it started when Jesus was 30 and began his ministry
it started when Jesus was crucified and resurrected
it started when the “message” of Chrisitianity was written down by the gospel writers
it started when Paul began spreading his views
it started when the NT became collected together and was presented to the world as one unified ideological system
I would say that it started when Jesus was crucified and resurrected because there have always been preachers but only one preacher ever came back from the dead.
If Jesus hadn’t come back from the dead then there would be no Christianity, at least it wouldn’t be as big as it is. Jesus’s message would still be there and the miracles would still be there but it was the whole “coming back from the dead” thing that really sets Jesus apart from the others, in a purely practical “wow the crowds” sense.
As evidence, I would put forward the fact that Easter is the most important Christian festival, not Christmas or any of the others.
Obviously, if Jesus hadn’t been born then there would be no Christianity. Obviously, if Jesus hadn’t preached any message then there would be no Christianity.
But what I’m saying is the most crucial link in the chain is the resurrection. In the whole history of humanity there’s only been two people who have come back from the dead - Jesus and Lazarus.
Lazarus was brought back by Jesus via a miracle so we can forget about him. Jesus is the only person ever to come back under his own steam, so to speak.
Jojo, I’d say your answer is right. I’d also say that pretty much all of the other answers you gave are right, too. Depends on how you want to define things. Christianity-as-we-know-it, that is, as a separate, full-fledged religion, probably starts with Paul (who should come before the Gospels in your list, if we’re going in chronological order).
I would say that Christianity did just fine without a resurrection. It was easy enough to invent one, and if people believe it that’s all that matters.
I would say that Christianity as a formal religion (as opposed to Jewish sect) really began to take shape in the 40’s and 50’s with Paul. Paul synthesized the the soteriological aspects of Christianity and his gentile missions were largely responsible for the deification of Jesus.
On preview I see you changed your question. What started Christianity? Good question. There wasn’t any central event which started it (except maybe the crucifixion). It was a Jewish sect, based on the teachings of a charismatic, iconoclastic rabbi, which succeeded in fusing with Greco-Roman mystery cults, especially after the diaspora. I would say that Paul started Christianity (as a distinct religion from Judaism) with his fledgling gentile communities and that it’s eventual success in Rome, and especially the conversion of Constantine were responsible for its success.
If I had to choose a single event which may have been the most significant to the formation of Christanity as a religion, I would choose Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. Paul’s theophany was the driving force behind his evangelism of gentiles.
The resurection was crucial. If it hadn’t happened or hadn’t been invented, it’s unlikely that Christianity would’ve been anything more than a Jewish sect that may or may not have survived.
Even as a school kid in Catholic schools. we were definitely taught that Easter was the more important event, when compared with Christmas. The latter has become bigger as a secular holiday rather than a religious one.
Another vote for christiannism as we know it (or at least reasonnably similar to christiannism as we know it) beginning when the writtings attributed to Paul became authoritative.
Easy enough to invent one? Why do you say that? Surely you’re not suggesting that it would have been “simple” to merely claim that Jesus rose from the dead – as though people would automatically believe it to be true.
I think Diogenes is saying that, at first, Christianity as a Jewish sect claimed Jesus as nothing more than a great teacher. Ressurection was claimed later, after the lifetimes of those who could remember Jesus, along with his deification as Son of God. Do remember the book of John, the Gospel with the most dosage of Jesus as Son of God, was also the last one to be written. It tracks a progression over time from wise rabbi to holy trinity.
That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. The cultural context in which the resurrection story arose was already awash with resurrected gods. What was so hard to believe about one more?
Indeed, the Church was born on the day of Pentecost. So I guess the answer to the question depends on whether you equate the religion (Christianity) with the birth of its founder (not a good criterion - here’s an analogy: did Microsoft start the day Bill Gates was born?), or with the birth of the institution.
While Paul gets tons of credit in my book for spreading the faith to the Gentiles, he himself admits he was originally a persecutor of the believers. Simple logic: you can’t persecute followers of a religion that doesn’t exist.
As to the resurrection (whether you believe in it or not) as a starting point, while it’s a good start, at that point only a handful believed. I don’t offhand know the criteria for when a cult or sect (or whatever the appropriate term would have been at the beginning) becomes a full-fledged religion, but I don’t think that point was reached until Pentecost.
Fifty days after Easter (check with one of the Jews here, but I believe the relevant feasts are Pesach and Shavuot – it happened on the latter of the two, which occurs on the 50th day – the start of the eighth week – after the former.
Now all you have to do is determine the year when the Crucifixion and Resurrection took place, and you’ve got the date.
This may be a semantic quibble but before Paul’s misson to the gentiles but “Christians,” such as they were, still self identified as Jews. Christianity did not really becom a distinct religion of its own, as opposed to a Jewish sect, until the followers of Jesus were ejected from the temple after the diaspora and the faith took root with gentiles.
From Saul of Tarsus’ perspective, he was not persecuting “Christians” so much as heretical Jews.
Because the early believers were Jewish, and they did not believe in the resurrected gods in question. The pagans might have said, “Oh! Another resurrected god? Why not?” but the Jews had no reason to accept that. Moreover, the pagans would not have converted to Christianity as a result, as they would have considered that to be just another manifestation of Greco-Roman mythology (or whatever mythology they espoused).
Moreover, this wasn’t just the spiritual resurrection of some spirit deity. This was the bodily resurrection of a specific individual. It would not be enough to simply claim that he resurrected, as the unconverted would naturally choose to check that out for themselves – to see if the body was still there. I thik it’s naive to suggest that the Apostles could have simply faked a resurrection merely by claiming that Jesus rose from the dead.
