ApostateAbe

OK, cool. Do you think that Christianity started with the Greeks, then, and all of the founding Jewish characters are merely myths?

Toto

Is there any evidence at all for this? When you read the gospels, it appears that Jesus was a Jew preaching to Jews; and Acts shows Paul being rejected by the Jews and turning to the Greeks (nothing in Paul's letters supports this.) But is there any reason to think that any of this is historical?

The earliest Christian converts that we know about seem to have converted to Christianity from studying Greek philosophy - e.g. Justin Martyr.

Rodney Stark postulates that Christianity originally spread among the Jewish diaspora in cities in the Roman Empire. He has no direct evidence, but his research on modern religions shows that those are the sort of people who are most receptive to new religions.

ApostateAbe

Any evidence? Maybe you mean to ask, "Is there conclusive evidence?" I don't think conclusive evidence is possible with the people I am speaking with. And, maybe with you, it is impossible to have any evidence at all for any historical conclusion, which is a paradigm I sort of understand, though I do not share. But, if we are really trying to get the most parsimonious explanation out of the available textual evidence, then I think it must be admitted that there is at least some evidence that earliest Christians were Jews. Jesus and all of his disciples were reportedly Jews, Christianity was derived from Judaic scriptures, so, without knowing anything else, it would at least make the most sense for the earliest Christians to be Jews. I think firmer evidence is seen in the writings of Paul, such as Galatians 2, where Paul reprimands Cephas (Peter) for discriminating against the Gentiles. He calls Cephas, James and John pillars of the church, and they were reportedly Jews. Paul himself was a Jew, and he distinguished himself as an apostle to the Gentiles, implying that he was the first important person to evangelize to the Gentiles. There are some in this forum who take the position of Bruno Bauer, that Paul possibly did not exist and did not write any of the Pauline epistles, but I think we need to remember that we are looking for the most parsimonious explanation to explain the evidence.

aa5874

There is really no external historical evidence to corroborate that any Jew was a JESUS believer before the Fall of the Temple. Philo and Josephus wrote NOT ONE THING about any JEW who worshiped a man as a God, they wrote NOT ONE THING about any teachings of JEWS who worshiped a man as a God who was EQUAL to the God of the JEWS and called the Messiah and Creator of Heaven of Heaven and Earth.

The most likely explanation is that JESUS of the NT was an invented backdated story where the authors of the Jesus story concealed their identity to mis-lead their readers about the actual time that they wrote.


In a FICTION story written after the Fall of the Temple where characters are placed in Galilee during the time of the reign of Tiberius and governorship of Pilate does not require that there were actual JESUS believers in Galilee.

The people who FIRST believed the FICTION story were those who probably FIRST heard the story.

It is not known who FIRST heard of the Fiction or where and when the Fiction was FIRST written. Perhaps it was in Alexandria of Egypt that the Fiction story was FIRST released.



But, in Galatians 1.1, a Pauline writer claimed he was not the apostle of a man, but of Jesus Christ who was raised from the dead.

The Pauline writers wrote that Jesus was betrayed, had died and was raised from the dead which implies, as found in Acts of the Apostles, that Saul/Paul was AFTER and acquainted with the BACKDATED FICTION story of Jesus.

Even Christian sources have demonstrated that the JESUS story is most likely fiction when in Church History 3.4.8 it is claimed the Pauline writers were aware of gLuke and Marcion, the Christian, claimed JESUS was not REAL HUMAN but A PHANTOM.

The most parsimonious explanation is that JESUS, the disciples and Paul were ALL invented BACKDATED FICTION characters of the 1st century AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Toto

No, I meant any evidence that passes minimal standards of credibility.

ApostateAbe

OK, I think I see what you mean. Yeah, my explanations for the evidence may not pass minimal standards of credibility, whatever those standards may be. Since all of the explanations are incredible from a highly skeptical perspective, the best thing to do seems to be to choose the relatively best explanations for the evidence out of all of the explanations available. Maybe it is not a way of thinking that you would accept, and that is OK. I am just attempting to make my perspective clear. My conclusions are chosen only because they seem to be more likely than competing conclusions, not because they pass some standard out there. Maybe you can tell me what your standard would be, just so I can get a better grasp of your perspective.

aa5874

If "all of the explanations are incredible" then your explanation is most obviously "INCREDIBLE" based on your own words.

You are not making any sense.

You have admitted that your own explanation may not even be credible.

ApostateAbe

Yes, you are right. None of the explanations are credible from a highly skeptical perspective, so I settle on most credible. It is sort of like the tastiest pile of dog crap. It isn't tasty even if it is the tastiest.

aa5874

Well at least you have acknowledged that your theory is a pile of dog crap.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, sort of. It is about how every theory may look from a highly skeptical perspective, which is a perspective I do not have.