Sheshbazzar

There is no reason for us to assume that there ever was a 'founder' of Christianity.
What sold and sold well is what survived.

Preying on insecure peoples religious superstitions and fomenting belief in the All Seeing Eye of The Invisible Sky-Daddy is an ancient and lucrative profession, one that was practiced for millenia before the first Hebrew writer ever set pen to papyrus.
I have no respect for stupidity and superstition......particularly when it is used to keep people in the dark, prey on innocent minds, and forment endless strife and wars.

stephan huller

But there is no evidence to suggest that the first Christians were evil, manipulative individuals 'preying' on the weakness of others. You've projected that onto history based on your own experiences with religion. I will say it again, Plato was a sincerely good and devoted religious thinker. There are and were many others.

Iskander

You say, “I have no respect for stupidity”, but you should have respect for stupidity and implore others to also have respect for stupidity.

Sheshbazzar

ששבצר which truly you do not know, even as שבלת which you do not comprehend.

Sheshbazzar

But then this Plato was never a Christian was he?

Sheshbazzar

Oh really?
The chilling little tale of the type of 'first Christian' terroristic communistic extortion that is presented in Acts 4:32 through 5:11 and was used to incite terror and an absolute submission to the extortionary demands of the 'apostle', -even 100% of everything- to be turned over to the don, er'... the 'apostle',.... or be buried by the church's strong 'young men' -goons-.

The story was written, used, and still is used to manipulate and to prey on the superstitions and weaknesses of others.
The 'evidence' is present, and written in black and white. (and a significant portion written in the red blood of those who down through the ages were reticent in healing to the continued extortionary demands of the Church.)

jules?

Without the tragic consequences of Romeo and Juliet there would be no tragedy, no griping narrative. 2012 the movie is the closest fictionalisation of the current 2012 fiction and inevitably the heroes cheat death and find their New Jerusalem [although I have never seen the movie]. Mark is at best fictionalisation of some real events [some events like the occupation of Judea by Rome etc] but foremost is the fact it is quite the tragic novel. Full of twists and turns.

Milking the stupid, especially the uneducated, rode along shotgun.

Vorkosigan

It's a shame the thread degenerated because the question asked is one of those deceptively simple but profound ones. Really a great question that I've mulled on long bike rides the last couple of days. Thanks for it, OP.

Vorkosigan

Sheshbazzar

Seriously. I think something -like- the Gospel's was inevitable, given the social movements, sociological conditions, and evolvment of theological ideas and concepts over the preceding millenia.
The beliefs of people may not be valid, but they do take on their own forms of momentum.

Thankfully this is the earth, where momentum is not perpetual, eventually the 'stuff' will ooze to a halt, decompose, and the world will go on for billions of years more, as if it had never been.

stephan huller

But of course this leads to two inevitable but rarely answered questions:

a) what is the gospel?
b) what is the intended relationship between the gospel and the Pentateuch?

Both of these questions are bungled by western scholarship because it demonstrates just how implausible our traditional cultural assumptions are.

The gospel was not intended as a historical narrative. If it were intended as such it would have begun with 'on such and such a year this happened ...' If we take the canonical evidence at face value then this only became established with Luke's re-edit of Mark. As such, if this introductory information from Luke was only added by Luke the gospel couldn't have been written with the intention to be history. Only fairy tales begin with out references to date and time.

Furthermore, the Pentateuch is referenced throughout the narrative of the gospel confirming its 'Jewishness.' It is not a Gentile composition. It was not aimed at Gentiles per se given that most non-Jews had no interest in the question of how their lives were supposed to be lived with respect to the commandments. Yet the vast majority of scholars buys into this inherited cultural supposition because quite frankly they are all descendants of those non-Jews who couldn't have cared less about the Jewish Law.

Jesus's appeal becomes an appeal to them. Already we know we are standing on shaking ground because Jesus wasn't talking to any of us or our ancestors. If then the gospel wasn't the historical story of Jesus's ministry nor an appeal to Gentiles to define their life in some 'spiritual manner' according to the Law, what was it? The difficulty here is that most scholars lack the imagination to think outside of the box handed to them at birth. Almost all of the research that is conducted becomes a way ignoring the whole question which should have been the first step towards any meaningful understanding of the truth.