semiopen

I have no special knowledge of this, but the little I've read suggests there was a reasonable knowledge of conditions in 1st century CE Judea. To my untrained eye this suggests somebody writing the Christian texts knew what was going on there.

How is this reconciled with LXX? Did the authors read Josephus or something?

bacht

My original speculation was regarding the origin of the Christ idea. The Septuagint was available by the 2nd C bce, any literate person could read for themselves the supposed mysteries of ancient Judaism, such as their messianic expectations. Christianity has long been described as a synthesis of Hellenistic and Jewish elements. If one sets aside the official version of church origins, the possibility arises of earlier activity, maybe even before the turn of the era (cf Philo of Alexandria). Thus a messiah/christ/logos matrix is plausible.

The gospel writers had the advantage of Josephus' account of the recent Jewish revolt (if they wrote after he published in the mid 70s ce). More than one commentator has suggested that places, characters and events may've been copied by Mark et al to flesh out their story about 1st C Judea and Galilee (for instance there are several Jesuses in Jewish Wars).

Spamandham's conjecture pushes the origins of Christianity well into the 2nd C, as a response to the second major Jewish revolt in the 130s. By that time no living witnesses could've provided information about events in the 30s.

semiopen

Thanks.

I've been interested in the Persian connection with Judaism, where the religion as we know it today might may well have been engineered remotely by the Persians.

Here we may be discussing Christianity remotely engineered by the Greeks or possibly Romans.

Has a certain pleasing symmetry to it.

There may also be some symmetry between Jewish and Christian Gnosticism.

But what is Islam? Door number 3?

aa5874

But, how could it be that Paul was appreciated late when the Church writers claimed he was appreciated before the death of Nero and established churches all over the Roman?

Now, if Paul did write first, and established churches all over the Roman Empire, then one would expect that the heretics would be overwhelmimgly influence by the Pauline writings. There is no record of a heretical sect that originated from a Pauline church. It would appear all the Pauline churches and letters vanished and then suddenly re-appeared after the Jesus stories were written.

It must now be realised that the information coming from the NT and church writers about Paul is simply not true. It would appear that Christians existed before Jesus or Paul were fabricated. Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny all mentioned christians without a word about Jesus or Paul.

Now, it can easily be shown that Jesus the Messiah as a son of God was likely to be a non-Jewish concept. In the Jesus stories, Jesus the Messiah, supposedly a Jew, claiming to be the Son of God was executed for blasphemy.

Look at Matthew 26.63-65 The God man Messiah is not Jewish at all. The God man Messiah was blasphemy to the Jews.

Look at Acts 7.56, in a post ascension story, Stephen made a similar blasphemous remark about Jesus and was immediately executed by stoning.

Acts 7.56-59 Now, look at Church History by Eusebius, James the Just would be stoned and clubbed to death for repeating the same blasphemy as Jesus and Stephen.

Church History 2.23.13 &16

The God man Messiah was blasphemy to the Jews, the concept is anti-Jewish. Perhaps non-Jews, maybe the Romans, would believe the God man Messiah, the anti-Christ of the Jews.

IamJoseph

Impossible. Persia emerged long after the Hebrew religion was established, namely after the temple was already standing for centuries, its bible and numerous prophets in place. Persia emerged after the Israelites were invaded and exiled to Babylon in 586 BCE. At this time, Persia alligned with the Israelites who gave them assistance and intelligence data of Babylon, and thse two became allies.

The Arab race emerged after the Greeks conquered Persia, which makes the Arab race more recent than both the Persians and the Greeks. The Persians, Greeks and Arabs learnt of the Hebrew bible at this time - evolving into Zaroastraism, Christianity and then Islam. There is no proof contradicting these historical facts - there is every proof which confirms.

IamJoseph

The Septuagint was more read and known than the Gospels. The Septuagint was the most read writings in Europe, while the Gospels was forbidden to read or own till 600 CE. This does indicate the Gospels emerged later, and then made as subserviant to the NT, instead of the reverse mode: a factor which brought chaos for humanity.

Very few in Europe could read at this time, and their teachings came exclusively from fiery preachers. There was not even a common language here - which fact is seen even today. Each state in Europe has a different language, even when the next state is a stone's throw away.

This says the European people were village folk who never ventured far, and easily conquerable by Roman forces - or by Preachers. It is a fact Europeans never demanded proof of what was fed into them - thus it is a religion based totally on belief - read, a total fiction. Its victims are those who took on board its belief as fact.

IamJoseph

To accept an anti force in this context is also a blasphemy. There is only a positive and negative force, both being sub-serviant to the Creator. The anti is resultant from Hellenistic beliefs of head bashing deties battling for supremecy.


In 200 BCE, the Greeks, after Alexandra, proposed an amalgamation between these two religions, and wanted Moses to be a universal figure. This sublime proposal was thwarted when the hellenist priest, looking after their own status, also wanted to make a statue melted from the God of the Jews and Zeus. The Greeks never forgave the Jews for rejecting this premise - they later instigated the Romans against the jews, and Judea was destroyed, and later Christianity was formed.

The notion Paul began Christianity is false: whatever is subscribed to Paul is Hellenism, was written much later, and nothing else would have been acceptable. Paul would never have succeeded if he did not negate the Hebrew laws of diet, image worship and circumsizion.