A Prologue to Love is a book by Taylor Caldwell. Seneca is quoted in the book. I'm not sure of the source of the quote by Seneca.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Quietism." I know it as the view that philosophy is therapeutic or remedial, and has nothing substantive or positive to contribute. I tend to think of modern philosophy in that way. I think some ancient philosophy was positive in the sense that it provided good practical wisdom regarding how to live, and even spiritual guidance, though.

Jesus screams on the cross and then asks why God has abandoned him. It's odd that they kept that detail in there after all these years. — frank

It is, yes.

Christianity is amazing. — frank

On that we agree, though not perhaps for the same reasons.

ut what you say hasn't been borne out. What has happened is the opposite, which is that the more they've been interpreted, the more they've been venerated. Jewish interpretation of the Torah has been imaginative for thousands of years and it continues to define a culture. — Hanover

That would seem to make them "holy" not because of what they are, but because of how they came to be interpreted centuries after they were written by people in different circumstances under different influence.

I think it's the opposite. — frank

That's interesting. If you mean that they're more inspiring to us for being metaphors, I think I understand. But is their effect on us, or some of us, what makes them "holy"?

I think Greco-Roman religion had a fatal flaw in that the gods themselves were not ethical, but capricious. Thus mystery-cults and religions that provided an ethical-oriented deity made more sense. Add to it the apocalypticism of a sort of "goal" and you have this inbuilt, very appealing worldview. — schopenhauer1

I know what you mean. And, a good deal of the ritual involved in the worship of the traditional gods seems devoted to keeping them happy enough not to smash us, or abandon us, and induce them to do favors for us. Traditional Roman religion seems almost legal in its devotion to rules; if you got one step wrong during the ritual, you had to start all over again. More than that seems to have been involved in the mysteries.

It seems that most looked to philosophy for ethics. Epicureanism and Stoicism were quite popular among the elite during the Empire.

Mine as well.

We will never get the direct feed. — Paine

Sad but true.

With that said, I do share one element of why you wanted to separate the two. I grew up in a church environment and was shocked when I actually read the New Testament for myself the first time. Hearing the words of Jesus was getting a different message outside of the bottle it was shoved into. — Paine

Makes you wonder, doesn't it, how much the Christian religion has to do with what it purports to worship.

It would have been interesting if the emperor Julian were to have not died after three short years as emperor. He was trying to reverse the course of the Christian spread. — schopenhauer1

Very interesting. Some think it was too late to do anything significant, but perhaps he could at least have managed to keep paganism going for a time if only among minorities. By the way, if you haven't read Gore Vidal's novel Julian, I recommend it highly.

Why they chose the Bible as their mechanism for such mental gymnastics likely has a historical basis, but I'd argue their odd enterprise has been successful in finding meaning in the world. — Hanover

I think that Holy Books present a problem for those who consider them fundamental to their religious beliefs. The problem is that the more one disregards them, or interprets them, or treat them as metaphorical, the less "holy" they seem to be. They're not factual, they're not fundamentally the word of God, they aren't anything, really, but what one wants them to be. They're convenient. In that case they become little more than suggestive, subject to the whims of their interpreters. They can be made to sanction most anything.

As far as Jesus is concerned, the New Testament is all we have along with the apocrypha (and short snippets in Roman sources). If what they say about his isn't true, then it isn't true. If what they say about him is true, then it's true. If we take the position that it isn't true, just how "holy" are these writings, and what of those who wrote them? Did their authors deliberately write falsehoods, or make things up, or credulously record whatever they heard from others? Were they inspired to do so by God?

If they're true, though, then they're (pardon me) inconveniently true for those who would rather not believe he worked miracles, or said that we can come to God only through him, or that he was the Son of God, or was resurrected, or ascended into heaven, or would return to judge the living and the dead riding a white horse, etc.

My interest in Jesus is that of a lapsed Catholic and someone interested in Rome and its empire, including the pagan religions popular in it, and in their extermination and assimilation by Christianity. I know very little of the Jewish factions which existed while Jesus is said to have been alive. What you say seems feasible, but I don't know enough to critique it.

This thread seems to have taken on a life of its own, and I think the theme you mention has become a part of it. But when I commenced it, I was noting what I felt to be the fact that sophisticated Christian apologists, theologians, or philosophers, though they include Jesus in their thought and work, do so in a way which I think ignores or is sometimes contrary to the Jesus depicted in Scripture--what he supposedly did and said. I wondered why, in that case, they included him in their work, and by implication whether their philosophy or theology should be considered "Christian," or whether it really isn't Christian at all, or only nominally so.

And fictional ideals is probably all that Stoicism and Bushido ever were anyway. — baker

What would be a non-fictional ideal?

Well seeing as how he grew up in a very Hellenistic society he must’ve been familiar with the kind of philosophy accessible to the every day man. The ascetic commands of Jesus to the apostles do resemble the practices of the Cynics. But I like to think that Stoicism had a huge influence on him; this was the philosophy of the working man, a man that lived in society. — Dermot Griffin

I don't know if Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the several Roman Senators who considered themselves Stoics can be considered working men, or even Musonius Rufus for that matter. Epictetus of course was a slave, however. it would seem Stoicism appealed to people of different social status and wealth.

I'm not sure how Hellenistic Judea was at the time Jesus is said to have lived. Alexandria and Antioch had Jewish communities influenced by Hellenism. I don't know about Jerusalem or Judea. We do know that when Hadrian tried to create a Hellenistic city on the site of Jerusalem and it resulted in a bloody three-year revolt. We have nothing indicating Jesus spoke Greek or could read it. We don't have much information about him, and asceticism wasn't limited to Cynics or Stoics, so I think we're best advised to be cautious in our assertions of influence.

Paul and others were clearly influenced by pagan philosophy and the pagan mystery cults, however.

Sorry, but when I see "View Answer" I'm too much reminded of advertising. I decline to do so.

I don't think a Stoic would consider Stoicism "The way of the warrior, " however. I know some think it to be that, or similar to it, but then some people think of Stoicism as a way to be a successful entrepreneur. These sad days, there are people who look to Marcus Aurelius like people used to look to Dale Carnegie.

Agreed, that is why I used it as an example of arbitrary classifications. When I applied to law firms they asked me to submit a list of grades. I was good at making exams so I became a legal theoretician at uni ;) Though being good at law exams says nothing about being successful at writing a PhD either... — Tobias

I started clerking at a law firm after my first year in law school. I enjoyed that far more than my time in the lecture halls. Oddly, my grades got better, but I think that's because the first year was devoted to the effort of trying to cram property, criminal, tort and other basic law into my bewildered mind. I remember one professor who taught labor law did so by reading to us a textbook he had authored. To be fair, things got better.

Early Christianity cheerfully looted from pagan philosophy extensively, but I'm not aware of anything indicating that Jesus did himself.

For instance the idea that your grades in uni make you a better lawyer and so you get hired easier. It advantages people who score good grades on exam questions... It says nothing about all kinds of other qualities. — Tobias

I've always been baffled by this view, as I think it clear that what you're taught, especially in law school, has nothing to do with the practice of law. Perhaps someone who does very well in law school may make a good law professor, or a judge's clerk, or an associate in a large firm who spends time doing research and writing memos and briefs. It may prepare you for that, but more than that? Why would it?

The Mithraic iconography of bull, lion head, snake, rock, and radiance can all be found in the religions of far more ancient cultures. — Fooloso4

Then there are the torch bearers, Cautes and Cautopates, one with torch up, one with torch down. Representing sunrise and sunset? Maybe. And then there are the seven levels of initiates: Corax, Nymphus, Miles, Leo, Perses, Heliodromus and Pater, each with their own symbols. Do they represent the known planets (gods)? Maybe. A curious cult, to which I'm drawn, oddly. Probably was a Pater in a past life.

You started a really interesting discussion. Thanks. — T Clark

You're quite welcome. The subject fascinates me. I think there are still many Christians who don't know aspects of Christianity's history. For example, I know Catholics, or former Catholics, who were surprised to learn Jesus had brothers. I don't remember it ever coming up either. I suppose Holy Mother Church in her wisdom decided it was one of many things her flock shouldn't be told, but I think they could be explained away if needed. They may have been children of the long-suffering Joseph from a prior marriage (he may have been a widower when he married his surprising wife Mary).

The claim made in the Gospel of John the Christianity is the only path to God is another way the Jesus of the Gospel seems to cause embarrassment to some modern Christians. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6. Some sophisticated Christians are uncomfortable with the Jesus who supposedly said these words.

Sol Invictus was the main candidate for the role before the Constantine family took power. — Olivier5

Sol Invictus was chosen by Aurelian to be the "chief" Roman god. But yes, the last half of the third century C.E. was a tough time for the Empire. There was a good deal of fragmentation and the barbarians were threatening. Aurelian was a great general and mastered the situation, but his reign was short. Diocletian created the Tetrarchy--two chief emperors, each known as Augustus, and junior emperors, called Caesar, administered the East and West. Centralization was important, and unity all-important.

Some participants who called themselves Mithraeums were complaining the Christian members of hate fueled attacks on them. There was also accusations of a "war on Mithramas" and allegations that they would forbid saying "merry Mithramas". — Fooloso4

The date ultimately chosen for celebration of the birth of Christ was believed to be the birthday of Mithras, and also of the god Sol Invictus. Since nobody actually knew the date of Jesus' birth, it was chosen as the date of his birth as well. "Shepherds watched" while Mithras was born, according to one legend. So, some claim that Christmas is actually Mithras' birthday, and Christian celebrations of that date borrow from the Roman Mithras cult. Of course, Christmas is celebrated close to the time of the Roman Saturnalia, a pagan celebration of the god Saturn over a number of days in December during which gifts were exchanged by people and roles were reversed--slaves treated as masters, that sort of thing.

The early Christians, e.g. Tertullian, thought that demons, knowing of the coming birth of Jesus and what his worship would entail, inspired Mithraists to engage in parodies or mockeries of the eucharist and baptism. It seems that Mithraists took part in a sacred, communal meal of bread and wine. Some reliefs show crosses marking the bread shared in the Mithraic feast.

I don't think we have enough information about the Mithras cult to determine whether or by how long it preceded Christianity, but I think Christianity borrowed significantly from the pagan mystery cults. We see several similarities between Mary and Isis as well. It's an interesting study.

A few of the Emperors after Constantine were Arians--Constantius II and Valens--even though Arian "lost" at the Council of Nicea. The Trinitarian faction ultimately won out around 380 C.E., and that's when the real fun began.

I have hope that there must be a simpler way to come to terms with one's Christian past than figuring out what the world was like before Christianity "triumphed." — baker

I don't know how we come to terms with our Christian past, or if we can. Perhaps it's something like Original Sin is said to be, and is an unending proclivity of some kind.

What do you think things may have looked like? In what ways do you think things might have been different? — Fooloso4

It's hard to say. I think it's particularly hard to say how pagan religion would have developed, or even what it was like. I'm intrigued by the pagan mystery religions, particularly the cult of Mithras. We know very little of them except through Christian writers, who were antagonistic. We have some idea of certain of the practices of initiates of Isis from the perspective of non-Christians (through Apuleius). Beyond the remaining Mithraeums which provide some evidence, and some graffiti found it them, we have nothing from pagans describing the beliefs and rituals of its initiates. This may be because of oaths of secrecy which were very well kept, or because any records were destroyed. Early Christians found Mithraism particularly annoying as, according to them, it mimicked Christian rituals.

The Roman Empire was largely tolerant of the religious beliefs of its various peoples. It's persecution of Christians was nowhere near as extensive or prevalent as has been believed, and its annihilation of the Jewish state was more for political reasons than any religious reason. Rome didn't tolerate any challenge to its authority. The Romans were ruthless in the suppression of any perceived or actual danger (as in the case of Carthage as well as Judea),

Christianity was intolerant, however, and when it assimilated the Roman state, and the Empire became the Christian Roman Empire, pagan religion and culture was gradually extinguished. It was a slow process. Theodosius commencing in 381 C.E. outlawed pagan religious practices, branded as criminals those magistrates would wouldn't enforce anti-pagan laws, closed and destroyed temples, abolished pagan holidays, prohibited visits to temples, probably ended the Olympic Games; there was persecution of pagans before Theodosius I, but he really got things rolling. It was Justinian who finally closed the schools of philosophy in Athens.

In short, a way of living ended, and only one way of living was allowed.

Why unfortunately? We can fight, too. — baker

Well, there's a lot I'd like to know that I think can't be recovered, so it may be just my own frustration and disappointment. I'd like to know better what the world was like before Christianity "triumphed."

Far too much of antiquity is lost to us, unfortunately.

Christianity prior to the hegemony of the Church Fathers was without official doctrines. It was an "inspired" (the indwelling of spirit) religion. But even the attempt to establish the inalterable truth met with change from the very beginning. Rather than "the rock" on which the Church was built, it has been shifting sand. — Fooloso4

It was a mess, or stew, certainly. It's unfortunate it turned out as it did. I like to speculate how Christianity would have turned out if, for example, the Arian view had triumphed, or if Pelagius had been preferred over Augustine. Possibly, much of the effort spent in trying to treat Jesus as one in being with the Father may have been avoided. I think the acceptance of that belief is one of the reasons it became so difficult to accept the Jesus of the Gospels.

Dorothy enters the shabby dining room of the Catholic Worker House of Hospitality in a full-skirted pastel dress with cuffed short sleeves singing Que Sera Sera. — Bitter Crank

I can picture it! Imagine Rock Hudson working there when she arrives.

I don't normally use AD and prefer BCE but based on the above, they may well have been contemporaries. — universeness

They may have been. As I said, though, I don't see Tacitus relying on any work by Josephus for the little he (Tacitus) writes about the person known as Christus. Why would he? He wasn't particularly fond of any emperor, and certainly not Domitian or the Flavians in general. I doubt he'd look to their favorite as a source.

I haven't read Atwill. Those Alexandrians certainly were a busy bunch, weren't they? Both Jews and Greeks.

Which to me would suggest that if you're a Christian, the logical conclusion is that God created different narratives that work on multiple interlocking levels of allegory to communicate to different people with different personalities and abilities. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not sure how that's the logical conclusion, but it certainly might be a way of making Scripture "one size fits all" if that's what you want it to be.

It's their religion, they can do with it whatever they want. — baker

Yes, even change it, or ignore it, as I think they did.

Then the jews get blamed for asking for this nice placid Jesus to be crucified and the Romans try their best to refuse! This is obviously Roman propaganda! — universeness

Well, Christian propaganda, more likely. As Christianity spread, it was prudent for Christians to make the Jews the villains rather than the Romans.

Josephus Flavius started as a Sicari but got captured by the Romans and turned traitor. — universeness

He became a kind of pet of the Flavians, true. I'm not sure about him writing the Gospels and inventing Jesus, though. I'd be surprised if Tacitus used him as a source for his comments about "Christus" and his death at the hands of Pontius Pilatus. But, who knows? At least we got some confirmation of the existence of Pontius Pilatus when the so-called "Pilate Stone" was discovered. Sadly, I can never think of him without recalling Michael Palin's portrayal in The Life of Brian.

The "Jesus" I like is similar to Dorothy Day, the founder of the Catholic Workers. — Bitter Crank

I'm ashamed to admit I thought, for a very brief but delightful moment, you were referring to "Doris Day."

Did you really need to use the slur "Jesus Freaks"? What if someone came along and used the slur "Atheist Freaks". I think you could have gotten the point across without the slur, and it will would have been an interesting topic. — Philosophim

The Jesus Freaks were a thing. They may still be around. I think they even called themselves "Jesus Freaks." Even Elton John referred to them in Tiny Dancer ("Jesus freaks, Out in the street,
Handing tickets out for God"), so they must have existed.

Sorry for the ramble, hopefully that made some sense. — Noble Dust

I think it does. But they go to such great lengths in their efforts to make of Christianity what they want it to be, what they find to be intellectually acceptable, that Jesus, as portrayed in Scripture, seems less and less recognizable.

I think it's significant that Christianity as a religion is in great part the creation of a man who never knew Jesus, and who disagreed with James the Just, said to be one of the brothers of Jesus, in many respects.

Because they are Christians. There is no Christianity without Jesus _Christ_. — baker

One would think so. And the answer may be that they're "stuck" with him if they want to be known as Christians. But I think that the Jesus of the Gospels is largely ignored by them (just as the God of the Old Testament, that fractious fellow, is ignored). They just don't fit in the theology they construct, or if they fit do so awkwardly. They're embarrassing, in fact, if Scripture is is to be believed as it is written.

I think you're right. They're an odd couple. It was a bad choice on my part.

I used to ask this question. I think the answer is complex and hard for literal minded people like me to comprehend. The gospels are not 'disposable' - this is a reaction to, not an understanding of what is meant - the books suggest a truth above narrative and provide examples and teachings in a form for humans to engage with at their level of understanding. — Tom Storm

It seems to me that if the Gospels are believed to be suggestive, inspiring, thought-provoking (insert appropriate adjective) stories, something of Christianity is lost. In other words, Christianity becomes a religion in which Jesus isn't, or can't be, what the Gospels say he is/was, or is/was only what we want to think the Gospels say he is/was or what the Gospels should say he is/was or what only selected portions of the Gospels say he is/was. That seems to me to be a serious problem.