On the first chapter of her book “The Gnostic Gospels” Elaine Pagels begins by writing a quote and an interesting interpretation from it:
“Jesus Christ rose from the grave.” With this proclamation the Christian church began.
She does have a point, according to the tradition, but what if the purpose of Jesus life was NOT to serve as a sacrificial Lamb? Then the church would have begun not at his death and resurrection but at the first proclamations he made.
Hello Omar,
The church did unofficially begin at the first proclamations, but at that point he was still a revisionist Jew, trying to breathe some spiritual life into Israel. The beginnings of a new movement, “The Way†(ho hodos=the road), began at his death with the proclamation of the “anastasis†(resurrection) of their Kurios (supreme Lord). This movement eventually became the “Church†(ekklesia=the called out) amongst the gentile followers.
Shalom
This is my opinion of how most religions have started ~ which I have quoted from my book: “Church of God? or the Temples of Satan”:
All the world’s major religions probably originated from a misguided attachment to a genuine Spiritual Master. During the lifetime of such a Master, there are basically two categories of follower / disciple. Firstly, there are the “outsiders†or “believers†– those who merely listen to the Master’s words and accept and follow Him, and have great respect and adoration for Him, but who do not actually receive the Sacred Gift – Initiation into the Mysteries of God – and therefore do not understand about the continual succession of Masters who reveal those Mysteries. Then there is the “inner core†of “gnostics†– those (by comparison, few in numbers) who are deemed worthy by the Master to be initiated into the Sacred Mysteries, and who thus understand the process of revelation (personal initiation) through a continuous chain of Masters. When a Master dies, His initiated disciples (i.e. the “inner core”) know that God will appoint another in his place, and thus will seek to follow Him. But many (generally those “outsiders†/ â€believers†who are so emotionally attached to the previous Master that they do not accept or even look for the new living Master) merely hold on to cherished memories of their now deceased Master, and pass on stories of His life to others. As these stories are orally related from one to another, they become enhanced, expanded, and embellished (e.g. with many ‘worldly’ miracles and wonders, which simple, immature people like to hear). These stories rarely tell of the one real miracle and wonder: the Mystical / Spiritual Revelation given by the Master, which leads to True Eternal LIFE – this is only known and experienced by the ‘elect’ (i.e. the “chosen ones†= the inner core).
Eventually, as these original followers (the “outsidersâ€) die, it becomes necessary for the new developing religion to collect and preserve these oral stories in written form.[1] The next step in the process is when the so-called educated (intellectual) theologians take over, and formulate the ideology, dogma, and structure of yet another smug worldly orthodoxy.[2]
At this point, as the congregation grows, and monetary donations come flooding in, the new “orthodox†religion becomes powerful, wealthy, and political, and begins condemning all others – even, and especially, the genuine “chosen ones†(i.e. Gnostics) who follow the true living Master.[3] It is, in fact, these so-called orthodoxies which should be called heresy!
As time passes, various theologians come up with new ideas and beliefs about this or that meaning of the written scripture. Thus, over time, a variety of creeds, sects, cults, and divisions emerge. This process can be clearly observed within the history of every religion. The truth of the living contemporary Messiah is rejected by all, and the churches of satan continue to rule the world.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] A very important question should here be considered: If it was so important for an accurate record of Jesus’ life and teachings to be preserved, then why did He not write it Himself? This would have avoided any ambiguity and confusion as to the truth of the variant stories (at least as far as Christians are concerned) and alleviated the necessity of Biblical criticism. The answer is that, as a living Master is always present on Earth, there is no necessity for historical stories about any previous Master.
[2] This is precisely where Saul (St. Paul) came into the story!
[3] The true followers of God are ALWAYS rejected, despised, ridiculed, or persecuted by the ‘orthodox’ administrators of this world. See e.g. Isaiah 51:7; Matt 5:10-12; 10:16-23; Mark 13:9; Luke 6:22; & John 15:20-21.
…
Peace, Love, & Understanding 
I’ve often considered this myself. I think the way meanstream Christians eventually came to interpret the crucifixion was one of the biggest religious blunders of all time. They could have interpreted it as just an unfortunate end to a noble and good man’s quest to teach a wholesome messege of love and forgiveness. But instead they interpreted it as the example to be followed in order to live a life worthy of reward in the afterlife. So it isn’t enough simply to love and forgive one’s neighbor, but one must be willing to sacrifice his life and endure unspeakable torture in order to be absolved of sin. If only they had interpreted the crucifixion as an injustice done unto their spiritual leader rather than a fulfillment of his purpose, Christianity wouldn’t have had nearly the dark side it has shown itself to have throughout its lifespan hitherto.
what if the purpose of Jesus life was NOT to serve as a sacrificial Lamb?
Better yet…what if Jesus was a giant purple monkey?
The sad thing here is, you guys are all serious.
sad???
Yes, Christians ARE a sad bunch! 
Let’s keep it civil here.
While I think Shotgun overreacted, he does have something of a point. After all, if Jesus hadn’t died, would there even be Christianity? At best, wouldn’t he just be another one of those figures in the Talmud or some other text/tradition within Judaism that none of us have ever heard of?
Let’s not turn this into a game of pile-on, that is beneath you.
Bob makes a great point about Jesus being a revisionist Jew in a sense. Historically, Christianity began with the Resurrection, but theologically, it began with Adam. I don’t think Christ or his first generation of followers ever intended for Christianity to be a separate religion, competing with Judaism, though it started to become clear that that’s how it was probably going to go, at least for a while, even while Jesus was still alive.
This is my first post here in such a while…glad to see my posts are still subject of discussion.
Bob, you know how I see this: the line between christianity and other forms of judaism is rather thin. It is not that Christianity separated but that judaism itself was fractured at the time of Jesus. The story of his resurrection were not incompatible with some forms of pharisic judaism, as Paul knew and used to get out of trouble once, so here we do not find the Church…yet here I stop. My point was not to trace the start of the Church, but to inquire into Mrs. Pagel’s point. According to tradition…that is what I said, but tradition is, I think, not inevitable, thus allowing us a bit of freedom to our immagination. The proclamation, so tradition would have it, started the Church…it is what made it special. Let us grant it that, even if we probably have reservations about pretty stories.
But what if it is not death of Jesus but the life of Jesus that was central to the tradition? Not the proclamation of his death but the proclamation of his life? Not how he died but was resurrected, but how he lived and wanted us to live?
With a name like “Shotgun” you cannot “over” anything. Would there be a Christianity if Jesus hadn’t died? The sign can always contain different meanings. It depends on who defines it. Given a certain definition as absolute? No, probably not.
I appreciate the post Omar…
Though, I am curious to know how any of us would know what your post meant, did we NOT grant certain definitions as “absolute.”
lol…but… hey… that aside…
I suspect Mr. Xunzian was warning ME against “piling” it onto YOU guys.
At least…that’s what I got out of his statement…(grinz)
Far be it from me to bully folks in an online forum who espouse ridiculous and uneducated assumptions about a faith that I hold very dear…and then proceed to speculate about their ignorant conjectures as if they had validity.
Christianity may have began with a simple idea. During the time of Christ, when Rome ruled, military tradition coming out of the feuding Bronze Age, was that “might is right”. Jesus, probably a member of the Essennes had an epiphany. “Love is Truth” He saw that “turning the other cheek” was a better long-term strategy for bringing peaceful rule to the World. The idea of teaching love for neighbor appealed to the masses and disturbed the elite. It still does. Try and stop a war.
Mr. Magnet Man…
I’ll save the bulk of my critique of your system for the other thread, but for now, I would simply assert that your system doesn’t allow you to discuss historical particulars with any validity due to its epistemological shortcomings.
As a Christian apologist, I usually cut off such discussions (about historical particulars) before they begin, and instead focus on the un-believers philosophical system. If it cannot be shown (by assuming the truth of their system) that historical particulars can be known or discussed with certainty…then why should I allow them to do so?
Your generalizations are too sweeping. When Jesus was alive there was no epistemology. He was an Old Testament Jew. The argument over his divinity went on for centuries. There was no general agreement among the Bishops at any of the councils at Nicosea. In real life he was addressing the social climate of his time and challenging the Old Testament precept of “an eye for an eye”. This put him at odds with both Rome and the Jews.
Besides, I made no assertion about the church orgins, I simply said “may have been”. I have reason for my suggestion. In my field research among existing oral-based cultures in Africa, I concluded that expanding populations impacting exponentially on regional environments required more new technologies and broader social responsibilities. which in turn determined new spiritual exigencies that ensured conscientious behavior. For instance: There was no need for scripture in the oral based agricultural societies of the Bronze Age, where each clan was ruled by its own chief and bowed only to its own totems. Shaman mediums gave assurance of ancestral goodwill. Orthodox Scriptures only became necessary when expanded populations, crowded into an industrial milieu of towns and cities, could no longer be goverend by word of mouth. Orthodox scripture provided the glue for national unity and encouraged concientious crafstmanship. Medival cathedrals are an expression of both craftmanship and spiritual exaltation.
I see Jesus as more of a social reformer than a Rabbi, with his assertion that God and man are one and that heaven is not some place apart from the self. He was part of the dawning of a New Age. Human intellectual development was evolving past ritualized scriptural indoctrination. The individual was becoming self-assertive. Protestation was underway. 500 years earlier Buddha had discovered a mind-control techique that allowed spiritual practitioners to transcened primitive religious imagery and become independently self-sealized. Confucius evoked ancestral veneration and re-spiritualized family values. Aristotle refuted Plato’s rationale on the impermanence of matter and launched empiricism. Jesus universalized social values. The Steel Age had begun and started its slow creep westward. The collapse of Rome halted the movement and put the Steel Age back a thousand years.
From this perspective Christian epistomology is an attempt by a newly emerging priest caste to superstitiously re-indoctrinate the masses via a combination of primitive imagery and pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo. It has no basis in evolutionary development. In practice it has not only promoted sectarianism and endless “holy” wars, it also seriously stalls the process of individual self-realization. What makes Christianity so powerful on the world stage and the story of Jesus so enduring is the message of Peace on Earth it brings. Nothing more, nothing less.The triune of MInd/body/spirit is common sense and does not need seven years in a seminary to grasp.
My system is based on the entire history of conscious evolution, from the first reflection onward, not just a single era tens of thousands of generations divorced from its roots. The purpose is to reveal spiritual evolution in its totality; from the commonalty of its primitive origins to the diversification of the present, and then project that on-going evolutionary cycle onwards to the commonalty of its final expression, re-union with our Cosmic source.
I would say it is you, not I, who have no basis to talk from. Spirituality did not just spring into being in the Iron Age when script was invented. Its pedigree goes back for a 100,000 generations. Indeed all the way back to the first cell and the atomic nuclii that breathed spiritial vitality into it. I dare say you would not have a clue of what the first thought was that made an ape-man a hu-man. You are lost in the branches of the family tree. Climb down from your high perch and dig for the roots, mate.