we to understand this adoration of the emperor as a divine being? The older view of scholarship was that we should not take it seriously. In this view, those said to be gods were known to be as human as anyone else. The emperor cult was simply political In other ancient societies, such as Egypt, it was thought that the ruler—the pharaoh—was an embodiment of a god. ... propaganda, which no one ever really believed, that encouraged people to worship their leaders as divine. Logically, if the ruler is divine, then he cannot be disobeyed. Recent scholarship has reevaluated this older view and offered a different perspective. There is little evidence that of Rome itself and rarely by the emperors. These were grassroots movements, in which rulers were revered for their superhuman power and authority. o Whether or not people actually believed in their hearts that the emperors were gods is impossible to know. However, the emperors were certainly treated as gods, for example, by them and by having temples built and dedicated to them ... thus, they had divine-like power. And as we have seen, they, too, could be called god. This adoration of divine rulers was not restricted to Rome. It can be seen clearly in an inscription dedicated to the ruler of Syria, Antiochus, and his wife Laodice in gratitude for their overcoming a foreign power. The city Teas set up cult statues of the two, an inscription in which they were placed on the same level as the local god Dionysus and said to be “common saviors of our city.”

 

Divine Humans

 

In short, Jesus was not the only divine man in the ancient world. Some were thought to have been gods who came down to earth temporarily in human form. Others were thought to have been literally the son of a god, the divine product of the union of a god and a mortal woman. Still others were thought to have been taken up into heaven at the end of their lives to live and rule in the divine realm. Jesus, as we will see, was thought to be all three of these things by different Christians in different times and different places.

 

... Divine Beings in Ancient Judaism

 

It is true that Judaism was distinctive among all the religions of the Greco-Roman world in insisting that only one God was the true divinity worthy of worship. In fact, by the time of Jesus, most Jews were monotheists, believing that there was only one God and that the gods of the pagans did not actually exist. But it had not always been that way in Judaism. For centuries, many Israelites were not monotheists but henotheists; they believed that other gods existed, but they were not to be worshipped, as evidenced already in the Ten Commandments. Eventually, a strain of monotheism developed within ancient Israel, as evident in such passages of the Hebrew Bible as Isaiah 45. If that was the case in the days of Jesus, is it true, then, that there could be no other divine beings who interacted with humans? Was there just God in heaven and we mortals on earth? In point of fact, even Jews who were monotheists still believed in other divine beings, that is, hyper-intelligent beings who were superhuman; who lived in the divine realm, not here on earth; and who were far more powerful than mere mortals. Among these mentioned in the Bible.

 

Divine Beings as God

 

Sometimes, the Bible speaks of one of these other divine beings coming to earth in the shape of a human, and sometimes, these other divine beings who appear as humans are actually called God appears on earth in human or other form. Already in the book of Genesis, the father of Israel, Abraham, is said to have an encounter with three “men.” Later in the story, two of these men are revealed to be angels, and the third is God. In Exodus 3, God appears as a burning bush, commanding Moses to bring the Israelites out of Egypt. occurs in Exodus 3 at the burning bush. Here, Moses is addressed by the “Angel of the Lord,” who is then later called “the Lord.” This Angel of the Lord also sometimes appears to humans as himself a human. We see an example in Genesis 16, when the Angel of the Lord speaks with and rescues a woman named Hagar from near death from exposure. In other passages of the Bible, we are told that angels are either sons of God or God himself and that they become human. This is implied in the famous passage in Job 1, when the “sons of God” appear before God in his divine council. Angels are explicitly called gods in Psalm 82. In other Jewish traditions, angels are said to become human, as in the text known as the Prayer of Joseph. In addition, and equally striking, we are told in some Jewish texts that humans can become angels. This is clearly laid out in 2 Baruch 51 and 2 Enoch 22. In sum, in the Jewish tradition, there are divine beings other than God who are called gods; these divine beings can become human; God himself sometimes appears temporarily in human form; and humans themselves can sometimes become angelic beings.

 

Beings Born of Divine Union

 

Moreover, we also have stories in the Jewish tradition of beings who are born to the union of divinities and humans. This is the point of the bizarre passage in Genesis 6, where the “sons of God” take wives among the “daughters of men” and produce semi-divine offspring. This story is expounded in the book of 1 Enoch, a later Jewish text that understood the offspring to be malevolent giants. The idea that other beings besides the one true God could be called gods is found not only in the pagan but also in the Jewish tradition, and just as pagans thought gods could temporarily become human and that some people were born to the union of divine and human beings, so, too, did many Jews in the days of Jesus.

 

 Loc. 1300-1600:


Early Christianity in the Roman Empire

 

To make sense of Constantine’s conversion, we need to consider a brief history of the relationship of the Christian religion to the Roman Empire. As we have seen, the earliest Christians were a group of Jews who came to believe that Jesus had been exalted to heaven when God raised him from the dead. These earliest Christians began to seek converts among their fellow Jews. As far as we know, this led to some opposition among nonChristian Jews but no opposition, at least at the outset, from Roman would have considered them an internal Jewish affair. But eventually, with the missionary efforts of the apostle Paul and others like him, Gentiles began to convert to the Christian faith, believing that Christ had died, had been raised from the dead, and had been exalted to heaven. As the church became increasingly Gentile, it became decreasingly Jewish.

 

Pagans and Early Christians

 

There are three key questions we need to ask and answer about pagans and their relationship to early Christians: Why did pagans worship the gods they did? Why did they persecute Christians for worshipping their own God? What compelled some pagans to convert to the Christian faith ... As it turns out, the answer to all three questions is the same. It all has to do with ancient understandings of divine power. Pagans, as a rule, worshipped their many gods because the gods were powerful and could provide for humans what humans could not provide for themselves out of their own resources: rain, crops, health, safe childbirth, victory in war, life, peace, happiness, and so on. Christians were persecuted not because they considered Jesus God or because they insisted on worshipping him and God the Father, but because they refused to worship the gods who were powerful enough to make life livable, happy, and prosperous for other members of the empire. If the gods are the ones who make life possible and successful, and all they require are simple, occasional acts of worship, then anyone who refused to worship them must be the cause of disasters, such as droughts, famines, earthquakes, military defeats, and so on. Because the Christians were the ones who refused to worship the state gods, they were the cause of problems in the community; that is why they were persecuted. Divine power also explains why pagans began to convert to worship the Christian God: It was a matter of who was better able to provide what was needed in life. Christians succeeded in convincing pagans that Christ and his Father were more powerful than their gods; that they alone could provide what is needed for this life; and that they could, in fact, provide eternal life. Once they were convinced of this, pagans converted. There did not need to be massive conversions between the days of Paul and the days of the emperor Constantine to make Christianity a major player on the religious scene by the early 4th century. Usually, it is estimated that about 5 percent of the empire had converted at that time. If that’s the case, then the faith that started out with only a small group of Jesus’s followers would have needed to grow ... So far as we know, there were no other religions like Christianity in the ancient world, that is, religions that were both missionary and exclusivistic. Judaism may have been exclusive, but it was not missionary; a number of Greco-Roman religions were missionary, but they were not exclusivistic. Christianity succeeded, in no small part, precisely because it alone among the religions of antiquity insisted on the exclusivity of its views. Because converts needed to renounce their former religions, Christianity destroyed all other religions as it grew. The steady conversions to Christianity often made the pagans’ former families and friends even angrier, which meant that persecutions ratcheted up as the church grew in size and importance. ...

 

Christian Persecutions

 

Contrary to what is often imagined, the Roman emperors were rarely involved directly with the persecution of Christians. under Nero (64 C.E.), a persecution that was localized and that was not an attempt to attack Christians for being Christian. Similar things could be said about persecutions during the time of Trajan (112 C.E., as seen in the letters of Pliny the Younger) and Marcus Aurelius (177 C.E., as seen in the Letter of Lyons and Vienne). persecution instituted by an emperor did not occur until 249 C.E., under the emperor Decius. Luckily for the Christians, it lasted only for a couple of years, until the death of Decius in 251 C.E. What is called the Great Persecution occurred under the Roman emperor Diocletian, starting in 303 C.E. Diocletian sought to rid the empire of the growing Christian presence. The emperor Nero tried to shift in 64 C.E. from himself to the Christians, thus instituting a localized persecution. Constantine’s Conversion Just three years later, in 306 C.E., Constantine became the emperor, and six years after that, in 312 C.E., he converted to Christianity. We have an account of his conversion in a biography of Constantine written by Eusebius, who was his contemporary. According to these accounts, Constantine was deeply disturbed .... receive divine assistance for his military cause. Constantine claimed that the night before the battle, he had a dream of the cross and was told in his dream that this was the sign that would give him victory. He had the sign embossed on his soldiers’s hields, went into battle, and emerged victorious. From then on, Constantine considered himself a follower of Christ. There are disputes over whether this was a “genuine” conversion or not, because there are some signs that Constantine continued to worship other divinities, especially the god of the sun, but it appears that his commitment to the Christian religion was genuine. ... Constantine saw to it that persecutions were put to an end. He donated large tracts of land to the church and ... he promoted the worship of the God Christ to the state gods. ... rather than being a god who was worshipped, [Constantine] was a servant of God who urged his subordinates to worship Christ. Now, rather than being the Son of God in competition with Christ, the emperor became the servant of God in subservience to Christ. It is wrong to say that Constantine made Christianity the state religion. That would not happen until the emperor Theodosius at the end of the 4th century. But Constantine certainly made Christianity a favored religion. And by intervening in internal church affairs, such as the Arian controversy, he guaranteed that Christian concerns would be the concerns of the entire empire. In the next lecture, we will consider why Constantine may have been so invested in solving this controversy, which on the surface may have seemed simply to involve a rather technical theological point of whether Jesus was a god who came into being before the world or whether he had always existed alongside God the Father.

 

...  Agenda of the Council

 

Even though the Council of Nicea was the most momentous and important church council in the history of Christianity, its agenda and decisions are widely misunderstood today. People often think that the Christian leaders at the council “invented” the New Testament by deciding which Gospels, epistles, and so on would be considered Scripture. But the bishops at the Council of Nicea did not discuss which books should be accepted into the canon. People also often think that the Council of Nicea is when Jesus began to be considered God. Sometimes, it is said that a vote was the Son of God and that it was a close vote. Of course, that’s not true either. We have already seen that Jesus was considered the Son of God in the Christian faith, soon after his death, as his own disciples declared that he had been taken up into heaven and exalted to the level of divinity. Jesus is called the Son of God and even God in the writings of the New Testament, and he was considered God by all the proto-orthodox and most of the heretical Christians that we know about in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. ...

 

Constantine’s Concern

 

Even before the council met, the emperor Constantine was concerned about this question, not because he was theologically Constantine was concerned because he saw in Christianity a potentially unifying force in his fractured empire. The empire was vast and was culturally, politically, and religiously fragmented. In contrast, Christianity emphasized oneness: There is one God, one Son of God, one church, one faith, one hope, and so on. Christianity was a religion of unity. Constantine believed it could be used to unify the empire. But the problem was that this religion of unity was itself split; thus, Constantine saw the need to heal the split if the Christian church was to bring real religious unity to the empire. Eusebius’s biography of the emperor, The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, preserves a letter that Constantine himself sent to Arius and Alexander to try to get them to see eye to eye on the theological issue dividing them and their followers. He is quite forthright that his concern is that Christians should be united in their beliefs. Further, he considered the issue at stake to be petty and trivial. Constantine had the letter hand-delivered to the two opponents by Ossius, an important bishop of Cordova, Spain. After delivering the letter, Ossius came back by a land route that took him through Antioch, Syria. While there, he attended a conference of church bishops that met to debate the Arian issue and in which Arius and his views were condemned by the majority. The supporters of Arius at this conference were told, however, that they would have a chance to defend their position. Thus, the Council of Nicea was born.

 

A Worldwide Gathering of the Church

 

The term ecumenical comes from a Greek word that means “world.” These councils were not merely local in nature but were worldwide, meaning that leaders from around the world attended in order to determine what Christian beliefs were to be adhered to by believers everywhere. The Council of Nicea was originally scheduled to meet in Ancyra, a city in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), but it was eventually moved to Nicaea, also in Asia Minor. The vast majority of the 318 bishops who attended came from the eastern part of the empire: Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and so on. Western Christians were not well represented; in fact, not even the bishop of Rome, Sylvester, came but sent two legates in his place. Still, the decisions of the council were considered binding on all Christians everywhere, in no small part because the emperor ...

 

The Nicene Creed

 

After debating the issues back and forth, the council decided against the views of Arius and his followers. It was not, in fact, a close vote. All but 20 bishops agreed with these decisions. And after Constantine himself twisted their arms, 17 of those 20 agreed to sign off on the concluding statement. This statement was a creed that expressed the now-orthodox position and anathematized (that is, uttered a divine curse against) anyone who thought differently. Several points in the creed are worth emphasizing: ... Because it was the nature of Christ as God that was the major point of contention, the creed’s statements about Christ are far more lengthy, involved, and nuanced than anything said about God the Father or the Holy Spirit. Christ in this creed is not a subordinate deity to God. He is “of one substance” with the Father. The word used here is homoousios ... According to the creed, Christ is completely equal with God and himself the “true God”; there was never a time when he did not exist.

 

Christ of the Nicene Creed

 

The Christ who emerged from the Council of Nicea is obviously a far cry from the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was an itinerant apocalyptic preacher from the backwaters of rural Galilee, who offended the authorities and was unceremoniously [crucified]. Now, he was confessed to be God himself, equal with the Father from eternity past. Whatever he may have been in real life, Jesus had now become fully God. ... 

 

We might think that with the declarations of the Council of Nicea, Jesus was fully, substantially, and eternally God, and that was the end of the story. But of course, every ending marks a implications. They involve Christians in relation to the pagan world, to Jews, and to themselves. Results of Constantine’s Conversion The results of Constantine’s conversion and his intervention in Christian affairs obviously had an enormous effect on the broader Roman world. Now, rather than being a persecuted and relatively small minority within the empire, Christianity began to assert itself as a favored religion, with masses of conversions; by the end of the 4th century, nearly 50 percent of the empire was Christian. At that time, in less than 60 years after the Council of Nicea, the Christianity the religion of the state for all practical purposes. ... The emperors were no longer the enemies of Christ and persecutors of his people; they were the worshippers of Christ and patrons of his people. From that time on, Christianity was destined to become the religion of the West. This never would have happened had Jesus not come to be considered God. Christianity would have remained a small group of Jewish followers of Jesus who continued to think of him as an important teacher of the Law of Moses, which they would have followed and insisted that other members of their sect follow. Christianity would never have broken out of its Jewish matrix, converted masses of Gentiles, converted the Roman emperor, or become the dominant religion of Western culture and civilization. We never would have had the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Reformation, or arguably, the Enlightenment. That Jesus became God had historical, cultural, social, political, and economic effects that can scarcely be calculated.

 

Rise of Anti-Semitism

 

Some of the effects of Jesus’s becoming God were directly related to the Jewish people, most of whom retained their own religion and, of course, refused to acknowledge that Jesus was in any sense God. There was nothing in Jesus’s earthly proclamations that made him stand out as in any way non-Jewish. He and his followers kept the Jewish Law, followed Jewish customs, and studied the Jewish Scriptures. His followers believed, during his life, that he was the Jewish king of the coming kingdom, but they did not think that he was starting a new religion. ... Jesus’s followers maintained that the belief in the death and Resurrection of their messiah was essential for salvation. In their view, Jews who rejected that message rejected their own salvation, which meant that they were alienated from God and doomed for eternal destruction. Non-Christian Jews were soon seen as hard-hearted and rebellious against God. It was not long before Christians began to declare that because Jews had rejected God, God had rejected them. Thus began the long history of Christian anti-Judaism ... We can see the beginnings of this history already within the pages of the New Testament, where Jews are often characterized as the opponents of Christ, as hard-hearted sinners against God, and even as children of the devil. This kind of polemic against Jews came to more vehement expression in the second Christian century, as can be seen, for example, in a sermon discovered in modern times, delivered by a bishop of the city of Sardis named Melito. This sermon is an attack on Jews for rejecting the one God had sent to them for their own salvation. More than that, because Christ was God, Melito believed that Jews, who were responsible for his death, were guilty of murdering God. ... It is one thing for a small, persecuted minority to lash out against others with its powerless rhetoric. But what happened when this belief in Jesus as God came to be the religion of the state? What happened when it became the majority opinion and had the power of empire to back it up? The answer is that the rhetoric used earlier to attack Jews verbally was transformed into political power, so mistreatment, and in mob violence. Jews became legally marginalized under Christian emperors and made second-class citizens with restricted legal rights and limited economic possibilities. By the end of the 4th century, it became illegal for a Christian to convert to Judaism, for a Christian to marry a Jew, and for Jews to build or even repair a synagogue. Accompanying these forms of legislation were acts of violence against Jews, such as the burning of synagogues, which even if not sponsored by the state authorities, were tacitly condoned. Once those who believed that Jesus was God were given secular power, they used that power against their long-time enemies, the Jews who rejected the Christ. ...

 


Monday, September 29, 2025

Philo & Christianity

 

From The Socratic Journey of Faith and Reason, section 37 below:  


Western Civilization was built on the transcendentals of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. In this blog you will get unique, comprehensive, and integrated perspective on how philosophy, theology and art built Western Civilization and why it is in trouble today. 


37. Philo’s Breakthrough with Logos – from Greek Abstraction to Living Being


In this post, I will discuss how Philo of Alexandria put Hebrew flesh and bone on the Greek abstract concept of logos. This made the idea of the logos so significant that, I would argue, it was the only word John could have used in chapter 1 of his Gospel. (Please see the previous post as background for this one).

Greek as the Bridge Between Judaism and Christianity

It is no accident that the New Testament was written in Greek. Greek was the language of philosophy. It came loaded with philosophical terms and ideas that the Greeks had been developing for over 400 years. And thus the Church Fathers eventually used it to develop Christian theology.


Paradoxically, the type of Greek in which the New Testament was written was Koine Greek. Koine (κοινή) Greek was “street Greek,” the parlance of the common person.[1]

 

Philo of Alexandria’s Concept of Logos and God’s Word

 

By attempting to bridge Hebrew and Greek thinking, Philo laid the foundation for Christian theology and philosophy.[2] And his logos was the intermediary between the two. In order to bridge the Hebrew and Greek world, he introduced the Greek concept of logos conceived by Heraclitus and the Stoics into Judaism. 

 

In the previous post, I mentioned that the logos represented both the idea of God’s inscrutable essence – His divine mind – and the manifestation of God’s existence in creation. Philo saw a parallel between this purely Greek concept and the Hebrew idea of God’s Word or utterance as found in the Hebrew Scriptures. ... In the same way, for the Hebrews, God’s utterance or His Word was a part of His inscrutable essence, but when He spoke, His Word affected creation itself, even bringing it into existence (Genesis 1) or “breaking to pieces the cedars of Lebanon” (Psalm 29).3 It is easy to see parallelism between God’s Word and the Greek Logos. Both the Hebrew Word and Greek Logos represented God’s ideas as well as His actions in creation. The logos then becomes a manifestation of God’s thinking-acting. For Philo, then, the eternal Logos is one and the same with God’s Word.

 

The Logos as the First Born Son of God

 

According to Philo, the logos had an origin. But at the same time, since logos was synonymous with God’s transcendent eternal thought, then its generation was eternal. This is obviously a paradox that the logos could be, at the same time, both first born and eternal. In post 36, I mentioned how the Stoics developed the concept of “eternal generation” and applied it to creation. Philo now applies the same to the concept of logos.[4]

 

Philo stated that the Logos was the first begotten Son of the uncreated Father:


“For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he [Moses] calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.”[5]


(Conf. 63) 

 

...  In addition to being creator, in the vein of Heraclitus and the Stoics, the logos is the ordering and governing principle of the universe. It is the “glue” that holds the created order together. And this includes not just inanimate objects like the solar system, but our own bodies and souls. It connects our bodies and souls as well as ourselves with the created order. 

 

We can start to see how New Testament authors like St. Paul utilized these ideas in talking about Christ:


“He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;  for in him all things were created…all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 


– Colossians 1:15-17 

 

Since the Hebrew language was not a philosophical language, the New Testament authors and theologians would have been hard pressed to describe these concepts were it not for the Greek language with its philosophical heritage. ...

 

... Apart from holding together and governing the created order, the logos also gives us our rationality as an extension of itself and by implication, God. This is how we can be created in the image of God – the Logos bridges the gap. It transverses the great divide between transcendence and immanence. It allows God to be God by remaining transcendent, while at the same time enabling God to be immanently involved with His creating through the Logos.

 

Friday, September 26, 2025

On the Christians' New Genus as Members of the Divine Race that Transcends Earthly Ethnic Divisions

 

Despite the Apostle Paul seemingly believing that a Gentile needed to receive the ancestral seed of Abraham through David through the Jewish Jesus, even if that were so, the Indo-European need not fixate on this aspect of Pauline theology; because the greater theological emphasis in the New Testament is that of joining the race or genus of the Heavenly Beings (Jehovah and his Elohim). For in the Realm of the Heavenly Beings there truly would be no male nor female human bodies, nor Jew or Greek or Germanic ethnicities. 

As the Apostle Paul says in Galatians 3.28 (followed by commentary by BibleHub below): 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Context:

…27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.…

Cross References:

Colossians 3:11:

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all and is in all.

1 Corinthians 12:13:

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink.


Romans 10:12:

For there is no difference between Jew and Greek: The same Lord is Lord of all, and gives richly to all who call on Him,


Ephesians 2:14-16:

For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He put to death their hostility.

Acts 10:34-35:

Then Peter began to speak: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism, but welcomes those from every nation who fear Him and do what is right.


Romans 3:22-23:

And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

John 17:21:

that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

1 Peter 2:9-10:

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.  Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

James 2:5:

Listen, my beloved brothers: Has not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom He promised those who love Him?

Matthew 23:8:

But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.

Philemon 1:16:

no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a beloved brother. He is especially beloved to me, but even more so to you, both in person and in the Lord.

1 John 3:1-2:

Behold what manner of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God. And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know Him.  Beloved, we are now children of God, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that when Christ appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is.

Isaiah 49:6:

He says: “It is not enough for You to be My Servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the protected ones of Israel. I will also make You a light for the nations, to bring My salvation to the ends of the earth.”

Joel 2:28-29:

And afterward, I will pour out My Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on My menservants and maidservants, I will pour out My Spirit in those days.


I interpret these verses as basically pointing to the larger theological agenda of Paul and the New Testament authors seeking to elevate and divinize all humans through the supernatural genus of Christ as a divine being; with the end goal being not a focus on one particular race or ethnicity, but instead the growth of one new race or genus called the holy ones: who become the genus or race of the Divine Beings, the genus of God and the lesser gods (to use the language of Michael Heiser).  

This is explained in greater detail in the book The Light of Tabor: Toward a Monistic Christology, wherein author David Bentley Hart writes in chapter one, Nature and Genus (at Location 118, 297-315, 321-382), the following:


[For in him we live and move and are, as indeed some of the poets among you have said: “For we too are his race.” So, being God’s race, we ought not to suppose the divine to be like gold or silver or stone, a graven product of human craft and conception.] —Acts 17:28–29 

 

... I want only to try to understand as best I can what it must actually mean to say that Jesus of Nazareth was in every sense a true human being and also wholly identical to the eternal Son of God, the Logos in and through whom all things subsist. ...

 

... As a rule, in those extremely infrequent instances in which the word φύσις appears in the New Testament, it tends to be used with what was originally its most ordinary meaning: origin, derivation, line of descent, family, pedigree, race. Whether its appearance in what is probably the latest of the books in the canon, in 2 Peter (1:4), constitutes an exception— assuming that the phrase θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως does not simply mean something like “members of the divine family”—is a conversation for another time. But, as a rule, the word certainly does not bear the weight in scripture of anything so imposing as a large metaphysical category. When Paul speaks in Romans of that which is παρὰ φύσιν, “outside nature,” he is doing so in much the way in which Aristotle used such language in the Politics, as referring to something outside its proper place in the cosmic or social order8—in Paul’s case, meaning either outside natural processes of procreation (1:26) or outside a natural line of descent or heredity (11:24).9 In that acceptation, φύσις differs little in its connotation from γένος. This brings me to those verses from Acts from which I set out, which recount the story of Paul favorably quoting someone, probably either Cleanthes or Aratus, to the effect that we are all, simply insofar as we are human, “God’s race”—or “offspring” or “family” or “genus” or what have you—and then immediately radicalizing the claim by speaking of us as, quite literally, God’s “congeners”: γένος οὖν ὑπάρχοντες τοῦ θεοῦ (nota bene the definite article in that phrase). Or, as Ephesians says, it is from the Father that “every kindred within the heavens and upon the earth receives its name”: . . . τὸν πατέρα, ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται (3:14–15): which is to say, all spiritual beings, whether below or above the moon, whether on the earth or among the planetary spheres and fixed stars, share in a single divine and natural genealogy—a single genus or kind. ... 

 

... For Paul, however, and really for the whole of the New Testament, our essence does not necessarily differ in any significant way from that of astral intelligences or angels or heavenly spirits of whatever kind; rather, our bodies—bodies of flesh and blood, bodies of sin (Romans 6:6), bodies of death (Romans 7:24–25)—are what separate us from that which is above, and it is our bodies that must be redeemed in order for us to be saved (Romans 3:23). ... Paul is quite clear on the matter in 1 Corinthians 15: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; neither does perishability inherit imperishability,” σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομῆσαι οὐ δύναται οὐδὲ ἡ φθορὰ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν κληρονομεῖ; and it is precisely by his having set aside the composite, inherently perishable, “animated” carnal body—the σῶμα ψυχικόν—and assumed instead a spiritual body—a σῶμα πνευματικόν—like that of angels that Christ has been transformed into “life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45), conquered the celestial powers, and taken his seat beside the Father above (Romans 8:34); and thus too, as spirit, he can also join us to himself, return again to raise us up out of the realm of death, and make a way for us through the heavens to the Father (Romans 8:39; Philippians 3:20–21).[10] ... 

 

... What seems more or less absolutely clear to me is that, for Paul, ψυχή was chiefly the life principle proper to the realm of generation and decay, which cannot depart the aerial and terrestrial sphere, while πνεῦμα is a kind of life bound neither to death nor to the sublunary realm, and so able to move at liberty among all the cosmic realms, below and above. So too, in Christ, we are destined to be set free from our σώματα ἐπίγεια, “earthbound bodies,” and receive σώματα ἐπουράνια, “bodies stationed upon the heavens,” in their stead; for, whereas the former are limited by φθορά (decay), ἀτιμία (dishonor), and ἀσθένεια (weakness), the latter enjoy true ἀφθαρσία (incorruptibility), δόξα (glory), and δυνάμις (power) (1 Corinthians 15:42–43). So: ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. οἷος ὁ χοϊκός, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ χοϊκοί, καὶ οἷος ὁ ἐπουράνιος, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ ἐπουράνιοι• καὶ καθὼς ἐφορέσαμεν τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, φορέσομεν καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου, “The first man out of the earth, earthly; the second man out of heaven. As the earthly man, so also those who are earthly; and, as the heavenly, so also those who are heavenly; and, just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly man” (1 Corinthians 15:47–49). This is for Paul nothing less than the transformation of the psychical composite into the spiritual “simple”—the metamorphosis of the mortal fleshly body that belongs to soul into the immortal fleshless body that belongs to spirit: ἡμεῖς ἀλλαγησόμεθα. Δεῖ γὰρ τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν, “We shall be changed. For this perishable thing must clothe itself in imperishability, and this mortal thing must clothe itself in immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:52–54).[11] 

In this sense, much of the hope of the earliest Christians appears to fall wholly in line with many of the highest spiritual longings of Graeco-Roman late antiquity, Jewish and Pagan alike: divinization through the assumption of a glorious and immortal form, ascent through the aetherial heavens, assimilation to the state of angels or daemons or gods or stars, entry into the highest sanctuary in or above the heavens. ... The body of flesh, Paul tells us, is but a terrestrial tent, in which we groan with fervent longing to be clothed instead in our celestial dwelling, so that we should not be found exposed and naked and so that what is mortal within us might be swallowed up in life (2 Corinthians 5:1– 9). To be raised is to have the body of abjection conformed to the body of Christ’s glory (Philippians 3:21). ...

 

In other words, the New Testament is basically saying that one's gender or ethnicity ultimately doesn't matter after death, when those who are baptized into Christ and receive his divine nature (pneuma) join the genus/race of God and the lesser gods (again to use Michael Heiser's language).  


As the Bible Hub cross referenced scriptures (quoted above) make clear, the God of the Bible is ultimately the God of all humanity, by only beginning with a "chosen people" (Israel), but ultimately seeking to bring into the "light" all nations/ethnicities. And remember, before Abraham was "chosen" to be the seed of a new people, before that all of humanity was One Race breathed in by God and equally imagers of God (to use another phrase from Michael Heiser). Abraham was simply selected to be the means of the Divine Path in the first phase and strategy of the biblical God; and so what the New Testament is saying basically is that Israel has been replaced with Gentiles as a new holy people, as the focal point of the Divine Path through the in-spiration of the divine Logos.

 

Constantine's Conversion to Christianity Led to its Growth and Power

 

The following is an excerpt from a world history article here


In 324 CE, Constantine defeated Licinius and became the sole emperor. In that position, he essentially expanded the ideas of Aurelian, in that he could now enforce "One God, One Emperor, One Church".


The First Council of Nicaea

After mediating the Donatist Schism, his next major challenge came in 325 CE. A presbyter in Alexandria, Arius, had been teaching that at some point, God had created Christ. Riots had broken out in several cities, and Constantine brought the bishops together at the city of Nicaea to resolve the issue. The Council of Nicaea resulted in the Christian doctrine known as the Trinity, which articulated the relationship between God and Christ. The Council voted to claim that Christ was of the identical essence of God, present at creation, and manifest (incarnated) on earth in Jesus of Nazareth. Until Christ returned, the now Christian emperor stands in for Christ, and so carries the identical power of God on earth as he rules. It was after this council that Christian emperors began to be portrayed with halos over their heads, and the trappings of divine worship.

 

The concept of a creed (from the Latin credo, "I believe") was a Christian innovation. With multiple native cults, there was no central authority that dictated what all should believe. The Nicene Creed formalized one system of belief that was promoted through the power of the emperor. As such, any dissent was not only heresy but also treason.

 

The Council of Nicaea also set the date for the empire-wide celebration of Easter. Some communities had insisted on following the gospel tradition of observance during the Jewish Passover. Constantine allegedly wrote:


... it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul ... Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Savior a different way. (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, chapter XVII, quoted in Schaff)


Constantine elected the practice which churches in Rome followed: the first Sunday after the first full moon following the spring equinox. The later law codes under Theodosius I (r. 379-395 CE) and Justinian I (r. 527-565 CE) claimed that Constantine also created legislation against the Jews: Jews could not seek converts, were forbidden to own Christian slaves, and could not circumcise their slaves. Christians who converted to Judaism were to receive the death penalty. On the other hand, Jewish clergy were offered the same tax exemptions as Christians.


Constantine is often credited with determining the date for Christmas, too, although no edict has survived. Christians in Rome celebrated the event during the festival of Saturnalia in December 25. December was also the birthday of Sol Invictus and Mithras and may have been utilized in attempts to unify these festivals. From an ancient calendar, we know that in the year 336 CE, at least in Rome, the celebration was established on 25 December.

 

Christianity as the Spirit of Indo-European Conquering by Appropriating Hebrew Scripture

  

"Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker; suppression, hardness, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and at least, at its mildest, exploitation.… If it is a living and not a dying body…it will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant—not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power. But there is no point on which the ordinary consciousness of Europeans resists instruction as on this: everywhere people are now raving, even under scientific disguises, about coming conditions of society in which “the exploitative aspect” will be removed—which sounds to me as if they promised to invent a way of life that would dispense with all organic functions. “Exploitation” does not belong to a corrupt or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will of life."

~ Friedrich Nietzsche

 

Some people of Indo-European descent want to move away from Christianity because they consider it to be not part of their ethnic culture and history and so they want to go back to the Indo-European deities which they argue are representative of their own Germanic ancestors. The way I see it, my Northwestern European ancestors chose to make Christianity their religion sound 1000 AD for many reasons, but one of them being it was the means to access to trade with other populations. So for example, the Scandinavian kings chose to utilize Christianity for better ease of trade and as a way  to maintain control and power through its monotheistic structure through the biblical concept of the divine right of kings. 


I also see Christianity as a religion that basically squelched the growth of the Zealots' Movement in ancient Judaism, as the New Testament Gospels were basically "Roman propaganda" to counteract the Zealots who were [inciting] the people of Judaea to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Land of Israel by force of arms ..." (Source). These Zealots, and others, tried to conquer Rome and lost in 70 AD, leading to thousands of Jewish lives destroyed and the temple itself destroyed! So what the Gospels are doing is basically trying to keep further carnage and destruction from transpiring by psychologically infiltrating the mindset of these types of rebellious individuals by promoting instead a message of peace and alignment with Rome: through not a "warrior Messiah" come to conquer Rome, but a "suffering Messiah" who's martyred by Rome but then resurrects and makes the Romans Gentiles his new expanded "chosen people" through supernatural adoption. So the Gospels are basically designed to unite Messianic Jews (who believed Jesus was the Messiah) with the message that the temple was destroyed on purpose in order to bring about this new biblical concept of the Messiah. The hellenized Greek speaking New Testament authors exploited or utilized Judaism and it's monotheism, in order to merge the best of Hellenic culture with Philo-adjacent  form of Judaism. So I see the Gospels as a collaboration between Indo-European peoples and mostly Hellenized Jewish authors who were highly educated Roman citizens. So in many ways the Gospel authors are "hijacking" the Hebrew Scriptures and morphing the meaning of the text to retrofit it into a new version of Israel: where Gentiles are grafted into Israel by spiritual adoption. 


This  "hijacking" and appropriation of the Hebrew Bible for new ends, began with the Apostle Paul basically appropriating the Hebrew Bible to his own ends; in that even though he himself was a "hebrew of hebrews," as he puts it, he utilized the Old Testament texts by changing  the meaning of passages as a "midrashic artist," in order to graft Indo-European peoples into Israel. This beginning stage of reworking the meaning of Old Testament scriptures to fit an Indo-European paradigm, was continued on with the later Indo-European Christian Church Fathers who combined Greek Philosophy with the texts of the New Testament.


Considering Nietzsche's legitimate criticisms of the apostle Paul, I began to realize that the Apostle Paul is not the end all be all of Christianity. Paul simply got the ball rolling so to speak, but his version of Christianity (voluntary martyrdom, literal spirit-possession, healing handkerchiefs, etc.), is no longer believed in or practiced by most Christians.

In my view, Paul himself represents a form of Nietzschean will to power in that his ego allowed him to believe that he was called by God to graft the Gentiles into Israel before the end of days. So you basically have Paul exercising creative will to power in order to "get one over" on his opponents (the "super apostles"  who were his theological rivals) as he utilized the combined authority of the Old Testament with his claim to be receiving divine communication from the resurrected Christ, to cleverly graft Gentiles into Israel in his theology (within his letters and Epistles) which became the core writings of the New Testament. In the end, the Pauline message and the Gentile Churches won out over and against the more Torah-observant sects who also interpreted Jesus as the Messiah but rejected Paul's gospel. 


You have to realize that what was powerful and authoritative in the Greek speaking world of the first century were ancient religions, whether it was Egypt or the ancient texts of the Old Testament. The more ancient a religion was the more respected and authoritative it seemed in the first century Greek speaking world of Rome. So what Christianity was is a synchronistic religion that appropriated the ancient authority of the ancient texts of the Old Testament  and combined them with Indo-European religious concepts in the mystery religions and Greek Philosophy and culture, in order to make Gentiles center stage in the narrative drama instead of the Israelites.


You see further will to power and a kind of "hijacking" taking place with the forged letters and epistles attributed to Paul, which were New Testament writers basically pretending to be Paul : in that they were essentially hijacking Paul's name in order for their writing to have authority and "carry weight" in convincing others; as these forgers reinterpreted things to fit their own theology and agendas. So for example, whereas the authentic Paul said things like it is better ideally to be celibate if able in 1 Corinthians 7 and live a radically egalitarian lifestyle, these forgers appropriated Paul's name and writing as if they were him: promoted instead Roman style hierarchies and marriage (like we see with the Disputed Letters of Paul in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Ephesians 5:22-25). In the authentic writings of Paul, he is more martyr-centric while promoting celibacy (instead of being family-oriented) due to Paul's claim in his writings that his Messiah was coming very soon within the lifetime of his Christan converts. So what we see is that after Paul died and the Messiah did not come quickly as he claimed would occur, these Pauline-pretenders dealt with this delay in the expected immediate return of the of Paul's Messiah (that was causing some to doubt Paul's message), by reinterpreting the meaning of the word "day" to making it mean up to A thousand years in 2 Peter 3:7-9 (which is another forged / disputed letter of Paul).  


While some of the earlier Gospels, in particular the Gospel of Matthew, are more Hebrew oriented (promoting Torah-observance in some passages), and the Gospel of Mark promotes extreme pacifism and martyrdom, by the time we get to the likely Gentile author of Luke-Acts, we see a much more Indo-European mentality: as I argue in this blog post, the author of Luke actually defends soldiers having swords for self-defense, so it's no longer a strict pacifism. Then, of course Constantine and the later germanization of Christianity generated the warrior knight, chivalry, and just war theory. So that I see "Christianity" as a development toward a more Indo-European religion, especially in its American-Christian form. 


So from the perspective of the cultural evolution of Christianity, you can see that it's evolving away from being only a strictly ethnically Jewish sect and toward a more hellenized Indo-European religion. From this perspective, in many ways within the Gospels, Christ becomes an avatar representing the merger and synthesis of the best of hellenized Judaism and Indo-European religion. To the point that I don't think you can call Christianity strictly a Jewish offshoot sect, for it's more of a hybrid religion: a collaboration between Roman elites, Gentile scholars, and Jewish authors who themselves were heavily influenced by Hellenic culture and the Greek language when composing the Gospels. 


Thursday, September 25, 2025

Jesus, Paul & the Hellenists

 

Excerpts from Early Christian Theology and the Origin of the New Testament Canon by Jens Schröter (Translated by Wayne Coppins):


Location 4409:

 

Jewish Christians or Godfearers are often the first converts, whereas in his letters Paul mostly has in view communities made up primarily of Gentile Christians. Finally, on several occasions the presentation points beyond the time of Paul into the situation of the church that stands before the eyes of Luke himself. [104] 
If we evaluate these findings, then it can be said that the presentation of Luke moves within the framework of what was expected from an ancient historian. He possesses knowledge about the areas concerning which he reports; sometimes chronological inaccuracies slip in; [105] and entirely in the sense of Lucian he has shaped his presentation and in this way drawn a picture of the development of Christianity in the first decades. Christianity appears as a movement that goes back to the activity of Jesus, was spread by the apostles and the “Hellenists,”and is based in its concrete form on the mission of Paul, as a movement that stands in continuity with the history of Israel to which the Jews—at least at present—no longer belong.


Location 4402:

 

... what begins with Jesus—the proclamation of the rule of God, which is no longer bound exclusively to Israel but to which the Gentiles now also have access—finds its continuation through the apostles, the Hellenists, and Paul. It leads to a new form of the people of God that is no longer obligated to the law but to the apostolic decree; it leads as well to a separation of the church from Judaism, which refuses this opening up of the people of God.


The Case for an Indo-European Christianity in Bullet Points

Pauline-Christianity was modified by Constantinian-Germanic Christianity. From that point on there were basically two Christian traditions: ...