Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 06-24-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

What date would be attributed to the life of Jesus and the origin of Christianity if there were not the four Gospels or referances to Pilate etc.

It depends on whether your hypothesis is that the gospels had never been written or that no copies of them had been preserved.

If they had never been written, then Christianity as we know it would never have come into existence. But the religion that would have existed in its stead (assuming it had survived this long) would still be datable to the first century.

If there were no extant copies of them, then references to them from the second century and afterward would be sufficient to let us reconstruct most of their content.

FathomFFI · 06-24-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I think it would still be around the start of the First Century CE, working from circumstantial evidence. The reasoning is:

1. Paul appears to have lived before 1 Clement was written. 1 Clement is dated 80-140 CE.
2. Paul talks about going to Jerusalem, so it would suggest at a time before 70 CE.
3. Paul talks about Christ as though he had died in the recent past, e.g. Jesus died and rose, and appeared to Peter and James, both of whom Paul met.

It still leaves a fairly large window, though no larger than those we have for a lot of early writings.

I don't think "Paul" can be regarded as a credible witness.

"Paul" used to "see" and "hear" things and appear to be delusional.

1Corinthians 15.3-8

"Paul" saw Jesus after he rose from the dead.

I think "Paul" can see anything you want him to see.

And in the canonised Acts 9.3-5

Quote:

And as he [Saul] journeyed, he came near Damacus and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven.........and [b]heard a voice saying, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And he said Who art thou Lord, and the Lord said, I am Jesus....

I think "Paul" can hear anything you want him to hear.

I don't trust this "Paul" at all. He cannot help with anyone's history, not even his own.

In the early church, Paul was kept at a distance from the 12. His teachings were not in tune with the teachings of Christ, and therefore the 12 kept him on the outside, sending him out of Israel and into the land of the Greeks.

James, the brother of Jesus, preached his beliefs to the Jews, and not the Gentiles. His only letter in the NT is addressed to the 12 Jewish tribes in the dispersion. James and Paul did not get along, for they fought over the dietary laws, along with Peter.

The following are a couple of paragraphs where Paul is writing his letter to the Romans and stating that doing the works is not required for the faith. Immediately after, we have James writing a letter in which he contradicts Paul on all points:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul - Faith Without Works

Rom 4:1 - 16 What then shall we say that our father Abraham has found, according to flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has a boast; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." But to him working, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. But to him not working, but believing on Him justifying the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also says of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness without works, "Blessed are those whose lawlessnesses are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will in no way impute sin." Is this blessedness then on the circumcision only, or on the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

How then was it reckoned? Being in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received a sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith while still uncircumcised; so that he might be the father of all those believing through uncircumcision, for righteousness to be imputed to them also;
and a father of circumcision to those not of the circumcision only, but also to those walking by the steps of the faith of our father Abraham during uncircumcision. For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is made of no effect; because the Law works out wrath, for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith so that it might be according to grace; for the promise to be made sure to all the seed, not only to that which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by James' Reply To Paul - Faith Withot Works Is Dead

Jas 2:14 - 26 My brothers, what profit is it if a man says he has faith and does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and if one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them those things which are needful to the body, what good is it? Even so, if it does not have works, faith is dead, being by itself. But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith from my works.

You believe that there is one God, you do well; even the demons believe and tremble. But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Do you see how faith worked with his works, and from the works faith was made complete? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. You see then how a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she had received the messengers and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

It seems rather obvious that James is addressing this letter to Paul with the words "O vain man," for he goes on to completely confute precisely what Paul was teaching in his letter to the Romans.

ohmi · 06-24-2008, 09:40 AM

Significantly the gospel of the new covenant of grace to Israel is not written in the gospels at all, but in Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:8-12

patcleaver · 06-24-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Christians existed before there were followers of Jesus of Nazareth..

I agree that's possible, but how can you show it to be true?

If Christian just means followers of Christ, then we would have to include all the other followers of Christs in that group. All the Kings of Israel were anointed messiahs so they could be called Christs and their followers could be called Christians. All the Jewish priests were anointed messiahs so they could be called Christs and their followers could be called Christians. I suspect that some of the pagan gods were anointed with oil and were Christs - possibly Serapis.

On the other hand followers of religions in which members are anointed with oil can also be called Christians. Pagan religious ceremonies often included anointing with oil.

Any religious group in the Roman empire could have been called Christians.

andrewcriddle · 06-24-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

So imagine no references to dates. What is Tacitus really informing us of, or Josephus or the Gospels and Paul for that matter?

I think my answer to the question I think you are asking, would be that Christianity originates out of the situation after Roman control of Palestine but before the destruction of the Temple.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 06-24-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Christians existed before there were followers of Jesus of Nazareth..

I agree that's possible, but how can you show it to be true?

The word "Christ" means "anointed" or "the anointed", the words "anointed" or "the anointed" are used in the OT. The OT pre-dates the stories of Jesus of Nazareth.

Based on the NT, the earliest Jesus story is about 70 CE or later, however the word "Christ" was known by the Greeks by around the 2nd or 3rd century BCE, or eralier, with introduction of the Septuagint.

And the anonymous author of Mark wrote these words sometime around or after the Fall of Temple, but erroneously claimed by Eusebius to have been written during the time of Philo; "Many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ".

It is likely that there were many who were called Christs before the anonymous author of Mark put pen to paper.

But, I think it is almost impossible to have found a Jew who ORIGINALLY, before the Fall of the Jewish Temple, called himself a Christian because he worshipped a crucified blasphemer that rose from the dead and called him the son of the God of the Jews.

I don't think the crucified blasphemer is the origin of Christianity.

And I don't have to prove my position is true, just that it is possibly true, based on the available information.

ChuckE99 · 06-25-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

So imagine no references to dates. What is Tacitus really informing us of, or Josephus or the Gospels and Paul for that matter?

I think my answer to the question I think you are asking, would be that Christianity originates out of the situation after Roman control of Palestine but before the destruction of the Temple.

Andrew Criddle

I believe the archeological evidence for Christian catacombs in Rome is that they begin to appear (as opposed to purely Jewish ones) after 100 AD, correct? I would therefore date the rise of Christianity to about that time, and I understand that puts the creation of the gospels out that far, at least, too, including GMark.

Now, all I have to do is prove it. :wave:

andrewcriddle · 06-25-2008, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckE99

I believe the archeological evidence for Christian catacombs in Rome is that they begin to appear (as opposed to purely Jewish ones) after 100 AD, correct? I would therefore date the rise of Christianity to about that time, and I understand that puts the creation of the gospels out that far, at least, too, including GMark.

Now, all I have to do is prove it. :wave:

The first Christian catacombs are probably after 150 CE.
There had probably been Christians in Rome for a long time before they had their own burial places.

Andrew Criddle

ohmi · 06-26-2008, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I agree that's possible, but how can you show it to be true?

If Christian just means followers of Christ, then we would have to include all the other followers of Christs in that group. All the Kings of Israel were anointed messiahs so they could be called Christs and their followers could be called Christians. All the Jewish priests were anointed messiahs so they could be called Christs and their followers could be called Christians. I suspect that some of the pagan gods were anointed with oil and were Christs - possibly Serapis.

On the other hand followers of religions in which members are anointed with oil can also be called Christians. Pagan religious ceremonies often included anointing with oil.

Any religious group in the Roman empire could have been called Christians.

Many people call themselves 'christian' , but as Jesus said, it is the ones who obey him who are the actual Christians .

Jesus' command is to Love and no sinner obeys him in that, so all Christians are saints ... measured by what they do, not what people say.

The scripture makes this clear explicitly. to follow Jesus one must stop sinning during life :

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Jesus underlines this by saying that he will not take any sinner at his return :-

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

aa5874 · 06-26-2008, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

Many people call themselves 'christian' , but as Jesus said, it is the ones who obey him who are the actual Christians .

But, this thread is not about which christians will go to heaven, it deals withthe issue where christians would have existed without the Jesus stories,

The word "Christ" did not originate with Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth is therefore irrelevant to the origin of Christianity.

To find the origin of Christianity it is then necessary to find the origin of the word "Christ".

Simon bar Kochba was called Christ or Messiah and was a militant leader at around 130 CE. The Jews were expecting the Christ or Messiah at around 70 CE to be a military leader. It would seem then that Christians were originally a militant group and were in conflict with the Romans.

Quote:

The scripture makes this clear explicitly. to follow Jesus one must stop sinning during life ....

So, you can NEVER be a follower of Jesus.

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

06-24-2008, 09:40 AM	#13
ohmi Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Roaming a wilderness that some think is real ... Posts: 1,125	Significantly the gospel of the new covenant of grace to Israel is not written in the gospels at all, but in Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:8-12

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.