@frank I will reply here because I don't want to pull Agu's thread out too thin.

Forgiveness:
Often the Christian God is thought of as a God of love and forgiveness, but just as often it is forgotten that He is the God of justice and holiness as well.
Hence, when I consider forgiveness, Christ's work comes to mind. By no means was it necessary for God to offer a solution to the law that cannot be kept, but He did so anyway by the sacrifice of Christ. He died that we may have life, yet refusing this grace brings death. As does refusing antivenom after a toxic snake bite.

Christianity commands you to forgive. Are you doing that?

Christianity does not command forgiveness, Christ does. But unfortunately, your statement is an ad hominem and irrelevant. Nonetheless, yes, I do forgive.

So Christ asks you to forgive and you do.

You have the frank seal of approval.

@Banno Again, the discussion I think is best brought here to avoid pulling Agu's thread out.

By prove it, yes, please share your thoughts on the comparison between Seneca and Christ and show how Seneca is superior. But I will ask you to reference actual Christian Scripture and the works of Seneca when giving your examples so that it is apparent where you are coming from.

Sure thing. Give me a link to Jesus' writing, as opposed to the more popular commentaries.

frank I will reply here because I don't want to pull Agu's thread out too thin.

Forgiveness:
Often the Christian God is thought of as a God of love and forgiveness, but just as often it is forgotten that He is the God of justice and holiness as well.
Hence, when I consider forgiveness, Christ's work comes to mind. By no means was it necessary for God to offer a solution to the law that cannot be kept, but He did so anyway by the sacrifice of Christ. He died that we may have life, yet refusing this grace brings death. As does refusing antivenom after a toxic snake bite. — Waya

Does that forgiveness extend to the hundreds of thousands of years prior to Christ's birth (as far as Homo sapiens has existed) or is it only afterwards? If so, why did it take so long? Or am I misunderstanding? What does accepting this grace mean?

Just note that Waya's view is an oddity. It doesn't conform with any Christian sects I know of.

The answer to your question varies by sect.

The early Christian Fathers were quite fond of Seneca. Jerome called him "our Seneca" and someone took the trouble to fabricate a correspondence between him and Paul. Some even claimed Seneca was a Christian, but there is no evidence for that, nor are Jesus or Christians mentioned in his work, though earlier Stoics, Epicurus, Plato, and other pagan philosophers often are.

I think any comparison of Seneca and Jesus is probably an unhelpful exercise. We know much about Seneca, and little of Jesus. Seneca wrote extensively, was well-known while he lived, a significant figure before and after he tutored Nero, a significant figure in governing the Empire until his falling out with Nero and being required to commit suicide. Jesus we know only by what was written of him decades after his death. What was written of him can be obscure, and sometimes confusing.

Seneca was the great stylist of his age, sophisticated, well-educated in philosophy and Greek and Latin literature. Jesus was not. Jesus as best we can tell spoke simply. His pronouncements on morality are generally unobjectionable.and admirable, but I think are unremarkable given the centuries of thought given morals by the philosophers who came before him. Seneca was a part of that tradition, and naturally voiced it much more eloquently than Jesus or at least those who claimed to repeat his words could.

And yet everyone knows who Jesus is and it's the rare one who knows anything about Seneca. Thoughts on why that is?

Most everyone knows of Trump but few of Seneca. Why is that?

Most everyone knows of Trump but few of Seneca. Why is that?
5m — Hanover

Trump is like Seneca in terms of his opinions about wealth.

Jesus said the meek would be blessed. Eventually his followers would become convinced the Roman Emperor was the Anti-Christ.

It's a multi-faceted story, but the revolutionary spirit of early Christianity is part of it. Christianity is about grandeur. Seneca was about brushing your teeth properly.

It's interesting, then, that the early Christians were so inclined to treat him as one of their own. Seneca was the subject of criticism for his wealth while he lived by his pagan enemies. For this and other reasons he offered to give Nero all he owned. But Christians were eager to claim he was at least a forerunner of theirs. I suspect this was a part of the often clumsy efforts of early Christian intellectuals to assimilate pagan philosophy into Christianity, which was otherwise lacking in philosophical foundations.

It's also interesting how easily the revolutionary spirit of Christianity became the imperial spirit of the Christian Roman Empire. You might be surprised to learn the number of Roman Emperors who were Christian.

What stands out to you as a significant Senecan contribution to Christianity?

Obviously the greater contributer to Christianity was Plotinus. The stoicism of Seneca's day fizzled out on its own.

Christianity commands you to forgive. — frank

There is no commandment to forgive except when a brother or a sister repents. Then you shall forgive, but there is no commandment to forgive before that.

I'd say Stoicism generally influenced Christianity, not Seneca in particular. But Seneca is credited with making Stoicism seem more human than did the early Stoics. A sort of kinder, gentler Stoicism I suppose. The same is also said of his contemporary Epictetus, who interestingly enough also spent time in the court of Nero, but as a slave of one of Nero's freedmen.

An Anglican priest named Staniforth or something like that wrote an introduction to the Penguin Classics version of Marcus Aurelius' Medtations which detailed what he thought were the significant contributions to Christianity. He thinks the Stoic conception of the Logos was borrowed by Christianity, that the Christian trinity and the Holy Spirit finds its basis in Stoicism, and more. He thought that Paul used Stoic terminology in his letters. I would add Stoicism's claim that we are all united and one people, not many different peoples, as we all carry within us a part of the providential divinty that is inherent in the world, and their concept of natural law which Cicero wrote of. Cicero did a lot to popularize Greek thought in the Roman world.

Stoicism keeps coming back. It was popular again during the Renaissance, and Justus Lipius founded neo-stoicism in the 16th century. And it's resurgent now, as you'll find by doing a Google search. There are several new books being written about it, academic and popular, and Internet stoic communities exist.

I agree that Plotinus and neo-platonism influenced Christianity greatly. The Platonist version of Christianity was probably dominant until the works of Aristotle began being read again in the 12th-13th centuries.

I have always felt that Christianity the religion (and its metaphysical speculative grounds) was quite far removed from the teachings and example of Jesus. So much so that I am not sure Jesus would approve of Christianity any more than he did of the priests and temple in Jerusalem.

I'm curious: what leads you to believe this?

All the information we have about Jesus comes from writings from early Christians, so one should expect consistency between what was written and what they believed - irrespective of the historical accuracy.

Forgiveness is the power to separate the sinner from his sin. Repentance allows the sinner to become justified in the eyes of God. Repentance is not a requirement for forgiveness. Only Luke 17:3-4 makes repentance a precondition for forgiveness. In every other case it is independent and commanded and it is so commanded to save your own soul. An unforgiving soul is one bound for hell.

See Colossians 3:13, Matthew 6:14-15, 18:21-22, Luke 6:41, Ephesians 4:31-32.

Does that forgiveness extend to the hundreds of thousands of years prior to Christ's birth (as far as Homo sapiens has existed) or is it only afterwards? If so, why did it take so long? Or am I misunderstanding? What does accepting this grace mean? — yatagarasu

The origins of humanity is a more challenging question to answer, but as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:22, every person born in the lineage of Adam has sinned, hence falling under judgment and needs the salvation which Christ offered. Hebrews 11 explains this very well. It is by faith that those before Christ received redemption. As for taking this amount of time, we must acknowledge the course of events in the Scriptures. There had to be something to set Christ apart from the masses, which comes in one way of the many prophecies. Mostly, I think this can be because our ways are not God's ways.

Accepting grace means to repent of wrongdoing and allow the death of Christ to pay for our sins, and believe that He rose from the dead on the third day, conquering death and sin.

Jesus we know only by what was written of him decades after his death. What was written of him can be obscure, and sometimes confusing. — Ciceronianus the White

Considering that the 4 Gospels are written as eyewitness accounts by separate individuals and generally agree on most points, that seems like good evidence that what was written is true. Decades is a very small amount of time, and the accounts still largely agree...

I have always felt that Christianity the religion (and its metaphysical speculative grounds) was quite far removed from the teachings and example of Jesus. So much so that I am not sure Jesus would approve of Christianity any more than he did of the priests and temple in Jerusalem. — prothero

I have to agree here for the most part. Christendom has fallen. As it is written in Revelation 3:15-17, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."

Christianity as antiquity.-- When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?

from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human,

Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life.

from Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy

Tis an interesting point, but fortunately false for the most part as those statements do not address the actual teachings found in the Christian Scripture or pulls it out of the rest of the context of Scripture. :)

As you do not have any example as to substantiate the assertion that Nietzsche's statements are 'false,' I will provide an easily accessible example within Christianity, which resonates throughout it and is its vibration. Christianity is at base anti transcendentalist. It views the human life as fundamentally corrupted and in need of some sort of savior... It is fundamentally in opposition to life as it would rather deny the 'corporeal' for the 'incorporeal.' This is the only falsehood relevant... Nietzsche's statements stand.

Considering that the 4 Gospels are written as eyewitness accounts by separate individuals — Waya

I dont think any scholar believes that. Luke wasn't supposed to be an eye-witness anyway.

Christendom has indeed fallen in an educated, humane and ethical society. And for good reason... Fortunately theocracy does not impact every society. If it did... I may have already been executed for being a homosexual, or imprisoned.

Christianity is myth, just like every other religion that claims a divine inspiration to truth, and to 'how people should live.' The only rational characterization of 'truth' or 'how people should live' is atop an ethical philosophy... And an ethical philosophy is not assertion after assertion substantiated by feeling and faith alone. But myth is not meaningless... It is art... Nothing more nothing less.
"The disintegration of Protestantism into over 400 different denominations is a sure sign that the restlessness continues." Carl Jung

It does include myth, but the message of Jesus isnt really about how to be a good person: it's about the fact that you're not.

Yes, and it supposes that there is indeed an ideal 'good' person... Which is the purpose for creating a Jesus... To have a reference by which people can be judged in their 'error'.
And this error is what it is to be specifically human.
There is no ideal 'good' person.
There are only people.