J-D

Since the question posed for this thread is 'How did Christianity begin?' and not 'How did the text of the Christian Scriptures take form?', discussion of scribal practice is irrelevant.

Littlejohn

More than smart people, I think, the Dutch certainly have a liberal tradition of the oldest in Europe, and there is no doubt that only in a liberal contest research can flourish healthy, free from constraints and censorship, as unfortunately happens in my Italy ..

« It is the first time I have heard anyone claiming that Paul was the founder of Catholicism...»

In the confessional environment (and I think not only Italian) is what is left to believe: here because I felt the need to make such a specification ...


Greetings


Littlejhon
.

J-D

Scientists and historians do indeed systematically compare the explanatory power of different hypotheses.

You never do. Instead, you operate a methodological double standard, as I have explained in earlier discussions.

aa5874

We must use the extant text available to make any determination on the origin of Christianity.

How those texts were TRANSMITTED MUST be of utmost importance.

Scribal practise of antiquity cannot be irrelevant at all.

The authenticity and reliability of extant texts are directly dependent upon the manner of transmission.

J-D

So what's your answer to the question then?

Iskander

Thank you for the information about Paul and the Catholic Church. I am not a catholic and I know very little about them and , because of my ignorance , I couldn’t understand you.


The Dutch critics seem to have got the “catholic clergy” to admit to something, but in the absence of any specific details I felt I could only acknowledge your statement. If you can provide details on this I would welcome the information.


Italy is also a land of very clever people, think of the the Italian Renaissance.

Chili

I voted for the people listening to Jesus but walking away from him in John 6:66 where Jesus said "'this' is my body and 'this' is my blood." This division is were Christians today can claim apostolic traditon to what Catholics call the anathema side of the Church where they consciously are followers of Jesus and self proclaimed jesuits (small j) instead 'called and chosen' to be a Jesuit with a captial J, much in the same way as Jesus was a Nazarite by nature instead of a nazarite by choice.

The difference between these two is that they so are followers of James who was said to be the brother of Jesus who went back to Galilee for more purification until he died nonetheless . . . as did those before him in John 6:58.

The difference between these two is that 'bread from heaven' is first hand from God that so will sustian and is not second hand from Moses or from bible passages (John 5:39-40) that will not sustain.

Bottom line: if you ever see a person carry a bible in his right hand you already know he is an imposter in 'the second go around' of his life and is doomed to die.

The 'second go around' here is to recognize that they are born again and so have an ultimate desitiny in mind, which now makes the job of the inquisitor very easy.

mountainman

Well then its easy to see that your poll was not designed with scientists and historians in mind. Speaking of methodological bankruptcy, what is it precisely that you expect to learn from this poll?

Chili

I would take this one step further and call John the Catholic Gospel where Luke is put in motion.

Notice, though, that the Jesus of Matthew and Mark does not end up in heaven but back to Galilee he goes (probably with a bible in his right hand) instead of Rome where the new Utopia is at with Peter being the true faith (Elysium) that is occupiec by Paul as first Elisee there.

. . . it really has nothing to do with the Dutch or with being Dutch but it is true that only in the fringe is where the wolf nurses the lamb. Please don't forget that we have the Dutch masters dating back to those days that will always be a tribute to the Church Catholic.

aa5874

Which question?

In any event, we have enough evidence that the origin of the word "Christian" was derived from the Greek word to "anoint with oil". We also have evidence that the word "Messiah" was translated to Greek as "Christ".

We have sufficient evidence that in Hebrew Scripture that Jewish people were said to be "anointed with oil" ( Christ) and that the Jews expected a Messiah (Christ).

Now, in the NT the Jewish followers of the supposed Jesus a Jew were called Christians because Jesus the Jew was deemed to be the expected Christ so it can therefore be deduced that Jews were the first to be called Christians and long before the Jesus story was written.

And incidentally the term "Messianic Jew" when transliterated means "Christian Jew".

Christianity or belief in the expected Christ, not Jesus belief, originated with the Jews long before the 1st century fiction characters in the NT called Jesus and the unknown multiplicity of "Pauls".