Why wasn't Christianity the first religion?

[RDKirk]

Because there are about three score more texts than five commonplace books considered Apocryphal - and other texts that are not (yet?) available for Western consumption so readily.

Which are those that are not available in the West so readily?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Which are those that are not available in the West so readily?

Many so called "gnostic" texts.

 

[RDKirk]

Many so called "gnostic" texts.

Since you apparently have them in hand, you should be able to give us more identification than that. Did you have to do an "Indiana Jones" to get them?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Since you apparently have them in hand, you should be able to give us more identification than that. Did you have to do an "Indiana Jones" to get them?

Nope, I just Google searched for them.

That is literally all I did to find out the books and texts considered apocryphal. There may be many more than 60+ other non-canonical texts.

 

[toLiJC]

You would assume an all powerful and all loving God would put his message first. I understand a lot of you think other religions are of the devil, so why did God let the devil get all his trick religions first 100's of thousands of years before Christianity or 1000's of years, if you believe in a young universe.

The punishment for not believing in this religion is eternal torment forever and ever, so why did God let all these false religions go before his message? Why would an all powerful all loving God do that? His one wish is for us to love him and worship him. So wasn't Christianity the first religion then?

there has been a struggle between the "Light" and the "darkness" since the beginning of the eternity (it began about 5-6 millennia ago - Genesis 1:1), and the wicked one had had a great power in the "heaven" since the Fall and before the establishment/enactment of the New Covenant (John 12:31); the true God has against His will been in a state of incomplete wakefulness since the seventh day (Exodus 20:8-11) and unfortunately had not managed to stop the evil one from bringing many unrighteous religions to the world - even now the world is full of many unrighteous religions, though for the last 2 millennia the wicked one has not had such a great power as he had before, however, his reign in the world cannot last for more than 5-6 millenniums as of the day of the Fall (Revelation 17:10) - the big problem has been that there have not been enough true spiritual servants in the world to stop evil... (Matthew 9:36-38)

Blessings

 

[ViaCrucis]

You would assume an all powerful and all loving God would put his message first. I understand a lot of you think other religions are of the devil, so why did God let the devil get all his trick religions first 100's of thousands of years before Christianity or 1000's of years, if you believe in a young universe.

The punishment for not believing in this religion is eternal torment forever and ever, so why did God let all these false religions go before his message? Why would an all powerful all loving God do that? His one wish is for us to love him and worship him. So wasn't Christianity the first religion then?

My response would be, first, that all the various religions of the world are not "of the devil"; but are sincere attempts by man to grapple with the complex questions of life, the universe, and the existential crisis of death.

Second, that the idea that 1) Hell is "eternal torment forever and ever" is far from a unanimous view within Christianity and 2) that all non-Christians are damned is likewise far from a unanimous view within Christianity.

Finally, a Christian answer would be found in St. Paul's letter to the Galatians, "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son," the sense here is that the Incarnation happened precisely when it needed to happen in the grand narrative of history; fundamentally this is a position taken as a matter of faith. In discussions relating to this concept I've usually argued that the details of Jesus' story, fundamentally, only work within the particular historical circumstances of the time: a powerful "world"-dominating empire (Rome) subjecting and often oppressing peoples at the fringes of the empire, providing not only widespread communication through a shared language but also increased speed of movement across massive distances which the world would not see on such a scale until relatively recently. The political and religious climate all makes sense from within the internal narrative of Jesus' story. At this point it may become a question of whether the details matter or not, and that's a complex question that would likely involve a great deal of spilled ink among theologians. My argument would largely be that the details, the social dynamics of the place and period, are essential characteristics of what was going on--transplanting the Jesus' story into another time or place might be interesting speculation, but I think ultimately fails to appreciate their intricacy to what Christians confess as being the climax of history and the revelation of God's Self, and God's purpose and intent for the entire cosmos.

Which is all a lengthy verbose way to say that, from my vantage point, colored by faith, the Incarnation happened when and where precisely it was supposed to happen, happening exactly how it should have happened. A frontier province of the Roman Empire, on a small backwater blue planet circling a boring star in a boring galaxy within the vast sea of stars and galaxies in an incredibly vast 14 billion light year in radius observable bubble of space-time we call the universe.

Christ didn't come in order that people who believe different than Christians get to burn in a fiery pit forever, or in order that the devil might trick people into believing any host of alternative stories, myths, or narratives with different practices so that they might get screwed over in the end. But rather for the purpose of delivering the entirety of creation from death to life by resurrection. And how that happened is a child being born to a woman named Mary, living and teaching and performing works announcing the reign of God had come, suffering and dying under Pontius Pilate, descending into the dead, rising from the dead, ascending into the heavens, and coming again to bring conclusion to history and renewal and restoration to all things.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nope, I just Google searched for them.

Wouldn't that make them readily available in the West? Most people in the West have internet access.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Prior to about 5000 years ago all evidence indicates that humanity was organized in matriarchal societies. Women were honoured as leaders and because of woman's role as life-giver, religion was centered around fertility and the deities were mostly female.

The Mother Goddess/Matriarchy hypothesis is generally regarded as bunk in anthropological and archeological circles. It simply doesn't hold out under the scrutiny of evidence. It's a nice romantic idea that there was a time when people lived in a more utopian existence before the evils of patriarchalism took hold--but it's just that, a nice romantic idea. There was no point in the past where such a thing existed, if we want to create a more egalitarian and free society then that's something we're going to have to do here and now.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Motherofkittens]

My response would be, first, that all the various religions of the world are not "of the devil"; but are sincere attempts by man to grapple with the complex questions of life, the universe, and the existential crisis of death.

Second, that the idea that 1) Hell is "eternal torment forever and ever" is far from a unanimous view within Christianity and 2) that all non-Christians are damned is likewise far from a unanimous view within Christianity.

Finally, a Christian answer would be found in St. Paul's letter to the Galatians, "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son," the sense here is that the Incarnation happened precisely when it needed to happen in the grand narrative of history; fundamentally this is a position taken as a matter of faith. In discussions relating to this concept I've usually argued that the details of Jesus' story, fundamentally, only work within the particular historical circumstances of the time: a powerful "world"-dominating empire (Rome) subjecting and often oppressing peoples at the fringes of the empire, providing not only widespread communication through a shared language but also increased speed of movement across massive distances which the world would not see on such a scale until relatively recently. The political and religious climate all makes sense from within the internal narrative of Jesus' story. At this point it may become a question of whether the details matter or not, and that's a complex question that would likely involve a great deal of spilled ink among theologians. My argument would largely be that the details, the social dynamics of the place and period, are essential characteristics of what was going on--transplanting the Jesus' story into another time or place might be interesting speculation, but I think ultimately fails to appreciate their intricacy to what Christians confess as being the climax of history and the revelation of God's Self, and God's purpose and intent for the entire cosmos.

Which is all a lengthy verbose way to say that, from my vantage point, colored by faith, the Incarnation happened when and where precisely it was supposed to happen, happening exactly how it should have happened. A frontier province of the Roman Empire, on a small backwater blue planet circling a boring star in a boring galaxy within the vast sea of stars and galaxies in an incredibly vast 14 billion light year in radius observable bubble of space-time we call the universe.

Christ didn't come in order that people who believe different than Christians get to burn in a fiery pit forever, or in order that the devil might trick people into believing any host of alternative stories, myths, or narratives with different practices so that they might get screwed over in the end. But rather for the purpose of delivering the entirety of creation from death to life by resurrection. And how that happened is a child being born to a woman named Mary, living and teaching and performing works announcing the reign of God had come, suffering and dying under Pontius Pilate, descending into the dead, rising from the dead, ascending into the heavens, and coming again to bring conclusion to history and renewal and restoration to all things.

-CryptoLutheran

I do know Christianity is very varied. I just wrote what was my Christian views when I believed, which was of course what my parents taught me. Before I became an atheist I got rid of my belief in hell. I'm a very emphatic person and I couldn't reconcile an all loving God sending people to hell . I never would and im not even all loving. It is impossible, if you think God is all loving and all powerful.

Your version makes the most sense . But it still seems like just another zero evidences religion to me. What happened to people before christ came or Judaism? If they had a chance to be saved why send christ at all? Obviously it is unneeded to be saved.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Wouldn't that make them readily available in the West? Most people in the West have internet access.

-CryptoLutheran

You can buy a slave on the internet. But, in a [micro]culture that is [allegedly] against slavery, one would not be able to readily access the means to acquire a slave. This is because the psychology needed to make the preliminary steps is stunted by "morality."

What I am talking about is cultural (in this case, religious,) and social availability and accessibility.

Most people of Christian do not entertain any of the apocryphal books - because of the Church's position on non canonicity - and, people are generally ignorant of anything besides the compilation of texts that make up "The Book Of Enoch." To many, that IS the apocrypha. The apocryphal texts that are gnostic carry and even worse implications.

So, there is no advertisement for the entertainment of the books beyond the compilation that makes up Enoch in the West.

There is no further information - from enough reputable sources even, as it were - that can speak on the fullness of its authenticity in relationship to Christianity, Islam or the Hebrews.

In the West, the authority is the Church - namely the Catholic Church and it's derivatives. Non-canonicity is considered a possible spiritual block. It is not encouraged to read the texts, let alone take them with any merit.

The sum of these and other unmentioned factors contribute to a psychology attached to the identity of the believer that induces a knee jerk reaction of rejection. Very few people know where to look, more are afraid of the status of the the books, and how it will affect their walk.

Dissonance prevents it from being readily accessible in the West, just as dissonance prevents paradigms of the West in the East. Non cannon texts are in the former category.

It isnt a big deal; you can get a the spiritual necessities from the canon - even if there are mistakes, conspiracies and politics. The Spirit of Truth will direct everyone who genuinely seeks, don't you agree?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Jews and Christians don’t agree on a lot of theological interpretations of the ancient texts but one thing that the do agree on is that the Book of Enoch has no place in the Bible.

That is still a Western influenced psychology - by way of physical Israel.

I am just speaking for myself, but I won't allow other humans to dictate my spiritual trajectory. I am not saying every apocryphal book is meritorious, but I certainly won't dismiss anything because another human said so. This is especially true with my spiritual trajectory.

Even if the disciples, prophets and patriarchs are not excluded; I entertain and test everything.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I do know Christianity is very varied. I just wrote what was my Christian views when I believed, which was of course what my parents taught me. Before I became an atheist I got rid of my belief in hell. I'm a very emphatic person and I couldn't reconcile an all loving God sending people to hell . I never would and im not even all loving. It is impossible, if you think God is all loving and all powerful.

Your version makes the most sense . But it still seems like just another zero evidences religion to me. What happened to people before christ came or Judaism? If they had a chance to be saved why send christ at all? Obviously it is unneeded to be saved.

I think this gets at the essence of what is meant by "salvation". Popular conception, often put forward in a modern Evangelical context, is that salvation is about individuals choosing to make Jesus their personal Lord and Savior, and that salvation is, largely, a contractual agreement: I accept these religious propositions, and I get to go to heaven/not go to hell. I'd say this is a deeply problematic view that gets things deeply wrong.

I would begin first by looking at what sort of religious context salvation, as a Christian concept, shows up in. To this end I would look at some of the language of the ancient Prophets of Israel, perhaps in particular Isaiah, where they frequently speak of a future time of restoration, for Israel yes, but ultimately for all nations. Isaiah, for example, speaks of a "new heavens and a new earth" (this is echoed almost verbatim by St. John in his Apocalypse), and describes a time when the leopard and lamb lay together, of a lion eating straw like an ox, of a small child playing near a viper's den without fear. Messianic hope was attached to a time when the knowledge of God would be spread across the earth, that there would ultimately be peace and justice; men would beat their swords into plowshares, and spears into pruning hooks, having no knowledge of war any longer. These visions of a time when all is made right, all is set right forms the fundamental undercurrent that gives substance to the language of Jesus and the ancient Christian Church.

Jesus came preaching the kingdom of God (in Matthew's account, this is often rendered as "kingdom of Heaven", but it's the same thing as "heaven" is being used a euphemism for God). It's easy for us moderns to hear the phrase "kingdom of God", or even especially "kingdom of Heaven" and think it's describing a place, so perhaps it's talking about "heaven" and then we see in John's Gospel where Jesus says one must be "born again to enter the kingdom" and think it means going to heaven after we die. But that's not even remotely what the Gospels are talking about. The term "kingdom" here doesn't refer to location, it refers to the royal power and authority of God as king. Important to Jesus' preaching is that the kingdom of God is not about temporal power and authority, Jesus wasn't preaching a Neo-Maccabean revolution against Gentile oppression; and that's very important here because the Zealots, a faction of Jews seeking to overthrow Roman rule and restore sovereign rule to Israel was often associated with messianic hope and expectation. This is why Jesus talking about the kingdom was perceived as politically dangerous, Rome had showed itself quite capable of dealing with would-be messiahs and there was often splash damage to the ordinary hard working people of Judea. But Jesus wasn't preaching violent revolution, instead Jesus spends time and again performing miracles and telling stories and more direct teaching lessons about what the kingdom is and means. For example we encounter one episode where the brothers James and John come to Jesus and say, "Hey, when you enter your kingdom, we'd like to be on your right and left hand." Jesus tells them that the least is greatest in God's kingdom, that "the greatest among you is your slave". In God's kingdom, in God's way of being King, it is the lowliest among us who are greatest, every valley shall be raised up and every mountain laid low--God exalts the humble.

Important in the Gospel texts is that Jesus' mission always has a goal, Jesus is walking a very specific path that He knows will result in His arrest and death. Ultimately the kingdom of God does not look like a glorious king riding into Jerusalem with a crown of gold and on a white stallion, but like a peasant upon a donkey, who will bear a crown not of gold but thorns, and instead of a throne a cross. This death is not the tragic end of a martyr, but the means by which the powers and principalities of this world are turned on their head, where God Himself achieves victory over the violent and wicked powers that dominate our world, and ultimately victory over death itself.

While not as common a motif in the modern West as it used to be (and still is in the East), the concept of Christ's Harrowing of Hell is a major one in Christian thought. Hell here isn't "the place bad people go after they die", Hell is She'ol or Hades, the place of the dead. This is what is meant when the Apostles' Creed says, "He descended into hell" (the original Latin uses inferos, meaning "the depths", that is, the underworld). St. John Chrysostom's Paschal Homily is one of the most famous in Christian tradition, in which he speaks of Christ's triumph and conquest over Hell (Hades),

"Let no one fear death, for the Savior’s death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. ... O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave."

One of the most potent symbols of this is the traditional Icon of the Anastasis (Greek for "Resurrection"), which unlike usual Western artistic representations which emphasize the rolled away stone from the tomb, emphasizes Christ's triumph over hell, death, and the devil:

There's a lot going on here, the first thing I want to focus on is the bound man at the bottom. In some cases there are two, the bound man (or bound men) represent death and the devil, who are bound and crushed beneath to broken gates of Hell upon which Christ stands triumphantly. Further, Jesus is depicted taking by the hands (or wrists) Adam and Even and pulling them out of their sarcophagi, sometimes only Adam is shown, but it is often both, representing the entire human race. Finally on both sides of Jesus are the prophets and patriarchs of the Old Testament (usually David, Solomon, and John the Baptist) and on the other the saints of the New, perhaps the Apostles, or other Christian figures of note.

The whole image is to draw attention that death and resurrection coalesce into the victory of Jesus over these things, and that there is freedom and liberation from the yolk and tyranny of death. Jesus Himself has risen, as the "first fruits of those being raised", this is a vital argument which St. Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15 against those who argued that there is no resurrection of the dead. See, the Christian hope has never been to ascend as spirits up into some ethereal plane of existence called "heaven", it is instead the resurrection of the body. Jesus' resurrection is the assurance that resurrection is real, resurrection happens, and that He has in Himself destroyed death and restored and made whole human nature by its assumption and union to Him as the God-Man (c.f. the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union). God became man, God and man are united together in Him, thereby restoring and healing human nature--death and resurrection is ultimately the swallowing up of death into the life of His resurrection which gives us hope that there is resurrection awaiting us. Death is not the end.

But this hope isn't simply that individuals will experience some reward in the hereafter or some such; it's that, in fact, God is making all things new. Resurrection and renewal of all creation go hand-in-hand. Creation itself, says St. Paul, "groans" because it suffers, and that creation itself longs for this future hope of resurrection. All creation is going to be healed, made whole, and we ourselves are part of that ultimate and glorious state; death will be no more, life will reign, justice shall flow like a river. "None shall cause injury on My holy mountain, for the knowledge of the LORD shall cover the earth as water covers the sea" (Isaiah 11:9).

Salvation isn't about me getting my t's crossed and i's dotted by having the right religion or set of theological propositions that I can avoid "the bad place" and enjoy "the good place". It is about the entire rescue project which God has for the whole of creation, and my place in that is both in the hope I have of resurrection and the future life and in anticipation of this, walking today in faith, bearing that hope into the present. Having what will be today through faith as a promise, and walking in that faith to bring to the world the good news of what God has done and will do, and that also means loving my neighbor, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked. And it's not about being good enough, or moral enough; it's about the riches of God's kindness and mercy even to the most undeserving; the invitation to God's banquet goes out to lepers, and prostitutes, and tax collectors, and sinners. God will have all come and share in the bounty of what He has in store for the world.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JackRT]

The Spirit of Truth will direct everyone who genuinely seeks, don't you agree?

A great many Christians are terrified of "Spirit of Truth".

 

[Ygrene Imref]

A great many Christians are terrified of "Spirit of Truth".

They should be (reverent fear.)

 

[Cuddles333]

Since the caveman days, why did God supposedly let His message to humanity get drowned out by all the false bible doctrines, Denominations, and all the hundreds (if not thousands) of other religions? How is a person suppose to know how and where to look?

I think that little book by CS Lewis [Mere Christianity] shows how someone outside any religion should begin. Strangely, he taught that it actually begins with the brutal honesty within the person. It is automatic then (if they keep up the search) that they will find God.
One will also find that the truth will have to be brushed off quite a bit from the untruths encasing it.

 

[RDKirk]

Nope, I just Google searched for them.

That is literally all I did to find out the books and texts considered apocryphal. There may be many more than 60+ other non-canonical texts.

You said they were "not readily available in the West."

We have Google in the West.

Your later argument that "not readily available" actually means "not readily accepted" is specious. Moreover:

 

[Ygrene Imref]

You said they were "not readily available in the West."

We have Google in the West.

Your later argument that "not readily available" actually means "not readily accepted" is specious. Moreover:

If you don't know what to look for, then it isn't readily available even if you have google. You would have to know where to start to look in the first place.

As far as moving goal posts, that cliche is common on this forum when people want to appear that they are winning an argument via opponent fault in argument.

It actually highlights the insecurities of the accuser. So, right now I am comfortable ending our exchange. I am not going to play games. I said exactly what I meant, and gave plenty of context.

 

[bhsmte]

You would assume an all powerful and all loving God would put his message first. I understand a lot of you think other religions are of the devil, so why did God let the devil get all his trick religions first 100's of thousands of years before Christianity or 1000's of years, if you believe in a young universe.

The punishment for not believing in this religion is eternal torment forever and ever, so why did God let all these false religions go before his message? Why would an all powerful all loving God do that? His one wish is for us to love him and worship him. So wasn't Christianity the first religion then?

Great points. 2/3 of the world's population is doomed according to Christian theology, no matter how good a life they lead.