aa5874

Early Paul writings do not affect the HJ argument at all. Those who argue for an HJ also argue that the Pauline writings were composed before c 70 CE.

See "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman

It is Late Pauline letters that completely destroy the HJ argument as soon as it is understood that up to at least the Late 2nd century that the Pauline letters were unknown by the Jesus cult, Christians and Non-Apologetics and were not used in the early development of the teachings of the Churches.

Justin Martyr was very specific in "First Apology".

On Sundays, it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the Books of the Prophets that were read in the Churches.

Justin's First Apology LXVII Paul was supposed to be a Jew, a Hebrew of Hebrews, who preached Christ crucified in the Roman Empire and supposedly documented his teachings, yet there was no reference to Paul the Jew in multiple Christian writings of antiquity.

Irenaeus, probably the first writer to mention virtually all the letters of the Pauline Corpus, claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years according to John and the OTHER Apostles which confirms or suggests the Pauline Corpus was really a late invention.

Robert Tulip

Don't know if John Frum :notworthy: is real, but we can be slightly more certain about his brother.

Shades of how "brother of the Lord" is used (of an allegedly Jewish Bishop?) to 'prove' the existence of Jesus.

aa5874

The earliest story of Jesus can be found in gMark and it can be seen that the Jesus character of gMark did NOT start the Jesus cult, that he was NOT known as Christ by the Populace, did NOT want the supposed disciples to tell the Populace he was Christ and also BOASTED secretly that he wanted the Populace to Remain in Sin by deliberately speaking Parables.

The Jesus story of gMark is NOT about the start of a new religion.

The story is about the Evil Jews including his disciples.

1. Astonishingly, Jesus claimed Peter was Satan in gMark.


Mark 8:33 KJV2. Jesus in gMark would be ashamed of Peter in the SECOND coming because he DENIED Jesus.

Mark 8:38 KJV 3. In gMark, Jesus would be ASHAMED of his disciples in the SECOND coming because they abandoned him.

Mark 14:50 KJV4. It would have been better that Judas was not born according to Jesus in gMark.

Mark 14:21 KJV The Jesus story in gMark was NOT about the start of a new religion. It was composed to promote the propaganda that the Jews were Evil and that even the supposed Jewish disciples of Jesus were ASHAMED of him and his own disciple was involve in his Arrest.

It was people of antiquity who BELIEVED the Jews were Evil and Killed the Son of God that started the Jesus cult of Christ.

Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Arnobius, Eusebius and others BELIEVED the Jews were Evil and Killed the Son of God.

Up to a thousand years later, Eugene claimed the Jews will burn in Hell if they did not follow the teachings of the Christians.

J-D

I am not sure of the point of your question. If it is based, in part, on the impression that I am advocating some particular theory of how Christianity started, you are mistaken.

That said, I have never heard of any instance where there is reliable evidence to confirm that a person who was truly dead returned to life, and if there never was any such person then obviously it cannot be the case that such a person started a religion.

steve_bnk

The thing is JC in the New Testament never rejected Judaism, he reinforced it.


The RCC takes Matthew 16:18 to infer Peter was the first 'pope' and all the Catholic popes are in a line of succession. It us the basis of the RCC claim as the one and only true Christian church. They take the passage to mean the founding of Christianity. I've heard similar from evangelicals o the founding, but not the Peter as pope claims.


http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-18.htm

'...And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it...'

As once explained to me, Jews have no central authority. Jews can consult with cleric for rulings and interpretations on an issue, but there is no recurrent to do so.

J-D

I only used the expression in response to somebody else using it.

What I did post is not the view you have attributed to me, but this:If you can refer me to a well-documented example of a religion that started without the ingredients I mentioned--an individual preaching a religious message, and others accepting it--please do.

Tenorikuma

Christianity as we know it started, in some sense, with an individual named Paul preaching a religious message. There was most likely an individual named Cephas as well, preaching a similar, but rival, gospel.

One of the remarkable things about Christianity is that practically nothing about it resembles the religion of its supposed founder, Jesus, or the message the founder allegedly preached, except when anachronistic or anti-Jewish teachings he never could possibly have taught are placed in his mouth.

Grog

I already did. Who was the individual who preached the religious message that became Judaism? Who was the individual who originally preached the message that became what we call kabbalah? Who was the individual who first taught the Three Teachings?

Example 1: Taosim

Interestingly, Laozi is the traditionally considered the founder of Taoist thought, but his actual existence is disputed:


Laozi is traditionally regarded as the founder of Taoism and is closely associated in this context with "original", or "primordial", Taoism.[17] Whether he actually existed is commonly disputed...(wikipedia)

In the mid-twentieth century a consensus had emerged among scholars that the historicity of Laozi was doubtful or unprovable and that the Tao Te Ching was "a compilation of Taoist sayings by many hands.

From wikipedia:

Taoism evolved in response to changing times, with its doctrine and associated practices being revised and refined.

My point is that it is not so extreme to consider the contingency that the evolution of Christianity followed a similar path. In fact, the hypothesis is pretty much identical:

Christianity evolved in response to changing times, with its doctrine and associated practices being revised and refined.

The evolution of Christianity would be much like the evoluton of Taosim, with philosophies and ideas accreting to the character "Jesus Christ," a name like Laozi that is heavy with associated meaning. It emerged in a time of change and turbulence as hellenism collided with judaism, with Christianity being a amalgam, a synthesis, of ideas. Different groups adopted the emerging philosophy in different ways so we see a great diversity of Christian thought (which is not what we find when a cult is founded by a charismatic founder: see Scientology, LDS, for examples).

My point is that your focus on an individual founder is entirely too limiting to the debate.

By the way, my position has always been that the so-called "Mythicist" hypothesis ought to be taken seriously. I often argue in favor of it because I see it so misunderstood and misrepresented. I was very disappointed in Ehrman's book because he clearly did not take the hypothesis seriously. I would like to see more scholarly work that is not framed by the assumption that Christianity was founded by a single founder (Jesus Christ). I think doing so, would open up a lot of fruitful avenues in researching the Origins of Christianity. The focus is too narrow, is my point.

My feeling is that we would benefit from accepting these premises:

Jesus Christ is traditionally regarded as the founder of Christianity and is closely associated in this context with "original", or "primordial", Christianity.[17] Whether he actually existed is commonly disputed...(wikipedia)

In the mid-21st century a consensus had emerged among scholars that the historicity of Jesus Christ was doubtful or unproveable and that the teachings of Jesus were "a compilation of Christian sayings by many hands.

Example 2: Judaism

Let's take a look at the origins of another religion: Judaism. Again, no single individual can be attributed with the founding of Judaism. There isn't a person who preached a message and gained followers and thus started a religion to be identified. Traditionally held founders such as Abraham and Moses are mostly considered to have not existed, and certainly their actual existence is greatly in doubt.

from wikipedia;

The ancient roots of Judaism lie in the Bronze Age polytheistic Ancient Semitic religions, specifically Canaanite religion, a syncretization with elements of Babylonian religion and of the worship of Yahweh reflected in the early prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible.

The central founding myth of the Israelite nation is the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt under the guidance of Moses, followed by the conquest of the Promised Land (Canaan). There is little or no archaeological or historical evidence to support these accounts, and although they may in part originate as early as the 10th century BCE, they reached something like their present form only in the 5th to 4th centuries BCE, when they were edited to comply with the theology of Second Temple Judaism.

The central event to the founding of the nation of Israel is a myth. The supposed founders are likewise mythical.

Example 3: Kabbalah

The traditional founder of Kabbalah is Adam. Are you starting to see a pattern here? Religious schools of thought founded by non-historical people?

from wikipedia:

Contemporary scholarship suggests that various schools of Jewish esotericism arose at different periods of Jewish history, each reflecting not only prior forms of mysticism, but also the intellectual and cultural milieu of that historical period. Answers to questions of transmission, lineage, influence, and innovation vary greatly and cannot be easily summarised.

Where is the individual in this story who "preached a message?"

I am not saying that it is never the case that an individual preaching a message founds a religion. There are many examples of that as well: Scientology, possibly Islam (though I am doubtful about that), LDS. One thing that is common to these, at least the confirmed ones, is that there is an initial controlled message. Religions that evolve see diversity in thought and practice, and less control over message. Christianity follows the path of an evolved religion much more than a founded one (it seems to me).

Grog

We know from Paul's own writings that Christianity existed before Paul. Paul cannot be the individual to whom we can attribute the origins of Christianity, nor really "Christianity as we know it" considering the very considerable differences between the Christianity that Paul taught and the Christianity now practiced.

There is one important similarity: to Paul and to modern Christians, Jesus is a being who does not exist on Earth and communicates to his followers through revelation.

Duvduv

Grog, what do you mean "we know from Paul's own writings, etc." Since when do we know who wrote the epistles attributed to someone named Paul? And where is there evidence that the epistles were written when the Church states they were (i.e. in the first century or even 2nd century)? Where is the evidence that they were written by someone named Paul, and where is there evidence that there was "Christianity" before this alleged Paul's letters?