WI Jesus was an..."Evangelical" Socialist Atheist?

Anyway, this is in response to to all the recent Jesus Era WIs.

Assume the Following:

#1: Jesus existed

#2: Instead of being Religious, Jesus was actually an Atheist/Anti-Theist.

#3: Jesus promotes a Social System similar to Christian Socialism and or Modern Socialism with a Scientific/Rationalist/Humanist Flavor.

#4: This ATL message that Jesus creates reaches Popularity Levels between 100 and 300 AD similar to those of the OTL 100 and 300 AD.

#5: Also, this version of "Christianity" is very cynical when it comes to the old and the past, but is very hopeful when it comes to anything Young and the Future.

So how does the World Develop? Yes, I know what everyone is thinking, but what the Hell. Good Luck with your Answers!;)
 
My answer, of course, is simple: ain't gonna happen. Even if one did assume Jesus to be merely a man influenced purely by human ideas (which, being an evangelical Christian, I don't- He was God incarnate and there is no way of changing Him or His message), how do we assume he is going to come up with an idea that there is no god, influenced by Jewish or Gentile means? I can see no reason for this to happen, and if so, he is not going to be that popular.
 
My answer, of course, is simple: ain't gonna happen.
Agreed with this part of the post if nothing else; Jesus coming up with so many ideas that are completely divorced from the ideological context of Jewish and Roman society isn't very likely, and if one handwaves him having the ideas there is still no way he would find any sort of receptive audience. Denying the existence of god by itself probably gets him stoned to death by an angry Jewish mob the first time he preaches that message.
 
I agree with some of the other posters. I don't see this ideology being very popular with the Jews at the time and the Romans later on. It may have a very small following, but nothing close to Christianity.
 
Some loon is bound to follow his teachings. Maybe he ends up like an ancient version of Marx. Although he ends up dying his teachings of social structure are adopted by people.
 
There was some ancient Roman writer whose name started with "L" who was an atheist. Licinius or something to that effect.

I don't think he developed a following though.
 
Like people have said before me, it isn't going to happen.

Jesus was not the first (or last) man to claim to be messiah, but that was a concept that was well ingrained in the jewish mindset at the time.

Atheism was not.

However, the Marxism part is (vaguely) possible.
 
He'd find precious few listeners in the Galilee, that's for sure. He could have better luck in one of the Hellenistic centers - one of the Decapolis towns, or, branching out farther, Antioch or Alexandria. A Jesus (or anybody) who seriously wanted to promote such wild and crazy ideas would probably end up in a big city filled with cynical Greek intellectuals... anywhere else, too many people would just drive you out of town or worse the second you opened your mouth.

So... the Jesus movement, if it takes off at all, would be a particularly radical current within Roman-era Greek philosophy.
 
My answer, of course, is simple: ain't gonna happen. Even if one did assume Jesus to be merely a man influenced purely by human ideas (which, being an evangelical Christian, I don't- He was God incarnate and there is no way of changing Him or His message), how do we assume he is going to come up with an idea that there is no god, influenced by Jewish or Gentile means? I can see no reason for this to happen, and if so, he is not going to be that popular.

Well stated!


...However, the Marxism part is (vaguely) possible.

Perhaps something along the lines of Kropotkin's "mutual aid" concept.
 

Hendryk

Banned
There was some ancient Roman writer whose name started with "L" who was an atheist. Licinius or something to that effect.

I don't think he developed a following though.
You're probably thinking of Lucretius (99-55 BCE), author of De Rerum Natura. He was a famous Epicurian, and the early Church went out of its way to sully his reputation, even as it used selected passages of his work for its own purposes.

Just debate the thread instead of being an asshole.
Just so you know, I don't take kindly to being called an asshole.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Just so you know, I don't take kindly to being called an asshole.

Then don't thrash Lynzie (or however that is spelled) every time you see him post. Because that is what an asshole would do. (Unless Lynzie says that specifically towards you)

You can't expect people to be civil towards you if you aren't civil towards them.

Just a note, I am an atheist.
 
Then don't thrash Lynzie (or however that is spelled) every time you see him post. Because that is what an asshole would do. (Unless Lynzie says that specifically towards you)

You can't expect people to be civil towards you if you aren't civil towards them.

Just a note, I am an atheist.

So what if you're an atheist? Hendryk said nothing that was out of line, a bit o banter between long time posters is normal. You, however, sir are stooping to personal insults.

FYI? I saved Hedryk the trouble....... reported.

Regards,
Rhysz
 
Actually, it is an everytime occurence. So lets just say that Hendryk is just as far out of line as I am.

well, it's way different in any case than calling someone asshole. I think the etiquette on this forum is quite clear. If 'Lynzie'and Hendryk have their disagreement keep out of it and especially don't contribute to it on the open board.

Regards,
Rhysz
 
Top