aa5874

But, some mythicist do NOT accept the Pauline letters as early so that must also be highlighted.

We cannot allow only erroneous and unsubstantiated claims to be entered in Wiki.

It is most amazing that ApostateAbe who does NOT support the MJ argument is the one who is making claims about the MJ argument that may be completely bias.

I am totally convinced that ApostateAbe is on a massive propaganda drive against the MJ position..

Sheshbazzar

It appears to me that Acts was composed first, with Peter as the foremost spokesperson for the new faith (understanding that 'Peter' here is not an individual but the voice of a faction of a theological movement.)
The latter 'Paulinians' that took over control of the church, and hence the texts, were easily able to introduce the changes that elevated 'Paul' (themselves) while demeaning and shoving 'Peter' (the others 'Judaizers') into obscurity.

I would expect that this took place over a period of time and that some who read the material would have noticed the takeover, but then again most christians of that time were from the lower classes of society and illiterate, knowing only what they were told.
And those that were wealthy and educated would know 'which way the wind was blowing' and certainly be of the stronger emerging 'Pauliniast' persuasion, that eventually thought the best way to deal with these 'Petrine' christian 'Judaisers' was to ostracize them, see that they were stripped of their property, and their rights as citizens, and finally to have them rounded up and executed for continuing their heretical 'Judaizing' religious practices.
Which brings us up to the times and organized religious pogroms of The Holy Roman Empire.

Duvduv

Shesh, this suggestion about Acts would require a content analysis to determine whether the narratives of Peter and Paul are segmentated, providing clues of tampering or alteration to integrate Paul into an earlier Peter narrative.
Plus we must wonder why the author of Galatians didn't try to conform to the new Acts, especially since the epistles are always a set.

Sheshbazzar

One thing is certain, early on the Jerusalem 'christianity' of 'Peter' was Jewish in nature, observant of the Jewish Sabbath and Feast Days, and free to continue the practice of circumcision, and to abstain from foods proscribed by Jewish Scripture as their individual conscience dictated.
With the rise of 'Paulinianism' and the anti-Jewish propaganda that is presented within the 'Pauline' epistles, the 'Petrine' faction first became demeaned and demoted, then stigmatized, then ostracized, then persecuted, and finally ruthlessly hunted down and executed wholesale for the 'heresy' of continuing to engage in formerly acceptable 'Jewish' religious practices.

aa5874

I like your analogies of Acts.

"Paul" first persecuted those who followed the teachings of "Peter".

Later "Paul" started to preach the teachings of "Peter".

Peter represents the early theology--the early Jesus cult.

Now, who was "PAUL".

"PAUL" represents the Roman Empire.

In Acts--Paul was a Roman citizen.

Acts 22:27 KJV From supposed 2nd century writings there was persecution of Christians by the Romans and the very Romans did accept the very Jesus story some time later in the 4th century under Constantine.

Constantine the Rman Emperor also SAW a light at Midday like "PAUL" the Roman.

Paul may very well be Constantine.

Life of Constantine 1.28Acts of the Apostles 26

ApostateAbe

In the book of Acts, Peter changes his mind and comes to Paul's position. Would that account not be the more effective method of church propaganda against the Judaizers?

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles is NOT history.

In Acts, the disciples were in convseration with the Resurrected Myth Jesus before he ascended.

And later, after the ascension, according to the author of Acts, some kind of a Ghost gave the disciples the Power to preach about the Good News of the Resurrection on the day of Pentecost when they began to speak fluently in foreign languages.

Even the supposed conversion of Saul/Paul is utter fiction.

Please, ApostateAbe, you very well know the Myth Fable called Acts and that there is ZERO evidence that it was even written in 1st century.

Up to the end of the 4th century, John Chrysostom claimed very little was known of Acts of the Apostles and its author.

Up to the end of the 4th century, based on Chrysostom, Acts of the Apostles could NOT have been Canonised for hundreds of years.

Homily on Acts

proudfootz

Far better would be a wiki devoted to a survey of all kinds of claims about christian origins. Any given claim - like dating a particular text - is not necessarily 'mythicist' or 'historicist'. It is simply a claim that is either true or false.

I quite agree - a wiki devoted to the 'errors of mythicists' by someone hostile to mythicism will likely be as useful as a wiki devoted to 'judaism' by someone hostile to it.

ApostateAbe

Maybe so, but I am inspired by TalkOrigins.org's Index to Creationist Claims, which I have found exceptionally useful. TalkOrigins.org likewise has an activist bent, which has its problems, but I think some types of activism are useful and necessary.

Duvduv

We discussed this a few months ago, and I asked how it is possible that this book was unknown but its alleged associated text of GLuke was known, as is the usual claim about Acts and GLuke.