Loomis

Well at least I like your attitude so thanks for sharing that with us. But I tend to agree with aa5874. The character called ‘Paul’ is a complete fabrication. It looks to me like Paul was invented by politicians or - more likely by church leaders, to make the religion called ‘Christianity’ look older and more organized than it actually was.

I think the issue of Jesus/Joshua worship is really, really interesting. I think it deserves more attention than what it gets. It looks to me Christianity barrows heavily from an earlier written tradition about heroes called Jesus/Joshua. At first it wasn’t necessarily a religion – but over time it obviously snowballed into one.

For example, I think we should ask ourselves if the end of Deuteronomy is evidence of early Jesus/Joshua worship. I think it is.

Deuteronomy 34:9-12
Now Jesus/Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses. Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, who did all those miraculous signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt - to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.

Why was it necessary to emphasize that ‘no prophet has risen like Moses?’

What was the source of the confusion?

Was this written by the original author who wrote the rest of Deuteronomy?

No, I don’t think so.

Was this author talking about Jesus/Joshua?

Yes.

Was this author criticizing Jesus/Joshua worship?

Yes, I think he was. And there is a long list of supporting evidence to go along with this. I think that if anyone is genuinely interested in where Christianity began that they should start here.

The traditional Christian view is that there were many subtle prophecies in place about a messiah, but that Christianity more-or-less burst onto the scene with the birth of Jesus. Many skeptics/ atheists are former Christians, and as such I think they carry mental artifacts and look for alternative explanations that also involve bursting onto the scene. But I think that’s a mistake. I think we might want to consider the possibility that ‘Christianity’ evolved into place over the course of 400-500 years.

Elijah

I think the key ingredient is the initiator of the religion’s self sacrifice and willingness to die that really fueled the spreading of the faith the way it did. The initial sacrifice/martyrdom, (which is given credit to Jesus) is seen by his followers as a sign of faith in the cause since he was bringing about his own death.

Paul later becomes a prototype of the pattern that forms next in that he sees one of Jesus’ followers, Stephen, martyr himself like Jesus, Paul then takes that as a sign that Stephen has seen something that has fortified his faith, in this instance the literal resurrection of the dead. This kind of thinking still pops up today with the argument; why would the apostles martyr themselves unless they knew or saw something, which more likely is just because they were imitating the final act of their founder.

This pattern continues; self sacrifice creates faith in those around the sacrifice, then some of those imitate that sacrifice creating more faith in more people until it reaches the point that there is enough Christians that they have the political power to get Christianity and Christians protection from Rome, which pretty much ends the run of martyrs spreading the faith and onto the empire doing it.

Loomis

See my post above.

Sirach 46:1-6
Jesus the son a Nave was valiant in the wars, and was the successor of Moses in prophecies, who according to his name was made great for the saving of the elect of God, and taking vengeance of the enemies that rose up against them, that he might set Israel in their inheritance. How great glory gat he, when he did lift up his hands, and stretched out his sword against the cities! Who before him so stood to it? For the Lord himself brought his enemies unto him. Did not the sun go back by his means? And was not one day as long as two? He called upon the most high Lord, when the enemies pressed upon him on every side; and the great Lord heard him. And with hailstones of mighty power he made the battle to fall violently upon the nations, and in the descent of Beth-horon he destroyed them that resisted, that the nations might know all their strength, because he fought in the sight of the Lord, and he followed the Mighty One.

Jesus worship circa 150 BC.

mountainman

Furthermore the available evidence suggests strongly that Arius of Alexandria, the central anti-Christian voice against Constantine and his new and strange Christian state, utterly satirized the whole crucifixion/resurrection passion thing. This is the satire of Arius, according to the orthodox and utterly shocked Athanasius ....

‘The heaven,’ as the Prophet says, ‘was astonished, and the earth shuddered’ at the transgression of the Law. But the sun, with greater horror, impatient of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his rays made that day sunless.

storytime

No prophet had risen like Moses because all the others were failures in comparison. God speaking to Moses said: "See, I have made thee a god to the people". The writer is building his hero in this OT tale just as was done in the NT tale.

I think you're right about carrying the mental artifacts, but only to the degree that when we discovered the lie, we could then easily throw the artifacts away. The mind of the Christian can be compared to the TV series "The Hoarders" where clean-up is a necessity for survival.

aa5874

This theory of yours makes very little sense.

Once the so-called Jesus was executed for blasphemy and did not resurrect as he predicted, then the Jesus sect would have been in disarray. The disciples would have to go in hiding and people would begin to deny having any association with Jesus in order to save their own lives or themselves from persecution.

If you look at the Jesus story you would see that the disciples fled when Jesus and were in hiding, even trembling with fear at the empty tomb and that Peter denied ever knowing or was associated with Jesus.

Now, this is exactly what could be expected once Jesus was human, and a failure.

But, the story took a dramatic and unnatural turn as soon as it was said Jesus raised from the dead.

Your theory needs a resurrection or else it would just be another failure. You must understand the implications of the actions of the disciples. They could no longer tell anyone about their belief in Jesus.

People saw them running away when Jesus was arrested and people heard Peter when he was lying about his association with Jesus.

Now, once the whole Jesus movement was a complete disaster and failure from captain to cook, it should be clear that your theory cannot offer any good news to the Jews by asking the Jesus believers to commit suicide.

spamandham

No-one really knows, but a few of the top possibilities:

1. When Jewish messianic dreams were crucified in 70CE (the toppling of the temple) and for good in 135-140 CE (the utter destruction of Jerusalem and what remained of the temple), Christianity was born again from the ashes of Judaism. Over time, a Jesus character evolved, much like any other mythical figure.

2. The Essenes slowly evolved into Christians

3. Paul basically invented the ideas in visions brought on possibly by seizures, drugs, or intense meditation, and tied them into the Jewish scriptures.

aa5874

There is virtually no supporting evidence for these theories.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Pauline writings are from the 1st century or that the Pauline writers started any religion or had any visions.

The Pauline writers cannot be used to corroborate their own writings when even Jesus in the Canon have contradicted Paul's revelations from the very Jesus himself.

The Gospel writers put "FLESH" on the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture, they did put a single thing on the Pauline writings.

Jesus of the Gospel was a fulfillment of the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture, starting with Isaiah 7.14, there is not even a single reference to three words from any Pauline writings in the "flesh" of the Gospel Jesus.

There was not one single Pauline writings available to the Gospel writers.

The "FLESH" OF Jesus was fulfilled prophecy lifted straight out of Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint.

Doug Shaver

No.

Yes.

There's no telling. The earliest Christian writings we have are Paul's; and, since he was a convert, he was not among the first teachers or preachers of Christianity.

aa5874

But, as I have just pointed there is no external historical source that can show that the Pauline writings are earlier than the Jesus story found in the Gospels.

No Gospel writer used a single phrase unique to the Pauline writings. The Gospel Jesus is the offspring, the Son, the "FLESH and BONES" of the Septuagint.

Isaiah 7:14 - Matthew 1:23 - It was the Septuagint that was made "FLESH" not the Pauline writings.

Even the Pauline writer admitted that me met or saw and heard from the "Son of the Septuagint" after it was raised from the dead.

Ga 1:1 - It is extremely clear that Jesus Christ believers STARTED with the SEPTUAGINT or Hebrew Scripture. The Pauline writers simply EDITED and re-worked the SEPTUAGINT Jesus.