Toto

I think you left out the word no - "no need to postulate."

Of course, someone historical started the movements. Mormonism was started by Joseph Smith, not by the Angel Moroni.

This is not true. Please retract.

Some mythicists postulate that Christianity started in the first half of the first century; some that it started after the Jewish War of 70 CE. There is some evidence of Christianity by the end of the first century that seems more reliable than much. But there is no dogma involved.

mountainman

See this earlier thread - The Growth Rate of Early Christianity

The data from Stark is cited as follows:


Also see the Book Review: Stark, The Rise of Christianity - by Michael Turton

These figures are very conjectural.

arnoldo

Right.
And Christianity was started by Christ, not a phantasm.

Alright, I suppose most of the mythicist that post on this forum appear to support that christianty began in the second century if not later. Would you kindly list some mythicists who postulate Christianity began in the first century?

Toto

Almost every mythicist thinks that Christianity started sometime in the first century, except for mountainman, who is still holding out for the fourth.

avi

Where's the evidence?
the "Church" at Dura-Europos which dates from the THIRD century, is the supposed oldest known Christian church.

Papyrus 45, the oldest extant copy of Mark, represents another supposed third century invention.

Where's the evidence of a first or second century church? What, you will invoke the patristic evidence????

Holy Cow.

Is there extant a first or second century "patristic" document, thought to have NOT been forged? To the best of my knowledge, the authenticity of every one of the oldest extant manuscripts has been challenged. In many cases, the "patristic" evidence arises not from any manuscript, but rather, from citations of known forgers.

The evidence points to forgery, much of it, originating in early fourth century, and thereafter, of course.

Helen, Constantine's mother, "found" the wooden cross upon which Jesus was supposed to have been crucified, three hundred years earlier. (What happens to untreated wood, in a dark, humid, hot environment?) How many other objects, texts, and concepts of Christianity arose under Constantine's early fourth century rule? Mountainman's hypothesis may not be sustained by all the evidence, but when compared with the notion of a first century origin for Christianity, his idea seems prescient to me. Are any of the first, second, and third century Roman historian's accounts of the persecutions of Christians, free from the taint of forgery?

Mormonism, itself, is of course, a complete farce. It is utterly absurd. That one can observe the phenomenon of its spread is useful in gauging the threat of terrorism, but not for much else. It shares with Islam, introduction of elements of Judaism and Christianity, heavily modified by indigenous practices and traditions. For Mormonism, the most significant modification of the ancient, orthodox, Christian tradition is the almighty profit motive!!! Mormons make the Catholics appear as mere alms seekers, by comparison.

avi

show_no_mercy

The Jewish Council of Jamnia c. 90 CE supposedly records a prayer against "heretics" assumed to be Christians. This is also said to be around the time that Jews prohibited Christians from worshipping in synagoges (which is one of the markers for when John was written).

Johnny Skeptic

I am neutral regarding HJ/MJ debates, but if Jesus did not perform miracles, it would not be surprising if Christianity was very small and obscure during the first century since people who lived in Palestine would have been aware that he did not perform miracles. I refer you to a past thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=270530 that is titled "Maybe the historical Jesus really did do miracles." Please visit that thread, read my posts, and make a post. If you make posts in that thread, please include whatever first century, non-biblical evidence you have that Jesus performed miracles.

arnoldo

Even if Christ did not peform a single miracle it doesn't follow that a HJ did not exist in Israel during the first century. It also doesn't follow if Christ in fact performed miracles that the demographics of early christians would've been any different. For example, why wouldn't Jews in the first century reject miracles by simply attributing them to demonic forces or simply claiming that the witnesses to these miracles were inebriated/hallucinating?

driver8

There may be other parallels.

Joseph Smith claimed he received a revelation from two figures, one of whom was Jesus. He claimed he was visited by spirits who he saw as he was walking through the woods in New York state. He also claimed a number of prophetic visions attributed to Jesus.

Efforts at substantiating his claims are fraught with problems. While he obtained corroboration from a number of family members and close associates, he also was refuted by some of these and was forced at one point to re-translate his work to his scribe. His golden plates were "returned to sender."

His story takes place in a location (an uncertain location in South or Central America) far removed from where it was written and where the religion started to grow.

mountainman

But none of this necessitates these "Jewish heretics" as being part of the "tribe of christians". We know there were many Jewish sects who excluded other sects, from the DSS for example. The "evidence" tendered by apologists and infidels alike in the first three hundred and twenty four years, to substantiate Eusebius' "historical literature of the tribe of christians" is emminently tenditious and -- more to the point -- there is not one single unambiguous citation to support these [IMO forged] Eusebian claims.