J-D

As between an account which says 'A bunch of ideas were floating around in the air, decided to combine and form a new religion, and floated into Ron Hubbard's head to get things started' and an account which says 'Ron Hubbard decided to found a new religion, and incorporated into it a bunch of ideas which had been floating around in the air', I much prefer the latter to the former and if you disagree I'd like to hear about it.

Tenorikuma

You have a good point, but I would say that we have no evidence of anything called Christianity existing before Paul's time or even during Paul's time. Paul does not really attest to an early form of Christianity, but to some kind of religious sect (perhaps a mix of Jews and God-fearers) to whom Paul had brought a new Gospel, one that included elements from sources like Mithraism (e.g. the Eucharist). I would tentatively propose that as the start of what later became known as Christianity.

A later Roman author we conveniently know as "Mark" took the basic Pauline theology of a Jewish Messiah who had only been recognized by Gentiles, and who had died and ascended to Heaven, and adapted it into a clever narrative form. The rest was history.

outhouse

Who says its good? He is not a scholar or anthropologist.

Are there any "real" scholars besides Price that don't claim him to be another untrained mythicist blogger, pushing a personal agenda without support?

outhouse

Not really true and a little out of context.

Paul tells us of the "good news" and that he is not the only teacher.


Since Christianity didn't exist in Pauls time, it would be hard for him to describe, even as a early form.

And that is exactly what it was, a religious sect breaking away from Judaism.


Paul did not bring a new gospel, he spread his version with other teachers of the "good news" and corrected houses he had set up in different cities, when he noticed a different "theological direction" then he thought was personally correct. its obvious he had disagreements and trouble in a few of these.

Paul was not unique, his writings were just collected where others were burned because he was lucky enough to match what would be the orthodox "popular" view.

Tenorikuma

I mostly agree with you, but it was clearly the Pauline version that won out. His theology (whoever "he" actually was) had key differences from that of, say, Cephas, who wanted to go farther in making the Greek sect members become Jews.

Ultimately, this is all conjecture. If any of the other Christian founders ever wrote anything down, their writings were lost or destroyed. Who knows what, say, Apollos or James preached, and how many followers they had. Mark doesn't seem to care much for the apostles, since he makes them out to be well-intentioned fools who never understood Jesus properly.

His writings didn't even particularly match the orthodox view. They were simply fortunate enough to be preserved by one of the largest pre-Christian sects. It's almost ironic that the Roman church had absolutely no authentic writings from any of their own apostles that survived, and so had to embrace what the Marcionites brought to the table.

Though almost entirely fictional, Acts gives a nice picture of the mindset of the Roman church by portraying Christianity as having transformed from a Jewish religion taught by Jewish apostles to a Greek, and finally a Roman, religion taught by Paul.

Toto

I think Rene Salm may be a registered user here, so please avoid this sort of personal scorn.

Salm is a devoted amateur who has spent time going through the archaeological record. He lists some real scholars here who think he has at least raise some questions. I don't see a personal agenda here that you can identify.

Salm was an author before he was a blogger, and is not exactly a mythicist, since he thinks that there might have been a real person behind the gospel Jesus.

If you want to attack his conclusions, please stick to the facts. What exactly did he get wrong?

aa5874

Your statement is that "Mark" took the basic Pauline theology of a Jewish Messiah" is completely unsubstantiated.

There was no known Jewish Messianic ruler in the 1st century. The theology in gMark is not related to the Pauline revelations at all.

In gMark, Jesus BOASTED in secret that he wanted the Populace to Remain in Sin by deliberately speaking in Parables and even demanded that his disciples tell NO-ONE he was Christ.

And further, Jesus did not even tell his own disciples he was Christ until Peter made the claim and the Populce did NOT recognize Jesus as Christ.

Mark 8 Even in the Bible, in the earliest story of Jesus, he was UNKNOWN as Christ by the Populace and was found to be guilty of death for Blasphemy when he claimed he was Christ and Son of God in the presence of the Sanhedrin.

The author of gMark knew NOTHING at all of the Pauline revealed Gospel that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind and did not know that without the resurrection there would be no salvation.

The Pauline revealed Gospel is the LAST Gospel in the Canon and was INVENTED sometime in the 2nd century or later.

Davka

Your statement that 'Your statement is that "Mark" took the basic Pauline theology of a Jewish Messiah" is completely unsubstantiated' is completely unsubstantiated.

Tenorikuma

This is completely concordant with Paul's Gospel. Christ only revealed himself to the blessed apostles after his death and ascension. Mark gives a narrative background explaining why no one figured out the Gospel until after Jesus' resurrection to Heaven and the visions received by the apostles.

You know very well this is an idiosyncratic view. Not necessarily wrong, but far outside the consensus of even radical scholars. It wouldn't kill you to tone down the shrill all-caps nature of your posts given how dubious some of your conclusions are. But I also know a tiger can't change his stripes.

aa5874

In the earliest version of gMark, the story ends at the Empty Tomb and there are no post-resurrection visits.

Perhaps you are NOT aware that earliest gMark ended at the Empty Tomb.

The short gMark fundamentally contradicts the Pauline Corpus.

You cannot tell me how to write or what I must tone down. I do not accept any advice.

I am dealing with the evidence from antiquity and highlighting them.

What kind of tiger are you??

Now, the author of short gMark claimed that when the visitors went to the Burial site of Jesus they found the Tomb Empty and someone told them that Jesus had risen and that they FLED in fear and told No-one that Jesus was resurrected.

It was the Pauline writers who FABRICATED additional "details" about post resurrection visits and revelations.

The Pauline writers supposedly went "ALL OVER" the Roman Empire telling people that Jesus was raised from the dead and that he and OVER 500 people were witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead.

No such thing is in the early short gMark.

In the Bible, The Pauline revelations began AFTER the resurrection and gMark ENDED on the Third Day of his death or early the Sunday morning.

The author of the short ending gMark did NOT NEED the Pauline writings for his story of Jesus up to the sunday morning when the visitors FLED from the Empty Tomb and Told NO-ONE Jesus resurrected.

It is most obvious and logical that stories of post-resurrection visits are most likely AFTER the short gMark.