Are the Atheists Right?

[Bennettresearch]

I came to be a christian through personal epiphany and revelation. Subsequently, I have not become a member of any sect. I simply call myself a christian. In another thread I was informed that I could not differentiate myself from the domestic crusaders, such as the Albigensis, Waldensian, and Hussite crusades to name a few. The argument is that I am stuck with my “faith’s history� and that the Atheists have put forth a simplistic stereotypical definition on the title of christians and have conveniently dumped them into one large basket. They claim the crusaders were just as real of a christian as a modern christian. Are they right? What do you think about this? Atheists need not reiterate this claim so don’t waste the space.

Craig

[bernee51]

Hello Craig

Much of the rhetoric we see over this issue results from bickering that arises when, for example, atheists are told they are responsible for all the mass murders in the 20th century.

The true christian question is moot. You are implying a moral argument.

Is it. I get told often enough that people who claim to be christian and support something that another self avowed christian is against is not a 'true christian'. It could be construed as differences in morals..

I am asserting my right to disassociate from a church that committed non christian acts for centuries. It is not my history at all.

You can dissociate all you like - it doesn't change the fact that those atrocities were carried out in the name of christianity.

It is not your history but it is the history of a religion you associate with by calling yourself a christian.

And yes, christians have a right to progess like anyone else into what would be closer to a "true" christianity. It is only irrelevant to someone who is cynical or dismissive about the subject in general, like yourself. Demanding a definition of this is only argumentative. One can still say what christianity isn't and that suffices in this argument.

Of course they have a right to progress - within the confines of their religion.

Are those that would wish to change the laws of the land to discriminate against a woman's right to do what she will with her own body, or those who choose to have a same sex relationship to be considered 'true christians'?

You are also trying to oversimplify a definition of christianity as it suits your own belief or lack of belief.

Not at all - I don't seek to define christians at all - I am in no position to do that. I merely seek clarification.

I don't blame you for rejecting it because it has not been represented very well and has all kinds of issues as to whether we have the truth about it going back to before the gospels were written. This is why the word faith is thrown out there so much, what else do you have?

I don't reject christianity per se. I reject the existence of god.

I am independent, but I did decide upon a definition of christianity that suffices as a basis. A christian is; someone who has Jesus in their heart, seeks the Holy Spirit, and learns to find the truth within themselves on their spiritual quest. I don't think anyone would argue that this wasn't what Jesus was teaching us.

By that definition I could be seen as a true christian (with a few provisos regarding what exactly Jesus was preaching and a probably different take of the Holy Spirit)

Now, what comes after that has gotten to be quite bizarre and unbelievable. If you have a church that is not even following the gospels it decided should be put in the Bible, then how can you say that they are real christians?

Because of the wonderful science of hermeneutics. They interpreted the gospels to mean one thing - you interpret it a different way.

The individual crusader may very well have had "Jesus in their heart, sought the Holy Spirit, and was learning to find the truth within themselves on their spiritual quest."

Atheists are disallowing a disassociation from what modern christians consider to be non christian.

I don't hold modern christians responsible for the actions of their forebears. That does not mean to say however that chrisianity is absolved of actions carried out in its name. Merely labelling the perpetrators as not 'true chrisians' doesn't cut it.

[fried_okra]

The first attack I encountered was based on assuming that I am making a moral judgement. The response of "christians think they are so perfect" ect. What they refused to realize was that I have been brought up in a country that rejected any kind of rule from the RCC or the Anglican Church. Separation of church and state works for christians too. Therefore, I actually don't have any link at all to the RCC or what happened during the crusades. I am glad you brought up the Islamist issue.

Do you even know what “Islamist� means, since you bandy it about so frivolously?

This is a particular term referring to Muslims (which is the correct term to generally refer to people who believe in the tenets of Islam) who want to politically “Islamicize� or “make Muslim� the societies that they live in. Yes, it is most often associated with extremists, but not ALL Islamists are militant. Your use of the term “Islamist� here and in other threads is, quite frankly, offensive and ignorant. I suspect you would prefer someone to refer to you as a “Christian� and not a “Crusader,� per your comments.

I think it only fair to extend the same courtesy to other faiths that you might expect towards your own if you want to be taken seriously.

If I were to say blankly that Islamists are terrorists, I would receive a serious blast accusing me of all kinds of things. We are in a position where we are allowing the peaceful Islamist to differentiate themselves from the terrorists. Do we disallow this and say sorry, you are all real Islamists? Or, do we give them the benefit of the doubt and say OK, show us what real Islam is all about.

Well, Muslims most certainly are allowed to disagree with the actions of other Muslims, but they can’t escape the fact that things like suicide bombing are being done in the name of the religion--because people who claim to be Muslims have done those things, they are a part of Islam categorically, whether or not other Muslims agree with those actions. Some Muslims claim that Islamic terrorists are not "true Muslims." Okay, but then what do you do with the "non-Muslims" who claim to be Muslim? Ignore their own identifications? Who gets to decide who is a "true [insert religionist here]"? Why is one group's definition preferred over another?

While you feel no historical connection to the Church that participated in the Crusades, it doesn’t change the fact that the Crusades were carried out by the masses in Christ’s name. You can distance yourself from and disagree with it, but you cannot change the fact that it happened by people who claimed to be Christians.

The argument works for christians too. Do we engage in crusades against other christians? Do we have an Inquisition? Do we burn people at the stake?

No, but again, it doesn’t change the fact that all of these things were done in Christ’s name and were primarily Christian actions.

These are not the actions of a modern christian church...

Well, of course the Crusades were not the actions of a modern church, they happened during the Middle Ages. But that doesn't mean that modern churches or individual Christians are allowed to completely divorce Christianity from the history of Christianity, and the actions of the RCC (which, by that way, was only barely the RCC, given that the first major institutional church split happened in 1054) are part of Christian history.

...and we can rightfully challenge whether this was ever christianity at all.

Then you will have many years' worth of academic study and books to refute. I wish you luck with that.

And so, this is not a moral argument, but one of scrutinizing a doctrine and the execution of enforcing it and questioning whether this is what a "real" christian would do. This transcends any denominational disputes, as I am independent of this. If I were to choose to align myself with a demonination I would then inherit their history. They also could deny any historical alignment with the RCC. This is what the Reformation was all about.

The Reformation was about reforming Christianity’s doctrine and liturgy without Papal authority, NOT about erasing historical ties to the Church. You can change doctrine, but you cannot change what already happened in the past.

I think that trying to define “true Christianity� is a bit of a fool’s errand, given the hundreds of different denominations. Being non-denominational does not exempt one from the historical considerations of how Christians have behaved in the name of Christ, regardless of what church they may (or may not) be affiliated with currently.

In addition, if you accept any historicity regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then you are opening a can of worms—can you then pick and choose which historical acts/events that you want to recognize with in a particular group? How exactly does that work? Can I claim that I am an American and then deny that wide-scale African enslavement has anything to do with being American or living in an American culture currently? I consider racism to be un-American. Can I then claim that everyone who owned a slave or supported the slave economy was not American?

Religious traditions are simply not ahistorical. If you came to Christ through your own personal epiphany and revelation and identify as Christian, then great, but that label "Christian" (like any other tradition or social group, even) comes with a specific history. The term "Christian" wouldn't even mean anything if it had no historical context, or some sort of transition or movement across time to even name it.

Besides, why the investment in trying to claim the Crusades were not Christian in any sense? Can't you just call yourself a Christian, and then say you're just glad that such violence is not done in your faith's name anymore? Isn't that a bit easier than trying to create an illogical historical disjuncture?

[melodious]

It would not be the case if you were a Gnostic Christian. Gnostics had nothing to do with crusades, inquisitions, or witch burnings. In fact, they were often the one's being burned! So this would completely refute the atheist claim that you mention. I do not know if you are aware of the Gnostic Christians, but if you claim a Gnostic perspective of Christianity, it would be in extreme opposition to any kind of "orthodoxy."

[byofrcs]

.....

Don't reply to any of my posts again. My other encounters with you have shown me that it might be necessary to put you on my ignore list.
By the way, you are full of it. If I believe in Jesus I am a Christian and have been attacked on this by more than one Atheist.
Craig

Craig, your true colours are showing. So put me on your ignore list but you cannot censor what I say. I will reply to your posts according to the debate rules of this Web site.

[Bennettresearch]

OK Bernee, I was going to shine you on but I'll respond to a polite post.

Hello Craig

Much of the rhetoric we see over this issue results from bickering that arises when, for example, atheists are told they are responsible for all the mass murders in the 20th century..

I'll stand right beside you and put down anyone who makes irrational claims. I'm not talking only about distancing myself from the middle ages, there's a lot going on right now that I'm not too crazy about either. A good example is Jerry Falwell. I cringe when I hear his name and I don't want to be associated with him either.

Is it. I get told often enough that people who claim to be christian and support something that another self avowed christian is against is not a 'true christian'. It could be construed as differences in morals..

The argument about the RCC is not about this. It is not merely a difference of opinion. I don't condone someone saying someone is not christian just because they disagree with them on an issue. The RCC put the books into the NT. They set about demanding that this was the word of God and you were in danger if you disagreed with them. The issue is, they themselves didn't even follow their own scriptures and created something else entirely out of the religion. This is where my argument originates from.

It is not your history but it is the history of a religion you associate with by calling yourself a christian.

I'm working on just what I am associated with and have ran up against more than one person stereotyping me according to what they thought a christian was. This is the point of the discussion. There are something like 26,000 different sects of christianity all claiming they are the ones. You'll find that I am a lot like you in saying, really? Very few, if any, people can understand someone who is concerned with being a christian without having the burden of being associated with what someone else might be trying to put forth as the truth. I'm finding my own way here.

Are those that would wish to change the laws of the land to discriminate against a woman's right to do what she will with her own body, or those who choose to have a same sex relationship to be considered 'true christians'?.

It's part of the political process and just because it is faith based doesn't mean it isn't valid. However, no one has the right to dictate what others may think and sometimes I would say that erring on the side of freedom is the right thing to do. And so, leaving my position out of the argument, I'll say that expecting people to put aside their own morals in some areas is demanding a lot, and just because people want something doesn't make it automatically right. This is why these are areas of contention. The Supreme court does not have the right to demand that people accept something that is counter to common values. Like it or not, there is a prevailing tradition in the United States that you can't just wash away with the stroke of a pen.

I don't reject christianity per se. I reject the existence of god.

That's fine, but you can't blame me for wondering why you bother with religion at all, unless this is some kind of morbid fascination. This is kind of where my observations on Atheists originates from. You are polite, but most are not and they have a serious bone to pick and start out by firing on you. This arrogant superiority and contempt for what they consider to be total idiots is rather funny. I call their arguments "add homey eminem" attacks.

By that definition I could be seen as a true christian (with a few provisos regarding what exactly Jesus was preaching and a probably different take of the Holy Spirit).

Well Bernee, you may not encounter that many christians who realize that it all centers from within. Not trying to convince you of anything, but the Holy Spirit is different things to different people because they are all on their own individual paths. The Holy Spirit is the one constant, being greater than any individual. I too question what we have of Jesus in the gospels. The tendency of the oral tradition to put words in His mouth is our biggest obstacle. I would probably agree with some of your assessments about how Jesus has been interpreted. This is my main area of work on the Book of Revelation. I am repulsed by the holier than though preaching and the surety of selling myth and a lot of what has been going on in christianity. I simply have not rejected the whole subject because of this however. I consider there to be truth that hasn't been told.

Now, what comes after that has gotten to be quite bizarre and unbelievable. If you have a church that is not even following the gospels it decided should be put in the Bible, then how can you say that they are real christians?

Because of the wonderful science of hermeneutics. They interpreted the gospels to mean one thing - you interpret it a different way.).

The funny thing about this is that some of the most idosyncratic interpreters will throw that accusation against you if you propose a different one. Indeed, the tendency of some to not address challenges invalidates them in my book. I interpret prophecy. I put an exposition up for challenge. I've only had one person actually discuss it with me and I listened to their take on it with interest. It was the product of many many years of work so I didn't hear anything that poked any holes in it. However, I'm listening and if someone has a good point I certainly will acknowledge it. It's funny, but my long debate with Lotan made me think of how I could give a better explanation of a certain verse. So it is a process and not some dogmatic spewing of the same old stuff one hears over and over again.

The individual crusader may very well have had "Jesus in their heart, sought the Holy Spirit, and was learning to find the truth within themselves on their spiritual quest.").

If you are talking about the march to Jerusalem, I would agree. However, if you are talking about the domestic crusades launced by the Popes, then this is not the case. There was nothing of christianity in these crusades.

The Siege of Termes (1210), according to the Historia Albigensis
Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay is one of the most important sources for the Albigensian Crusades.

[174] Arrival of the Bishops of Chartres and Beauvais and many other nobles. So matters stood when a number of noble and powerful men arrived from France; Renaud, Bishop of Chartres, Philip, Bishop of Beauvais, Count Robert of Dreux and also the Count of Ponthieu. They were accompanied by a substantial force of crusaders whose arrival greatly cheered the Count of Montfort and the whole army. It was hoped that strong action would result from the arrival of these powerful men; and that they would grind down the enemies of the Christian faith with a strong hand and a stretched out arm. But He who puts down the mighty and gives grace to the humble, through some secret design known only to Himself, wished nothing great or glorious to be achieved by their hand. As far as human reasoning can determine, the just judge so acted either because they were not worthy to be the instrument for the great and worshipful God to do great and wonderful things; or because if great men were to perform any great deed it would be ascribed entirely to human power, and not Divine. So, the Heavenly Disposer thought it better to keep that victory for the humble, so that by winning through them a glorious triumph He might give glory to His own great name. Meanwhile our Count had siege-engines erected of the kind known as petraries. These bombarded the outer wall of Termes, whilst our men laboured day by day on the siege.

I don't hold modern christians responsible for the actions of their forebears. That does not mean to say however that chrisianity is absolved of actions carried out in its name. Merely labelling the perpetrators as not 'true chrisians' doesn't cut it.

Not so. The argument of the actions of individuals is not the same as the argument against the crimes committed by the RCC. You are making a direct connection from that point to the present and disallowing everything that has happened in the meantime. The Reformation, the philosophers such as Voltaire, the founders of this country who instilled separation of church and state because of this church, and all of those people who have battled against it. I have every right to say that it is not my heritage or is it an example of what christianity really is. I think that you can understand that just because there is not an all encompasing definition of "christianity", doesn't mean that you can't point out what it isn't.


Craig

[Bennettresearch]

OK Bernee, I was going to shine you on but I'll respond to a polite post.

Hello Craig

Much of the rhetoric we see over this issue results from bickering that arises when, for example, atheists are told they are responsible for all the mass murders in the 20th century..

I'll stand right beside you and put down anyone who makes irrational claims. I'm not talking only about distancing myself from the middle ages, there's a lot going on right now that I'm not too crazy about either. A good example is Jerry Falwell. I cringe when I hear his name and I don't want to be associated with him either.

Is it. I get told often enough that people who claim to be christian and support something that another self avowed christian is against is not a 'true christian'. It could be construed as differences in morals..

The argument about the RCC is not about this. It is not merely a difference of opinion. I don't condone someone saying someone is not christian just because they disagree with them on an issue. The RCC put the books into the NT. They set about demanding that this was the word of God and you were in danger if you disagreed with them. The issue is, they themselves didn't even follow their own scriptures and created something else entirely out of the religion. This is where my argument originates from.

It is not your history but it is the history of a religion you associate with by calling yourself a christian.

I'm working on just what I am associated with and have ran up against more than one person stereotyping me according to what they thought a christian was. This is the point of the discussion. There are something like 26,000 different sects of christianity all claiming they are the ones. You'll find that I am a lot like you in saying, really? Very few, if any, people can understand someone who is concerned with being a christian without having the burden of being associated with what someone else might be trying to put forth as the truth. I'm finding my own way here.

Are those that would wish to change the laws of the land to discriminate against a woman's right to do what she will with her own body, or those who choose to have a same sex relationship to be considered 'true christians'?.

It's part of the political process and just because it is faith based doesn't mean it isn't valid. However, no one has the right to dictate what others may think and sometimes I would say that erring on the side of freedom is the right thing to do. And so, leaving my position out of the argument, I'll say that expecting people to put aside their own morals in some areas is demanding a lot, and just because people want something doesn't make it automatically right. This is why these are areas of contention. The Supreme court does not have the right to demand that people accept something that is counter to common values. Like it or not, there is a prevailing tradition in the United States that you can't just wash away with the stroke of a pen.

I don't reject christianity per se. I reject the existence of god.

That's fine, but you can't blame me for wondering why you bother with religion at all, unless this is some kind of morbid fascination. This is kind of where my observations on Atheists originates from. You are polite, but most are not and they have a serious bone to pick and start out by firing on you. This arrogant superiority and contempt for what they consider to be total idiots is rather funny. I call their arguments "add homey eminem" attacks.

By that definition I could be seen as a true christian (with a few provisos regarding what exactly Jesus was preaching and a probably different take of the Holy Spirit).

Well Bernee, you may not encounter that many christians who realize that it all centers from within. Not trying to convince you of anything, but the Holy Spirit is different things to different people because they are all on their own individual paths. The Holy Spirit is the one constant, being greater than any individual. I too question what we have of Jesus in the gospels. The tendency of the oral tradition to put words in His mouth is our biggest obstacle. I would probably agree with some of your assessments about how Jesus has been interpreted. This is my main area of work on the Book of Revelation. I am repulsed by the holier than though preaching and the surety of selling myth and a lot of what has been going on in christianity. I simply have not rejected the whole subject because of this however. I consider there to be truth that hasn't been told.

Because of the wonderful science of hermeneutics. They interpreted the gospels to mean one thing - you interpret it a different way.).

The funny thing about this is that some of the most idosyncratic interpreters will throw that accusation against you if you propose a different one. Indeed, the tendency of some to not address challenges invalidates them in my book. I interpret prophecy. I put an exposition up for challenge. I've only had one person actually discuss it with me and I listened to their take on it with interest. My interpretation is the product of many many years of work so I didn't hear anything that poked any holes in it. However, I'm listening, and if someone has a good point I certainly will acknowledge it. It's funny, but my long debate with Lotan made me think of how I could give a better explanation of a certain verse. So it is a process and not some dogmatic spewing of the same old stuff one hears over and over again.

The individual crusader may very well have had "Jesus in their heart, sought the Holy Spirit, and was learning to find the truth within themselves on their spiritual quest.").

If you are talking about the march to Jerusalem, I would agree. However, if you are talking about the domestic crusades launced by the Popes, then this is not the case. There was nothing of christianity in these crusades.

The Siege of Termes (1210), according to the Historia Albigensis
Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay is one of the most important sources for the Albigensian Crusades.

[174] Arrival of the Bishops of Chartres and Beauvais and many other nobles. So matters stood when a number of noble and powerful men arrived from France; Renaud, Bishop of Chartres, Philip, Bishop of Beauvais, Count Robert of Dreux and also the Count of Ponthieu. They were accompanied by a substantial force of crusaders whose arrival greatly cheered the Count of Montfort and the whole army. It was hoped that strong action would result from the arrival of these powerful men; and that they would grind down the enemies of the Christian faith with a strong hand and a stretched out arm. But He who puts down the mighty and gives grace to the humble, through some secret design known only to Himself, wished nothing great or glorious to be achieved by their hand. As far as human reasoning can determine, the just judge so acted either because they were not worthy to be the instrument for the great and worshipful God to do great and wonderful things; or because if great men were to perform any great deed it would be ascribed entirely to human power, and not Divine. So, the Heavenly Disposer thought it better to keep that victory for the humble, so that by winning through them a glorious triumph He might give glory to His own great name. Meanwhile our Count had siege-engines erected of the kind known as petraries. These bombarded the outer wall of Termes, whilst our men laboured day by day on the siege.

I don't hold modern christians responsible for the actions of their forebears. That does not mean to say however that chrisianity is absolved of actions carried out in its name. Merely labelling the perpetrators as not 'true chrisians' doesn't cut it.

Not so. The argument of the actions of individuals is not the same as the argument against the crimes committed by the RCC. You are making a direct connection from that point to the present and disallowing everything that has happened in the meantime. The Reformation, the philosophers such as Voltaire, the founders of this country who instilled separation of church and state because of this church, and all of those people who have battled against it. I have every right to say that it is not my heritage or is it an example of what christianity really is. I think that you can understand that just because there is not an all encompasing definition of "christianity", doesn't mean that you can't point out what it isn't.


Craig

[Bennettresearch]

It would not be the case if you were a Gnostic Christian. Gnostics had nothing to do with crusades, inquisitions, or witch burnings. In fact, they were often the one's being burned! So this would completely refute the atheist claim that you mention. I do not know if you are aware of the Gnostic Christians, but if you claim a Gnostic perspective of Christianity, it would be in extreme opposition to any kind of "orthodoxy."

Hi Melodious,

I often qualify the search within as being in line with Jesus and not maening that I am Gnostic. The frustrating thing about the Gnostics is that they were kind of bizarre and ultimately not something I would follow. They did however capture this one thing from Jesus. You have a good point as to the association factor. There were a lot of people like Arius who had the right idea that suffered greatly under this church once the Council of Nicea took place. I'm not saying that we should be Arianists, only that the RCC didn't really put it all together right and it shouldn't be the 'orthodox" doctrine at all.

Craig

[Bennettresearch]

.....

Don't reply to any of my posts again. My other encounters with you have shown me that it might be necessary to put you on my ignore list.
By the way, you are full of it. If I believe in Jesus I am a Christian and have been attacked on this by more than one Atheist.
Craig

Craig, your true colours are showing. So put me on your ignore list but you cannot censor what I say. I will reply to your posts according to the debate rules of this Web site.

No, yours are showing. You already demonstrated that you take whatever side of the fence you want and are very whimsical and you don't make much sense. So leave me alone.

Craig

[Bennettresearch]

Hi Okra,

You need to get a grip and maybe read some history books. Islamist is the correct term used for the religion of Islam. Don't correct people if you don't know what you are talking about. That pretty much applies to the rest of your post too. Martin Luther was sparked into the Reformation because of the indulgences!!!!!!!! The Protestants certainly did distance themselves from the RCC. All of those wars and you haven't heard about it? Why do you think that you hear the complaint of Catholic bashing, this just started yesterday???????

I'm not even going to address your other arguments because as far as I'm concerned you are the one who needs to do some studying.

Craig

[melodious]

The frustrating thing about the Gnostics is that they were kind of bizarre and ultimately not something I would follow.

Yes, the Gnostic cosmology myths appear quite "bizarre" to a person who is not familiar with the symbolic and metaphorical language of myth. And even then, I'll admit, they're a bit complex. But the basic philosophy of a direct knowledge, or gnosis, of the divine is quite simple and straight forward - they did not believe in the intervention of the church for the sake of salvation; they believed in a kind of self-liberation, much like the Hindu or Buddhist. They were docetists (not believing in a flesh and blood Christ), and they had perfectly logical and spiritual reasons for being so. If you read the mass amount of Scholarship done on historical Jesus (Gerald Massey, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Tom Harpur, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Earl Doherty, Acharya S, etc.), you will see, if you have an open mind, that all of the evidence points with steady directness to this truth. So the scholars weren't the first to "burst the bubble" of the religiously and spiritually immature. In fact, in the first century the "bubble" wasn't really there, and was only created later in the second century by the Literalist churches, later promulagated by the RCC to assert Rome's political agenda of subjugating the masses (especially the Jews).

Here is what I see as the problem with the "I hate the RCC for messing up Christianity" view, yet at the same time not accepting that orginal Christianity was a Gnostic religion only to later be perverted into Christianism (the literal belief in a flesh and blood savior/godman). First of all, it is a fetishizing of one man, one culture, and one time, which by theological definition is a kind of idolatry. This was definitely against the Gnostic's view of a spiritual Christ - the archetypal "Son of Man," or Son of Adam - representing the struggle and suffering of every human being, while also expressing a divine potential for humanity.

Second of all, the Protestant movement brought about many liberations within Christianity, yet, really only screwed things up more by leaving it open for anynody with a religious idea to start a new Christianity (granted, it was necessary in a certain way). As a result, we have even more "bizarre" Christian religions like Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, and on and on it goes. To me they are much more "bizarre" than Gnostic Christianity, which is quite sobering in comparison to the phantasmagoric beliefs of these Christians who live in a religious and historical "bubble."

It seems there are a lot of people who are confused about the whole RCC conspiracy. You see, the RCC is the Gnostic church that has been hi-jacked by imperial politicians and carnalizing/historicizing religionists who love to wear big fish-hats to make themselves feel important and above joe-public. To conclude, the first Christians were Gnostics (this would include Paul), and the Gospels are spiritual allegories created by Hellenic Jews to reform the old Jewish faith into a type of Mystery Religion that was common among the Greeks and the entire Mediterranean region - the most early evidence of this religion coming from Egypt and India (Krishna and Osiris/Horus).

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

While Gnostic Christianity might seem a bit "bizarre" to some people - unconventional, odd or unusual - orthodox and fundamental Christianity is definitely, in my opinion, a kind of bazaar.
A bazaar (بازار) is a permanent merchandising area, marketplace, or street of shops where goods and services are exchanged or sold. The word derives from the Persian word b�z�r, the etymology of which goes back to the Pahlavi word baha-char (بهاچار) meaning "the place of prices".