Mythra

mountainman: great link on Appolonius. Thanks, man.

Fortuna

I also, have always been puzzled by the lack of any mention of Jesus by Philo, Josephus and Justus of Tiberias. (considering that the TF is a complete forgery, which seems likely. I remember reading in Whiston's translation that the TF was also , in some copy of Josephus, inserted into War as well as Antiquities).

Interestingly, Reverend Robert Taylor in his book "Diegesis" concluded that Christianity arose from the Essenes in the post-war period. This does not seem unreasonable. I've always wondered why that is not a possibility. Philo wrote at length about them, as did many other. As mentioned earlier, In Josephus's War, there is not a single mention of a Christian faction, nor any mention by Philo, nor by Justus, a Gallilean living in Gallilee and at the time of Jesus, makes not a single mention of him. I've always found this very strange.

Then, I've always wondered if there is a potential connection the the Yeshua ben Pandeira mentionedi n the Talmud Sannhedrin. Ben Pandeira supposedly dates to the first century BCE. But what is interesting is that Sannhedrin mentions that he was "stoned and hung up on the eve of passover".

I've read somewhere that there was a connection between Ben Pandeira and the Essenes, but I cannot verify that. And of course thre is the obvious similiarity of ben Pandeira's death to that of Jesus.

Perhaps the Jesus of the gospels is partly based on Ben Pandeira.(I've always suspected that the Jesus of the gospels was in fact an amalgammation of second temple period characters).

I suppose that my question would be, what evidence is there that rules out Taylor's assertion that the Christians were in fact the continuation of the Essenes, and that perhaps Paul was an Essene. Is it possible that Eusibius simply borrowed existing Essene literature and provenance and edited it to create Christianity, yet giving to it the provenance of the Essenes ?

Family Man

Yes, but not everyone with apocalyptic expectations or who were looking for the messiah were Christians. There's no evidence that Christians had developed a large following in the first century. And I have no disagreement with what Doug said.

mountainman

Glad you find it resourceful. Apollonius is the key figure
who was calumnified by the Constantinian literacists
in the fourth century, at which time christianity (described
by its first historian as the new and strange religion)
was thrust upon the empire.

Our theory is that there were no christians on the planet
before the supreme imperial mafia thug Constantine
invented them.



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

Mythra

It's an interesting theory that I haven't really come across before. I mean, of course I've heard of Constantine, and I've heard of Appolonius - but I've never seen it expounded so definitively that Appolonius was the whole inspiration for the Jesus stories. (nor that Christianity didn't really begin until the fourth century)..

I'm sure you get plenty of opposition to this idea. (from all sides)

I'm going to read those articles you posted, and I may have some questions for you later.

thanks again.

alienrodeoclown

christianity in a way started long before the "life" of jesus. in many ways jesus is a composite of older heros in religions and cultures around the area. many tales of jesus mirror that of hinduism's hare krishna. not only this but many of his teachings of jesus had allready been put forth by a liberal rabbi named Hillel earlier that century. so in a way there was no single formative point of the religion and it was being formed for a long time before jesus "came around". (i guess he [I]might[I] have lived :huh

Malachi151

I think that one has to acknowledge a few things to start out with here.

1) The term "Christians" or "Chrestians", etc. does not appear in any writing before the 1st century.

2) It does appear in 1st century writings.

To me the idea that "Christianity was invented by Constantine" is completely obsurd.

Clearly, the main important historical factor that influenced the origins of Christianity was the Jewish diaspora and mixing of Jewish culture with "Greco-Roman" culture.

Philo, certianly can be seen as a precursor to Christianity, or one of the roots of Christian theology.

As to what started the specific view of Jesus the Christ, a man who was killed by Pilate in Judea, I think that this was a rumor that started in places where there were many messianic Jews who were engeged in hostilities against the Roman Empire. It was a flashpoint to foment Jewish uprising.

From the simple claim that "They killed our messiah!" a whole set of stories was later constructed.

This is why we really see Christianity rise in Alexandria, Rome, Greece, etc. before we see it in Judea. It started far away from Judea where stories about Judea were impossible to personally verify.

Mythra

Name the writings. And then - we can talk about whether they are actually first century, or whether they are only perceived to be first century. Even the evidence for any of the gospels being written in the first century is highly debatable.

Seems like most scholars begin with the presupposition that Jesus was crucified around 30 C.E., then work backwards from there. If they were to date, say, the gospel of Mark to 50 B.C.E., they would be laughed out of academia.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'd like to see mountainman's support for the fourth century. He sounds pretty erudite to me in other posts I've read.

Malachi151

Well, the Tacitus quote for one. Technically its second century, since its from 109 I believe, but it claims that "Christians" were a known group in 64. Who these Christains were, what they believed, and how much they had in common with what we now call Christianity is debatable.

They did, apparently, believe that their "leader" was killed by Pilate.

There are also plenty of writings about Christianity from the early fathers of the church as well, including quotes from the 2nd and 3rd century from the gospels.

Actually, as far as I'm concenred, the closer the gospels are to 30 the more likely it is that Jesus is a myth, because it is indesputable as far as I'm concerned that the gospels are mythologies that are not based on any kind of eyewitness accounts or even secondary accounts.

So, the closer they are to 30, the worse the case looks for a historical Jesus IMO.

Solo

You can say that ; on the other hand, explain this to me: Paul made new contact with at least two communities when he was in bad shape (Gal 4:13, 1 Cor 2:1-5) "physically" showing symptoms of what today would be most likely classed as depressive psychosis, marked by dyskinesia and glossolalia. Yet coming to these people, complete strangers to him, non-compos mentis, they accept him, not for a freak or a self-declared idiot (for Christ), but as a teacher, a real deal, man who has the knowledge of God. And these are, on the whole, educated urbanites, worldly types, not superstitious village folk.

So what would you say, was he faking it ? And if he did, how did he figure, it would work,.....as PR ?

JS