J-D

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I don't know how.I hope that's progress.What is only assumption? That 'Jesus' is the name people use to refer to the founder of Christianity? How can that not be obvious?I don't understand your point here. Can you expand on it?'The Jerusalem religion'? What's that? Would you equate it with the 'church of God' that Paul describes himself as having persecuted? On that basis, would Paul's reference to 'apostles' before him be a reference to apostles of 'the Jerusalem religion'?

I begin to have an inkling of what may be dividing us. Indulge me for a moment by examining this hypothesis: Paul attached himself in some way, perhaps ambiguously, to a pre-existing religious movement (which we can call 'the Jerusalem religion', if you like). Ostensibly as an adherent and agent of this movement, he built up a following of his own, but preached doctrine which varied from that generally accepted in the movement before him, especially by its recognised leaders. This divergence led to friction, conflict, and ultimately, at some point, rupture between the 'Paulinists' and the original 'Jerusalem religion'. The Pauline branch of the movement subsequently evolved into Christianity as we know it today, while the other branch dwindled away to nothing.

Supposing, purely for the sake of argument, that this hypothesis is correct: if so, would you consider it appropriate to describe the hypothetical 'Jerusalem religion' as a form of Christianity? Why or why not?

J-D

You pose that question as if those were mutually exclusive alternatives. But they aren't. They could both be true. Think about it.

However I agree that careful formulation of the question is important, and in that spirit I suggest that you need to be more precise in defining what you mean, for the purposes of your question, by 'Christianity'.

spin

What we read about him having dealings with in Galatians.

Why not?

(Don't get too hung up on "the Jerusalem religion": it is merely a means of referring to something without making assumptions on what Paul was talking about.)

Would you describe non-Jesuine messianism a form of christianity?

I'm not wedded to a thesis regarding the founding of christianity, but I don't want to inject assumptions that might cloud any understanding of that foundation.


spin

J-D

I don't understand what you mean by 'non-Jesuine messianism'. I don't see why you need to know how I would use the term in order to explain how you use the term.I'm not talking about assumptions now, I'm talking about terminology. What do you mean by 'Christianity'?

spin

What do you call messianism not centred around Jesus, but around some other figure?

You asked: would you consider it appropriate to describe the hypothetical 'Jerusalem religion' as a form of Christianity?

I have tried to indicate that we don't know enough about the beliefs of those forerunners Paul alludes to.

I'm not talking about assumptions now, I'm talking about terminology. What do you mean by 'Christianity'?[/QUOTE]
The form of messianism that includes Jesus as its messiah.


spin

J-D

In that case, if the forerunners Paul alludes to regarded Jesus as the messiah, then Christianity predates Paul, but if they didn't then it doesn't. If you don't know enough about their beliefs, then you can't say whether they were Christians, right?

Now I still think that the simplest explanation of the religious movement that was the forerunner of what I shall call, in an effort at terminological neutrality, 'Paul's religion', is that it began as a group of followers gathered around a religious preacher/teacher in Palestine some years before Paul came on the scene. If this original leader held himself out to be the Messiah, then in your sense of the term 'Christianity' he was the founder of Christianity; if he did not so hold himself out, but his original followers regarded him as the Messiah, then they were the founders of Christianity-in-your-sense; and if the doctrine that Jesus was the Messiah was no part of their original doctrine but was one of the innovations of Paul which led to his rupture with them, then Paul was the founder of Christianity-in-your-sense.

My view is that the continuity of identity of a religious movement is not dependent on consistency of doctrine over time, and that the origin of the religious movement which we now know as Christianity is most simply explained with the hypothesis I put forward earlier--and for an explanation of that particular phenomenon, I still haven't seen a more plausible coherent alternative explanation. If you want to insist that it is not proper to refer to that movement as 'Christianity' before the historical point where we know for certain that it held to a doctrine of Jesus's messianic status, I see no point in terminological wrangling.

spin

So using "christianity" for them would be inappropriate.

Economy may easily be ignorance. Your logic is what created Ebion.

(A Jew in Judea would probably know what a messiah was. Jesus under the indications of the Jewish idea was not a messiah. Paul's notion of messiah might have been at odds with the Jewish notion. Paul after all was a diaspora Jew and his messiah looks more like a gentile saviour.)

It's not that it is not proper; it's that you would be talking through your hat. You haven't got anything that gives any knowledge of the beliefs of those that Paul initially aligned himself with.


spin

J-D

If you have a plausible coherent alternative to my suggestion, you still haven't told me what it is.I don't need to know anything about their beliefs. I repeat: My view is that the continuity of identity of a religious movement is not dependent on consistency of doctrine over time.

spin

Suggestions are just that.

I've learnt long ago that replacement therapy doesn't work.

You have nothing at all to support your view.

You don't know what the conflict was between Paul and the others. You don't know what they believed. You just want to believe that there was continuity of identity, when Paul has explicitly said that his gospel didn't come from men.


spin

J-D

I have no idea what you mean by that.

We have data. I have a possible explanation for it; you don't.It's a definition. It doesn't need the kind of support you're talking about.