was christianity intended to be an exclusive religion for the upper classes?

Christianity was never intended at all as the prophet Yeshua bin Yusuf was a devout Jewish rabbi who came to reform what had become the distorted practice of Judaism by and of the society of his day.

He adhered to Jewish law and customs.

Saul/Paul, who never met the prophet during his lifetime, who originally persecuted the followers of the prophet and who had such a tremendous ego that he argued with the actual apostles of the prophet in regards to his teachings created a religion by which and in which he hoped to distance himself from his former Jewish brethren once he took up the cause of his creation which later became known as Christianity.

The majority of the original followers of the prophet were the poor and socially disadvantaged who felt that Judaism, as it was then being practiced, was not speaking to them and that it has ceased to promote social justice and the welfare of all.

Judaism at that time was in a bit of turmoil and the Roman occupation was only making matters worse.

When Constantine created the "church" by edict and declaration, the same adopted the practices, customs and dress of the Roman court, even to the point of having the clergy shave.

At that time, the "Church" became very elitist.

namaste

No it was intended for the masses. The majority of people are not rich.

That's why Jesus was so against being rich and owning a lot of stuff. You don't seem to understand the history of Christianity nor do you get the history of the Bible. The bible was not some book God gave to the illiterate Adam and told him to read it. You don't get the real point of religion. It is control over the masses. If a religion was made for an exclusive group it would fail very easily.

Ah, but you are wrong. The concepts are difficult for you to grasp because of the philosophical paradigm that you were raised in. That is the heart of presuppositionalism - people seldom realize how convoluted their own thinking is. You were raised with a whole complex of assumptions that you now consider self-evident, and it is hard for you to even imagine that another culture could have a different set of assumptions. Religions practiced by primitive natives in the jungles of western Africa have theological systems that rival any western religion in complexity. Just because they can't read or write in English doesn't mean that they are stupid.

Regarding Christian theology, historians record the debates that occurred among the common people on the streets of Constantinople. You may not know the difference between an ousia and an instantiated hypostasis, but the average street cleaner in the 4th century knew enough about it converse intelligently on the subject.

The main idea of Christianity is not really that complicated--everybody does bad things ("sin"), but belief in Jesus as your saviour wipes the slate clean. Everything else is not as important. It was preached much more than it was written, so the illiterate would not have had a problem learning. Republicans didn't exist yet. Few if any of the original 12 apostles was rich or powerful, and most of the people they preached to were commoners.

If you look at a lot of early Christianity you'll actually see that it was kind of an underground, alternative kind of religion, and viewed kind of as a strange communal group. But as history proves, the rich and powerful, regardless of geography, race, or creed, have a profound way of influences social and cultural orders to favor themselves. Your critique that its logic is convoluted is nothing new, as far back as the 1500's, people like Erasmus (a Christian himself) protested that the Church, perhaps to exclude the interpretation by lower classes, often shrouded their policies in confusing rhetoric.

I'm personally not religious, but to be completely honest, if you're going to base a religion on its tenets and values, perhaps you should consult the source, and not the ideas of the political elite or the musings of yahoo answers people (myself included)

A good question.

I would answer and say the majority of Christanity was not theologically trained. This is true both of today's Christians and the Christians in the Early Church.

It was sufficient for many to believe that Jesus Christ was God, to Commune of His Holy Body and Blood and to repent of their sins.

The development of Christian theology was (largely) the result of challenges to Orthodox doctrine.

e.g. The use of icons in worship was considered idolatary, until through great debate, pain and struggle that heresy was cast down.

If someone attacks Christianty in one form, then a suitable defense is created. The core essense of Jesus Christ, Holy Communion, Reformation of Life; doesn't depart when one addresses spiritual/theological issues, it can only be clarified by them.

I tend to disagree with that statement if you are speaking of the all the variations of Christianity, mainly because there are so many different types, it would be impossible to suggest that so many kinds were intended for just a select group of people. I think everyone can understand it if they try, but people today are less willing to try and expand their horizons, which is leading to why people believe religon is a very complex thing.

Many Democrats are highly educated and extremely open minded so i don't know what did you implied by that comment.

Anyways, Christianity was meant to be for everyone, remember Jesus wasn't a democrat or a republican, he wasn't rich or educated, he was perfect and therefore he was not weak-minded to label people based on their political party or money status. He loved everyone, that is why he was perfect.

No. Jesus constantly appealed to the poor and railed against privilege.

He said it was easier for a camel to go thru a needle eye than for a rich person to go to heaven.

Read the sermon on the mount, he constantly blessed the poor.

Don't confuse thoughtful with convoluted.

You could have a point, but why did God say that it's near impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of the Lord?