dogsgod

-I think the early epistle writers, perhaps influenced by Philo, are the earliest known Christians. They were self appointed apostles that used ancient scripture and revelations of a risen Christ to relay God's message through them to their congregations.

-If a Paul existed I would exclude Acts as a source of knowledge of him. If some of the epistles can be attributed to a Paul we can only garner anything about the man from the epistles that we have.

-Eusebious wrote pseudo-histories probably for the political purposes of connecting Rome with an early Jerusalem by way of making up out of whole cloth an apostolic line of succession to Roman bishops.

aa5874

The writings of Philo did not influence the Pauline writers. There is not one thing about Jesus believers or Jesus in the writings of Philo. And Philo only worshiped the God of Moses.

It is very interesting to note that the NT Canon is filled with errors regarding authorship. These errors have created total confusion since the identities of the actual authors are unknown.

An author who was called James may be really Jane of the 2nd century.

And further Gospels that are considered to have been written in the 1st century were actually 4th century versions which evolved over time.

For example, there was a Gospel story in which Jesus was born in a cave and Justin Martyr in the middle of the 2nd century and Origen up to the third century were AWARE of the Gospel with a cave birth story yet NO Gospel today contains the cave birth story.

There was a Gospel or Gospels called the Memoirs of the Apostles in the 2nd century with the cave birth story which was used in the churches and it has completely VANISHED not even Eusebius the historian of the Church wrote anything about the Memoirs of the Apostles as found in the writings of Justin Martyr.

Who were the CREDIBLE Jesus believers who wrote between the supposed birth of Jesus and the 4th century when Eusebius wrote the history of the Church?

dog-on

It started a century or two after the LXX was published. The LXX was misinterpreted by the founders of the new religion. This is why I doubt that Christianity was started by actual Jews.

I think that Paul existed, but that he was not a Jew. Perhaps he may have tried to become one at some point, but I doubt that he was actually raised as one.

Doug Shaver

No, it is not like that.

It would have been, had I asked, "Exactly how, when, and by whom did Christianity get started?" But that isn't what I asked.

Chili

Christianity got started with the first division when Jesus broke bread in John 6:66. Those that walked away became the Christians and those that stayed were the true purgatorians that suffered with Jesus. They are called Nazarites in Judaism and Jesuits in Catholicism which is a natural call wherein faith comes to an end: hence Peter becomes a liability after realization (there now called satan), as the first step towards ascension. IE, there is no faith in heaven where omnicience is, as in I AM, and knowledge frees until then. This, then is also why "infallibility" is a necessary condition after faith has come to rest in understanding wherefore then the sea is no longer in the new heaven and earth.

The exact date in history will never be known since the so called historical Jesus was an imposter to be crucified and just a sacrament that bears witness to truth. It is our seventh and final sacrament wherein we are born into the everlasting light that takes form in Gen.2.

aa5874

So you don't want to know EXACTLY WHO started Christianity?

Chili

If you see Christianity as an abomination, or rational religion if you like that better, it must be true that it came after the great mystery of faith was celebrated wherein we consume the body Christ in full worthiness as did the apostels at the last supper. Now whether they were real or fiction by way of metaphor is not important in that the reality behind metaphor is equal to the comprehension of those present. So in effect, the word real here pertains to the metaphysical realm wherein they were present either in person or by proxy in the myth.

Then it must be pointed out that Eusebius never started Christianity but just simply validated Catholicism and then please consider that these two are quite opposite to each other, or at least Catholicism is as far removed from Christianity as Judaism is unlike Christianity . . . to the point in fact that they both end when they become Christian = 'soulfree and fancyfree' according to Joyce, I think it was. So hence, my use of the word 'abomination' is not a bad choice.

Doug Shaver

No, I'm not saying I don't want to know. I'm saying I don't expect to find out.