Malachi151

It is an issue though. The modern concept of a "church" is different from the concept at this time. Just because Paul uses the word church doesn't mean that there was anything of significance underlying this term.

"The Church" sounds like some official and important organization, but in all likelihood this wasn't an official or important organization, at least not as far as the rest of the community was concerned.

If I went into Jerusalem in 50 CE and walked up to people as asked them where i could find the Jerusalem Church I doubt that one single person would know what the hell I was talking about.

As for this from the OP:
I don't see this at all, nor do I know where the poster of the OP got this. The tension seems to be between Jewish customs and "gentile" followers. It seems that James and the others viewed this as a Jewish cult, while Paul did not.

The tensions center around keeping the law or not keeping the law, and this has nothing to do with a founder or with mythical views.

Solo

They would have known, if you explained you wanted to see James the Just. They would have probably been clueless about his relationship with Jesus. I always found the Hegesippus tale of the end of James intriguing, in that the scheming priests do not know James is the brother of the Crucified and that his church venerates Jesus as the Power who is to come on the clouds. Their asking James to restrain the people's zeal for Jesus, sounds a bit like asking Lenin to persuade his bolsheviks to renounce communism. And if James successfully hid "his partiality" for Jesus until then why would he suddenly reveal it publicly ? Was it his attempt to seize the Temple ?

Jiri

Sheshbazzar

Reading this thread, and of what might be considered to officially be "The Church", it occurs to me to offer this observation;
As in my particular faith, our members tend to be few in number in any particular location, and we that from the heart hold our persuasions, beliefs and basic doctrines in common, are a far scattered flock, with the majority of our adherents being isolated single individuals walking within their own convictions.
Our "congregations" tend to be very small by worldly standards, sometimes consisting of as few as only two or three members coming together to observe and to keep those times and the rituals that are sacred to us.
But we account every single soul that holds his shibboleth untainted, and honors the name which is above every name which is named among men, to be our fellow members within "The Church".
Yes, we do have our divisions, and our disagreements, yet there is but one church, one faith, one Father, and one Salvation, that any one may attain, or be a partaker in.

So, two, twenty, two hundred, or two thousand, the number that held The Faith, faithfully was "The Church" and yet is "The Church".

In Hebrew, it is not the general "assembly"[Q'ahal] "church", but "the faithful" ["ha'Amonim"] "church", that finds favor with YHWH.

mountainman

Can it be established there was any version of "christianity" external
to the evidence of the holy literary tradition by means of
appropriate ciations (archeological and/or scientific)?

The answer is: "Not before the Basilicas went up"

According to Eusebius, were are informed that,
"according to Irenaeus, there was christianity ...etc"

Arnaldo Momigliano suggests Eusebius is an incompetant chronologer,
and the inventor of a new form of historiographical exposition, known
as "ecclesiastical history" ---- in which the lists of the bishops of the
most important sees are simply added to the lists of kings and magistrates
of the pagan world. The criteria of orthodoxy was established
by the simple device of introducing lists of bishops who represented
the apostolic succession.

I suggest you apply the same criteria of historicity that you are using
to determine the existence of "Jesus the Christ" and turn it very closely
upon your dear friend and mine, god bless his cotton sox, father, or
rather Bishop, Irenaeus.

TedM

I admire your consistent focus on the original points in your post, amidst all the diversions. It seems more likely that IF the early Jewish church was focused BOTH on maintaining Jewishness while also focusing on a messiah and the last days as derived from SCRIPTURE, that the sect would have been anxiously awaiting the arrival of an unknown FUTURE messiah with specific characteristics. That seems a more natural development. Yet, Paul clearly believes the messiah had already come, and had the Jewish church opposed such an idea, it is INCONCEIVABLE that Paul would not have discussed that in his writings, preferring instead to talk about whether the Gentiles could eat meat or not! Therefore, it is most likely that both groups believed the messiah had come already, and would return soon. Paul's job was to bring in the Gentiles so that "all nations" would be saved, with Jerusalem at the center of the new age.

One question I have is whether it makes sense for the early church to believe in 2 comings of the messiah: One that already took place, and one that was still to take place at the "end". Why believe that the first arrival had occurred? Unless there is STRONG scriptural evidence for such a belief in 2 comings of the messiah (and I'm not aware of any) I don't think the Jews would have accepted such an idea. The scriptures HAD to be consistent with whatever this Jewish church believed. To derive from the scriptures from SCRATCH an unknown crucified messiah who will return a second time seems too far a stretch even for the feverish Jews.

However, if some man who was believed by some to have been a prophet or even the messiah could be seen to MATCH certain scriptural passages believed to have been messiac in nature, I can see the early church adopting that man as being the messiah. Any messiah claiment with a following who was somehow believed to have been resurrected fits the bill. Anything else, it seems to me would fall short.

ted