Toto

Was Christianity "founded" in a big bang, or did it evolve?

ApostateAbe

I think Christianity, the LDS church and the universe all were both founded and evolved.

gurugeorge

I think there was a small bang roundabout 41 CE when Caligula was assassinated before being able to either set up his idol in the Temple (which I think must be the "Abomination of Desolation" of the original Jewish text that Revelations is hypothetically based on according to some scholars, IIRC) or destroying it, as he'd threatened to do. IOW, the kernel origins of Christianity are in a short period of Jewish optimism, and then it evolved.

The small bang was the surmise by one particular group of Messianists, that the foiling of Caligula's dastardly intentions (by God, as even Josephus avers) presaged the dawning of a New Age that had been founded because, contrary to expectations, the Messiah had already been and done his work sub rosa. i.e. they were Messianists who thought they had discovered (from the Caligula events, from scripture poring and from their own visionary experiences) that they'd been wrong in expecting the Messiah to come, everyone had missed Him and the victory was already won, and just needed a bit of time for its fruits to work their way through the world.

"Paul" was someone either vaguely connected with this lot, or who'd heard of them and their idea, who had his own vision of this past Messiah. His version of Christianity was cosmopolitan and proto-Gnostic (i.e. he universalized the already-come Messiah of the odd Messianists mentioned above, and made of Him a personal saviour for every man).

There's another small leap in the evolution after 70 CE (and probably again after 134 CE). The story of that Messiah had haphazardly backfilled in a folk fashion (amongst what at this time must have been a very small group of religious fanatics) and accrued more detail as time went on, and eventually (after 70CE) was strongly historicized to a suitable time before the original variant Messianists and Paul

i.e., the original Messianists were made out to have been personal disciples of the Messiah while he sojourned on Earth. That creative licence or bit of error (and later, convenience) is the key to the whole illusion of historicity.

But instead of retaining the sub rosa quality of his advent, naturally the later stories couldn't resist pumping him up. This explained the disaster of 70 CE - it's because "they" didn't listen to Him. By that time, and with the Diaspora, the original optimistic vision that birthed the idea had long been forgotten (except in terms of the personal salvation idea).

ApostateAbe

So, gurugeorge, unless you think Joseph Smith likewise spun the pre-existing Mormon religion in his own direction, then I don't think you should be proposing that Joseph Smith is a better analogy to Paul than to Jesus, even though Jesus was venerated as God and Smith was venerated merely as a prophet and founder.

dog-on

Of course, Smith actually spun the pre existing Christian religion.

aa5874

There is ABSOLUTELY no need for all these convolutions about "Paul". The Pauline story is either fundamentally historical or not.

So far, the Pauline story as PRESENTED in Acts of the Apostles and in the Pauline writings cannot be CORROBORATED and at times NOT even internally.

There is NO need to IMAGINE some ad-hoc explanation for "Paul" when no EXTERNAL source will CORROBORATE what you have IMAGINED.

Just simply READ the stories in Acts and the Pauline writings and then LOOK externally in Jewish and Roman writings for anything Pauline.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Pauline or influence by "Paul" in the writings of Jewish or Roman writers.

"Paul" a supposed Pharisee made some very SIGNIFICANT claims about Jesus that would have made the Pauline Jesus EXTREMELY easy to locate.

1. Jesus was CHRIST.

2. Jesus Christ was God's Own Son.

3. Jesus Christ was the END of the Law.

4. Jesus Christ could REMIT the Sins of all Mankind by his Resurrection.

5. Jesus Christ was the END of the LAW.

6. Jesus Christ had a Name ABOVE every name in the Roman Empire, even above the DEIFIED EMPERORS.

7. Every KNEE should BOW before the name of Jesus, even the DEIFIED EMPERORS of Rome.

Now, "Paul" supposedly PREACHED those things ALL OVER the Roman Empire for OVER 20 years yet we have ABSOLUTE SILENCE from Philo and Josephus, a Pharisee.

"Paul" as a Pharisee should have CAUSED SHOCK WAVES in the Roman Empire if he PREACHED that a dead Jewish Man was LORD of ALL in the Roman Empire and even DOCUMENTED and CIRCULATED his letters.

It is CLEAR the Pauline story is most likely a HOAX since there is simply NO evidence that the Pauline Jesus or "Paul" was known at all BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Philo and Josephus wrote about Mad Men like Carabbas and Jesus son of Ananus and completely MISSED the Pauline Jesus and "Paul" the Pharisee who supposedly DOCUMENTED, and CIRCULATED his TEACHINGS, PREACHED and STARTED Churches ALL OVER the Roman Empire for OVER 20 years.

And when the Gospels were written NO author used a single DETAIL from the Pauline Gospel in their story.

The author of the Short-Ending of gMark seemed UNAWARE that OVER 500 people at once SAW the resurrected Jesus. The author of gMark apparently did NOT attend any Pauline churches.

Mark 16 Not one author of the NT Gospels claimed OVER 500 people at ONCE saw Jesus after he was RAISED from the dead.

ApostateAbe

Yes, much like Jesus reputedly spun the pre-existing Jewish religion.

dog-on

Actually, it was Paul that spun the Jewish religion, based on the actual evidence. The Jesus picture is a bit contradictory in this particular regard.

aa5874

Your claim is blatantly erroneous and based on "Chinese Whispers" or PROPAGANDA.

We can look at the Jesus stories themselves and see that Jesus claimed he came to FULFILL the LAW.

Mt 5:18 - Your PROPAGANDA or "Chinese Whispers" has been EXPOSED again.

gurugeorge

Of course he's a good analogy - "Paul" had a visionary Jesus, Smith had a visionary angel. "Paul" developed or riffed off of something that came before him, Smith developed or riffed off of something that came before him.

In all this you are quite right to stress that religions often start with religious founders - but they don't always start with eponymous founders.

Christianity is no exception: it looked like an exception for a long time, the traditional view is that it was an exception, that the entity worshipped actually started the religion - but we can now see that there's no real support for that in the internal or external evidence.