Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 04-01-2011, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....There is NO story of antiquity that "Paul" started Christianity not even from "Paul".

So how did Christianity start?

Chaucer

Well, I have a theory based on the evidence of antiquity.

My theory is that the Jesus story was written or began to circulate sometime AFTER the Fall of the Temple and AFTER the writings of Josephus or sometime at the end of the 1st century or early 2nd century.

Josephus in his Autobiography contains a story where THREE were CRUCIFIED and ONE Survived and the Gospels contain a story where THREE were Crucified and ONE eventually survived.

The ENTIRE NT CANON, including the Pauline writings, are IN RESPONSE to the FALL of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

The JEWISH TEMPLE must have already fallen for the Pauline writings to have EFFECT.

"Paul" claimed Jesus Christ was the END of the Law but such a claim would be MEANINGLESS or plain IDIOTIC while the Jewish Temple was still standing.

Further, virtually ALL disputes about Jesus Christ occurred around the middle of the 2nd century which tend to indicate that the Jesus story was UNKNOWN or hardly known at that time. It was in the late 2nd century or early third century that Tertullian ATTEMPTED to RESOLVE the question of the Flesh of Christ.

The mere fact that Justin Martyr had to explain virtually every single detail about Jesus and the Jesus movement to the Roman Emperor and Senate is an indication that the Roman Emperor and Senate KNEW very little about the Jesus movement.

And even before Justin Martyr, in a letter that may even be a forgery, Pliny the Younger did NOT even appear to know what so-called Christians BELIEVED and had to TORTURE a few to find out.

My theory is that The Jesus Movement started AFTER the "MEMOIRS of the Apostles"( as found in the writings of Justin Martyr) were written and circulated with the PREMISE that it was written by the Apostles of Jesus.

I think you are very close to the truth here, except I'm not totally convinced about the late Paul yet, in which case my theory would (as you know) simply substitute "orthodox Christianity" for your plain "Christianity", and have that be a post-Diaspora development of an earlier movement that didn't look anything like orthodoxy as we know it (more New Agey, small mystical/occult groups, whose becoming-gnostic descendants flip around to being called "heresies" in the later orthodox view).

But I think you're right on the money with Justin Martyr being the first text where we can see this type of Christianity (whether it was the whole thing as in your view, or a post-Diaspora branch of something already existing as in mine) in action - it seems indubitable that "memoirs" are what later become "gospels".

aa5874 · 04-01-2011, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi aa5874,

If Eusebius is not to be considered as a competent chronographer, then of course one of the fall back options will be an exploration of the possibility that "Eusebius" was the author of bogus chronographies and "mockumentaries", such as those evident in other 4th century comparanda, such as that mysterious historiological manuscript known as "Historia Augusta. And when I say "Eusebius" I also refer to the continuators and preservers of "Eusebius" from the later 4th and 5th centuries of the common era.......

But, once you READ and EXAMINE "CHURCH HISTORY" attributed to Eusebius you will REALIZE that Eusebius did NOT write or INVENT the original MYTH fables about Jesus called Christ.

The MYTH FABLES about Jesus called Christ PREDATED the 4th century and "Church History" is a BOGUS chronology of the MYTH fables of Jesus that was BELIEVED to have actually occurred and of the MYTH characters called Apostles, including Peter, James the Lord's brother and "Paul".

Now, there were people called Christians BEFORE the 4th century but it would appear that those Christians were NOT aware of Acts of the Apostles, the PAULINE writings and Gospels called according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which are all part of the BOGUS chronology and history of Eusebius.

The history of the Church is RATHER EASY to DECIPHER once "Church History" is PROPERLY EXAMINED.

aa5874 · 04-01-2011, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

...I think you are very close to the truth here, except I'm not totally convinced about the late Paul yet........

Well, I am trying to be CLOSE to the EVIDENCE from antiquity.

What is the truth?

I ONLY know what is found WRITTEN or what I have FOUND.

Now, this is what is written or that I have found in the NT Canon.

1."PAUL" did NOT CLAIM he was the FIRST to preach the FAITH.

2. "PAUL" CLAIMED he was the LAST to SEE the Resurrected Jesus.

3. "PAUL" claimed he PERSECUTED the FAITH and WASTED IT.

4. "PAUL" claimed that he MET with those who SEEMED to be PILLARS of the Church.

5. "Paul" CLAIMED that those who PREACH any other Gospel than what "WE" Preach must be ACCURSED.

The evidence from "Paul" is that he was LATE, a PERSECUTOR of the Faith, and was LAST to SEE the resurrected Jesus and that his Gospel should NOT be changed.

"PAUL" appears to COMPLETELY KNOW and UNDERSTAND the Gospel story more than the authors of the Synoptics.

"PAUL" KNOWS the PRECISE REASON for the RESURRECTION.

In the Synoptics, NOT even Jesus KNEW that there can be NO REDEMPTION of Sin and NO FAITH WITHOUT the resurrection.

Examine 1Co 15:17 -

Quote:

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

If "PAUL" was EARLY and STARTED Churches ALL over the Roman Empire BEFORE the Jesus story was WRITTEN then it would be EXPECTED that the Jesus story writers would have KNOWN the PRECISE REASON for the RESURRECTION.

They did NOT KNOW.

Mr 9:31 -

Quote:

For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

In the Synoptics Jesus did not teach his disciples the REASON for the RESURRECTION.

But, even more REMARKABLE, from the early 2nd century and up to the END of the 3rd century we can FIND Christian writers who did NOT know the PRECISE REASON for the RESURRECTION.

Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, and Arnobius did NOT even KNOW that WITHOUT the Resurrection there would be NO GOSPEL.

"PAUL" made the RESURRECTION the FOUNDATION of the Christian FAITH, the RESURRECTION was the Gospel, the GOOD NEWS.

There is EVIDENCE that The PAULINE GOSPEL was UNKNOWN.

The DATA exists to SUPPORT a VERY LATE "PAUL".

That is the TRUTH.

"First Apology" XXXIX

Quote:

For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking..............proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God....

Jaybees · 04-01-2011, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Let's put Paul in perspective. If it weren't for his legitimizing the conversion of gentiles, the Xtianity of his day would have converted a few more Jews and soon died out--the way the Essenes did.

You can call that founding a new religion or not, but he was responsible for Xtianity as we know it today.

I might agree with that except for one critical question. What if the "Epistles of Paul to the Gentiles" were historically authored in the 4th century, along with the "Epistles of Paul to Seneca"?

Whoops! I didn't mean to imply that there was someone actually named Paul, who wrote under that name. But there was someone who called himself Paul who wrote under that name. He might even have been a committee. But, whatever, that source is far more important for the founding and/or continued existence of Xtianity than anything that may have happened a generation earlier.

Jaybees · 04-01-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

...I think you are very close to the truth here, except I'm not totally convinced about the late Paul yet........

Well, I am trying to be CLOSE to the EVIDENCE from antiquity.

What is the truth?

I ONLY know what is found WRITTEN or what I have FOUND.

And those are copies, of copies, of copies, etc. How can you be so certain that your evidence is accurate.

I don't hesitate to speculate about early Xtianity, but I at least acknowledge that it is just that--speculation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.