Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Whether it happened, or didn't happen, it's the belief that it did which was what changed everything because it supports what followed and that Jesus was the son of god. Does Christianity work at all without the resurrection story? So I think the truth of it is immaterial, although it isn't and really couldn't be questioned within the religion that it probably caused. Without the resurrection myth, Jesus gets crucified and possibly that's the end of Christianity despite the best effort of the disciples (whose existence was being called into question in an article I was reading earlier).
Without the resurrection, Christianity would be a different religion, but there is no reason in principle why it couldn't be successful without it. After all, today we have many liberal Christians who reject the claim that the Resurrection is an event of history.
But regardless, my primary point here is not about whether the crucifixion is the
most important event relating to Christianity (I don't think it is), but whether it is of sufficient importance that, given the overall historical significance of Christianity, it should itself be regarded as an event of historical significance. For instance, here are a few others:
1) Conversion of Paul and his career and writings as a missionary.
2) Constantine's conversion and the ending of Christian persecution.
3) The Council of Nicea and the creation of Christian orthodoxy.
4) Martin Luther's nailing of the 57 Theses.
My guess is that most reputable general history books covering these eras would talk about these events.
Quote:
That the gospels focus on it isn't what supports it's contribution to what Christianity became, that could have been a retrospective focus on an event that actually played a minor part to the resurrection but which it suited the authors of the gospels to focus on because of the support it offers for various divine theories like Jesus having 'died for our sins'. The crucifixion can be portrayed as having been hugely important, it could be portrayed really in anyway they saw fit, but I would say that logically, it couldn't have been as important as the resurrection because dying on the cross isn't what made him the son of god. Religions have foundered with the killing of their main 'character', why is this one different? Isn't it because he claimed, and was proven by the resurrection, to be the son of god?
Lot's of people, including contemporaries and near-contemporaries of Jesus, claimed to be of divine origin. Jesus claiming to be the "son of god" is not clearly a claim (as it is often taken to be now) to be the God of Abraham. So I'm not sure that is very special.
Truthfully, my guess is that Christianity became the biggest religion in the world primarily through luck rather than any unique characteristics of its theology or practice.