Chunk

Its very difficult to find information on very Early Christianity and the reliability of Acts of the Apostles.

I read this, which seems to give some credibility to acts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles

Is it simply the case that we dont have anything old enough to give us a good idea of what actually happened after Jesus dieing and early Christianity developing?

Similarly, I read a lot on here that the lack of non Gospel references to Jesus from the first century, goes to show he didnt exist or at least didnt do the things claimed in the gospels. Here is a quote from the newly found answeringinfidels.com

Exactly how much in the way of literature (as a whole) do we have from that time period?

Thanks.

RUmike

It's my opinion that Acts could not possibly have been written by a close companion of Paul (i.e. Luke) and certainly cannot be taken as gospel historically speaking. The author portrays Paul as obediently accepting Torah restrictions on Gentile converts and attempting to win over the Jerusalem apostles. But Paul's letters paint a completely different picture. The explanation is that Acts was written much later, and the battles over Torah obedience had already been decided, so the author wanted to smooth over the debate to his liking. There is also the problem of Paul's message. In Acts, Paul never speaks of justification by faith or any of the doctrines put forth in his letters, nor of the Parousia. How can anyone even for a second think this guy actually knew Paul?

Ecrasez L'infame

Acts - historically useless, esp the first half. OK, there might be some useful stuff once the we-document kicks in, but since we don't know where, we might as well not have it at all.

Regards

Robert

Toto

We have documents that are old enough, but they don't mention Christianity. Either Christianity was too insignificant or "under the radar" to make an impression, or Christianity only developed in the late 1st-early 2nd century, and those Christians composed a history for themselves, with an invented savior and other important figures who either never existed or were borrowed from Judaism. You can take your pick of explanations.
Why 17, and why within 150 years of his life? I don't think there are 17 writers who referred to Jesus unless you include several pagan references to Christians made in the second century, where any reference to Christ is obviously repeating what the Christians believe, plus each separate NT author.

Sorry I don't have time to rehash this question. Start here with Remsberg's classic list: Silence of Contemporary Writers. I think that some of the posters here or on the JM list have refined this list.

Iasion

Greetings,

Greetings,

I have tried to improve his list here :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...lyWriters.html

The claim of 17 opposing writers is not correct.


Iasion

Chunk

What do we actually know about the history of the first Christians, after the time when Jesus was said to have died? And what is this knowledge based on.

Im having trouble finding things to read about this.

Is it a simple case of having Acts and thats all?

People often talk about Christianity being divided into "Christ mystery cults" in the time shortly after the supposed death of Jesus. Where does this idea come from and what is it based on?

Thanks.

Julian

Part of it certainly comes from here:

1 Corinthians
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

and here:

1 Corinthians
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

Julian

Amaleq13

Pretty much. We've also got Pliny, Tacitus, and Josephus depending on whether you consider them genuine but, as Crossan notes, the latter two just provide a bare bones description of 1) a religious movement 2) execution of the namesake of the movement 3) continuation of the movement despite the execution and 4) expansion of the movement with new recruits. Pliny provides some interesting details about the Christians he knew including meeting on a "certain fixed day" and singing hymns to Christ "as to a god", pledging an oath not to do "wicked deeds" and a common meal practice.