Toto

The new religion did not make an imprint on archeology until late in the third century. It did not make an imprint on non-Christian literature until the beginning of the second century. New religions start all the time, based on imaginary gods or invented founders, (Ramtha anyone?) and the appearance of this new religion does not require someone like Jesus who died several generations before the religion to explain its existence.

J-D

Ramtha does not exist, but JZ Knight does. If you--or indeed anybody--can produce a coherent alternative explanation for the origin of Christianity--that is, complete sentences connected in a paragraph--I would be most interested. I've never heard one yet.

Oh yes, alternative to what? Alternative to this:

'During the time of Antipas and Pontius Pilate a small dedicated following gathered around a Jewish preacher. Despite internal doctrinal disputes, the movement continued to increase in size. This was the origin of the Christian Church.'

There's your standard for extent and detail of information required to meet the challenge.

Toto

"After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, a movement grew up among diaspora Jews in the Roman Empire, which was based on a creative reading of the Hebrew scriptures to find a Savior. This Savior was originally an embodiment of the Jewish nation, but in the second century, the movement spread to gentiles, and this Savior was historicized to be a person who was crucified under Pilate. As this new movement rejected the Jewish law, it was expelled as heretical by the rabbis, and named itself "Christianity." In the fourth century, the Emperor Constantine made Christianity an official religion, and Eusebius filled in the gaps in church history."

That's one possibility. Here's another:

"In the first century, a movement around a spiritual Savior for the Jewish people started as a branch of Judaism. Paul initially opposed it as heretical, but was converted during a temporal lobe episode and became its main proponent. He removed the necessity of following the Jewish law to make it palatable to god fearers and gentiles. After the destruction of the Temple, and after the Bar Kochba rebellion, this new sect became very popular, and the spiritual savior was historicized into an actual person, with a few minor edits to Paul's letters. The popular teachings of a Galilean sage were adopted by the new religion, although that sage was not crucified, left no disciples, and had no intention of starting a new religion."

I'm sure there are other variants. I don't see the problem in explaining the birth and growth of a new religion. It happens all the time, and the new religion's explanation of its origins is not necessarily true.

J-D

How does a movement 'grow up' without somebody starting it? How can a 'creative reading' exist without a 'creative reader'?Who was this Galilean sage? How were his teachings popular? How were they preserved and why were they adopted by this new movement if there was no other connection between them?I didn't say that the new religion's explanation was necessarily true. Christianity's explanation of its own origin is that Jesus was bringing a message from God, which is obviously not true. But although the emergence of new religions is a recurrent phenomenon (I'm not sure about 'all the time'), I know of no clearly substantiated case of a new religion emerging without a founder. If you say that the founder might have lived at a different time or in a different place from that attributed to Jesus, then you are positing a hypothetical individual for whose existence there is even less evidence than there is for Jesus, and I see no reason to prefer such a hypothesis.

spin

The parallel is forced and false. It has always been that way.

"Take away the literature and Jesus can be demonstrated."

Who minted the coins and called himself Alexander, just as Philip did before him, just as Philip Arridaeus did after him? Who was responsible for the cities that appeared at the time after Philip but before Philip Arridaeus, cities often called Alexandria? Who wrote the letter/inscription to the Chians as Alexander (SIG 3 283)? Etc.

Alexander is demonstrable. Show me something that must go back to a Jesus. (Can you show me that the Ebionite movement goes back to Ebion?)


spin

aa5874

There is no historical data to support your speculation. Achilles was a Greek hero for hundreds of years, was revered and even had a tomb, although there was no historical to support him or his deeds.

J-D

Of course the Ebionite movement doesn't go back to 'Ebion'. But the simplest explanation of it is that it does go back to somebody. Likewise, the simplest explanation of Christianity is that it goes back to somebody, and any suppositious version of that somebody who is not Jesus is even less attested by evidence than Jesus and even less plausible.

J-D

The historical data are the emergence of Christianity. If you have a better explanation of the data, go ahead and offer it.

spin

Agreed. But this adds nothing at all. Besides if there was no Ebion what makes you think there was a Jesus? (It's simply not good enough to say let's call the founder whoever he was Jesus.)

Doesn't it go back to the "vision" that Paul had on the road to Damascus? That's the earliest trace we have in the literature isn't it?


spin

J-D

Why not? What else should we call him? The simplest explanation of the stories later invented about Jesus is that they were invented about the founder of Christianity (it is not, however, the best explanation to say that they are true stories, for reasons which I hope I don't have to explain). I suppose it is possible that Jesus was not his original name, but what difference would that make?Obviously not. That story is found in the text of Acts, but in the account in Acts there were Christians already before that point. What reason could there be for accepting the account of Paul's vision in Acts but rejecting everything in it before that point?