Julian

RUmike gave a somewhat speculative account. The simple explanation is that Matthew says that Jesus was born under Herod who died in 4BCE whereas Luke says that he was born during the census of Quirinius which happened in 6CE, a ten year discrepancy as RUmike noted.

Julian

Codec

Thanks to both of you for the clarification.

Chunk

Thanks. Im learning a lot.

So what is the mainstream explanation for us having Christianity then. By non Christians I mean.

I appreciate that there are numerous theories, but surely one is the most widely accepted.

Its a bad example, but im sure there are a number of explanations for the extinction of the Dinosaurs, yet one must be the most widely accepted.

What is the parallel in terms of Christianity?

Also, if it is thought that Mark was responsible for combining a tradition about Jesus and the teachings that Paul was writing about. Is it not entirely possible that both are to do with Jesus. Could Mark not just have been the first person (we know of) that wrote about the life of Jesus AND included details on what he taught as well as what he did?

Doug Shaver

That would probably be some version of what I call the charismatic rabbi scenario. According to that one, Jesus of Nazareth was a teacher who through the force of his personality attracted a group of disciples who were extremely devoted to him. He then did something, or said something, that alarmed the authorities, and this led to Pilate's executing him. Soon afterward, some of his disciples somehow became convinced that he was in some way still alive, or alive again, and they formed a Jewish cult based on his teachings as they remembered them.

Within a few years the stories handed down about Jesus picked up all manner of elaborations, legends, exaggerations, distortions, and what-have-you until the cult's members got it into their heads that he was the son of God and savior of the world. At that point, Paul came along and started carrying the message to gentiles -- and none too soon because once they started claiming that Jesus was God, they wouldn't be getting many new Jewish members.

Chunk

Really? Thats the most widely accepted explanation for why we have Christianity today? It immediately seems to have a number of flaws.

(Im not Christian, im just trying to look at it from both sides and make my own mind up).

Ok, perfectly likely.

Isnt it widely accepted that Crucifixtion was only used for the worst criminals? Surely he must have done something pretty bad. Still, perfectly likely though.

Ok. This one is harder to swallow. How do you suddenly come to the conclusion that someone is alive after death? People will believe anything though, I guess, so this is possible.

Wow, thats quite some ellaboration, in a very small amount of time. Paul shows us that the idea of Jesus as Christ is established by the time 1 Corinthians is written. This is dated by the majority around 50s. That gives two decades for the myth to develop.

Paul also says he recieved the message about Christ from the apostles 3 years after his conversion. That puts it within a few years of Jesus' death, giving no time at all for a myth to develop.

Paul also claims to have been converted, spent 3 years before visiting the apostles, then 14 years later claims he went back to the apostles all before he wrote Galations, which is dated by most as 50-60.

Thats three ways of looking at it, which show there was very little time for such a myth to develop.

My point above about how early Paul claims the idea about Christ was taught to him suggests that the idea of origin in a Jewish cult is unlikely.

For any Jew to be converted to following Christ, surely there must have been good reason.

triffidfood

Such as, perhaps, the complete collapse of your society & destruction of the central pillars of your faith ~ the Jerusalem Temple itself, for instance; or the completely futile, wasted, decades spent waiitng for the (bloody) coming of the Kingdom of God & end of Roman 'oppression'?

If you were Jewish (mainsream Jewish, since some jews ~ the Essenes for example ~ had apparently already seperated themselves off from Temple Judaism some time before the Revolt).. if you were Jewish and had survived the catastrophy of the failed 'Jewish War' .. what next? What exactly was there left to believe in?

You could embrace the reformed 'rabbinical' version of Judaism established in the wake of the Jewish revolt, by the Pharisees (I think?) .. but this entailed following endless daily rules & rituals (over 800 a day, I think I read somewhere), in a desperate attempt to appease the 'God' who had so obviously, completely & utterly turned his back on the Jews.

Or you could abandon what remained of your faith (and your culture) completely, and adopt the gods of the Roman world, which also entailed accepting the authority of the Roman Empire, the same empire with which the Jews had come to such a bloody, hideous crunch point.

Or... what? Christianity (or rather, the myriad of 'Jesus' & 'Christ' cults) which sprung up in the secnd half of the first century (AD) were, I feel, a response to all this, to the effective destruction of a faith, and of all the social & political structures which had supported it (plus of course, more importantly, the deaths of well over a million people, many of them slaughtered by the Jews).

In other words, 'Christianity' arose out of a particular set of circumstances & a particular historcial/ social/ political situation.. just like every other religion or belief system (religious, political, whatever) since the year zero.

Well those are my feelings about this anyway...

Anat

Chunk, consider how fast urban legends form and spread nowadays. Or conspiracy theories.

RUmike

It would have been MUCH easier to provoke authorities in the period leading up to Passover, when tons of pilgrims came to Jerusalem. There was always a lot of potential for riot with such numbers of people around, and the Romans would not have hesitated to crucify a troublemaker to set an example.

Given a historical Jesus, there is basically no way to explain Christianity without admitting that some of his followers were convinced he was somehow still with them after he died.

Actually, Paul basically states that he received nothing from the apostles. Everything he knew was from a revelation from the risen Lord (or so he claims).

Amaleq13

Psychologically speaking, it really only requires extreme devotion to the deceased but feeling guilty for abandoning of failing him certainly doesn't hurt.

You might also ask how one could continue to defend a loved one accused of a horrible crime despite overwhelming physical evidence but it still happens all the time.

Didymus

The earliest archeological evidence of Christianity in Judea is the newly discovered church at Meggido. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4411286.stm That's not exactly Jerusalem, and it seems to be of Byzantine rather Judean origin, and it's dated to the mid-third-century. But it's the best they've got.

I gotta wonder whether the earliest Christian demographic consisted soley of DIASPORA Jews and Gentiles. I know that's contrary to a lot of suppositions, but outside of the NT and the very late material you've cited, there's virtually no evidence for early Christianity in Jerusalem.

It makes perfect sense, of course, that an institution that wants to claim Judaism as a parent would place its foundational events in Jerusalem.

Didymus