Solo

I don't think anyone ever seriously disputed the existence of James' church.
And yes, why invent disputes around a holy man (or fiction thereof) as a starting point ?

It was led by James, little doubt about that. Was he a bood relative of Jesus? very, very, very unlikely.

All indications are that James was a Rechabite (or a Nazarite) ascetic, and worshipping in the Temple. Yes, the church was likely strict in their observances.

There are oher possibilities, likelier than that the church was founded specifically by Jesus followers. In fact there are indications it was not. If one takes the Jesus figure as historical and executed around 30 AD, then for Paul to appear where he had with a history of enmity to the Church, it is more than likely that the James operated independently. Perhaps he accepted Jesus as one of the martyrs of the last days and his orphaned group as an argument against the Temple power from which he was excluded.

And no mystery is greater than to see a Jewish puritan like James (who would not even take a bath) to worship a pagan Platonic entity molested some place above earth.

I think you are close. Paul's mystical Jesus and would have been radically rejected by both James and Peter (as the leader of the orphans let into the Church). There was additionally tension between James and Peter on the issue of observances (in which Peter was notoriously lax - perhaps after the example set by HJ).

Yes, I would say it does.

SLD[/QUOTE]

SLD

I realize that, Spin. But does it tell us that a historical founder existed? A Jesus?

SLD

spin

I thought I had answered with the bold text above. To restate an answer to

But does it tell us that a historical founder existed?

No.


spin

gnosis92

I've raised this issue before, but without response, but based on what we know of Judaism, esp first century Judaism, is there any evidence Jews would practice a religion that they believe (right or wrong) is unhistorical? i.e even if exodus is unhistorical, first century Jews believed it historical.

If so, then the closeness in time wedded to a belief in historicity would tip the scales to a historical founder did indeed exist.

here's a wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants

Is there anyone on this list whose historicity you would question?

* Judas son of Hezekiah (Ezekias) (c. 4 BCE)
* Simon (c. 4 BCE)
* Athronges (c. 4-2? BCE)
* Jesus of Nazareth (c. 33 CE)
* Theudas (44-46) in the Roman province of Judea
* Menahem ben Judah partook in a revolt against Agrippa II in Judea
* Simon bar Kokhba (died c. 135), defeated in the Second Jewish-Roman War
* Moses of Crete (5th century)
* Isḥaḳ ben Ya'ḳub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani of Ispahan lived in Persia during the reign of the Umayyad Caliph 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (684-705).
* Yudghan, lived and taught in Persia in the early eighth century disciple of Isḥaḳ ben Ya'ḳub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani of Ispahan
* Serene (Sherini, Sheria, Serenus, Zonoria, Saüra) (c. 720)
* David Alroy or Alrui (c. 1160)
* Abraham Abulafia (b. 1240)
* Nissim ben Abraham (c. 1295) active in Avila.
* Moses Botarel of Cisneros (c. 1413)
* Asher Lemmlein (1502) a German near Venice.
* David Reubeni (early sixteenth century).
* Solomon Molcho (early sixteenth century).
* Hayim Vital (1542-1620)
* Sabbatai Zevi (alternative spellings: Shabbetai, Sabbetai, Shabbesai; Tvi, Tzvi) (1626-1676)
* Barukhia Russo (Osman Baba), succesor of Sabbatai Zevi.
* Miguel (Abraham) Cardoso (b. 1630)
* Mordecai Mokiakh ("the Rebuker") of Eisenstadt (active 1678-1683)
* Jacob Querido (d. 1690), said to be the reincarnation of Shabbetai Zevi.
* Löbele Prossnitz (Joseph ben Jacob), early eighteenth century
* Jacob Joseph Frank (1726-1791), founder of the Frankist movement.
* Shukr Kuhayl I, 19th-century Yemenite pseudo-messiah
* Judah ben Shalom (Shukr Kuhayl II), 19th-century Yemenite pseudo-messiah

Toto

20th and 21st century Jews did not give up their religion when they figured out that there was no Exodus. There is much more to Judaism than some facts of history.

Christianity is rather unusual in requiring the belief in certain historical facts as part of its foundation.

Chris Weimer

Plenty of Christians don't believe in the Exodus as a literal story. I don't see what this has to do with the story. We're talking about first century Judaism, not 21st century Judaism.

spin

The logic seems to confuse founder with the theological focus.

Just because Joseph Smith existed does that mean that his god did?

Just because Elron existed, does that mean that Xenu existed?

Just because Douglas Adams existed does that mean Zarquon existed?

Just because Muhammad existed what about Allah?

Just because Philo existed does that mean that his logos existed?

Just because Paul existed does that mean Jesus and god existed?

What is essential is a believer base, not the object of the belief. Just because that believer base existed it doesn't mean that the believed founder existed either. Just because the Ebionites existed doesn't mean their founder, who Tertullian and Epiphanius believed existed, actually did exist.

Who was the founder of the Ebionite movement?

Who was the founder of the gnostic movement?

Who was the founder of the bowel movement?

These things can just sort of happen.

A convert in Ethiopia or Gaul doesn't need a real Jesus to believe in him. There may or may not have been a real Jesus, but you don't need a real one in order to believe in him.


spin

Chris Weimer

There was then, and still now, a distinction between Jesus and God. Jesus was described as living on earth. There's ancient works, works unlike the novels of the time, which assumed he was a real person. Likewise, Paul didn't see him merely as "God", which was an assumption of the nature of the universe, but as a human as well. Paul explicitly states features of Jesus that would give credence to a tradition before the gospels of Jesus being born a human. Paul grapples with Jesus' corporal nature. We have non-Pauline traditions attesting to an historical Jesus, and we have Paul himself explaining away an earlier movement.

Joseph Smith's account is an obvious hoax, meant to deceive; Paul's lacks those characteristics. L. Ron Hubbard's characters started as fiction, and you'll be hardpressed to find any historical semblance in the characters he writes about; the Jesus described in the early Christian traditions can have existed. Douglas Adams wrote fiction - it's in the fiction genre, and there's never been any indication that it wasn't taken as so; the gospels nor Paul hint at ever writing anything close to "fiction". Muhammed has just as much evidence for his existence as does Jesus, namely it's all from Islamic testimony; funny that you don't exclude him. Philo's logos was a philosophical explanation of an unseen presence; Jesus was clearly thought to have been seen.

Your comparisons are worthless in what we're actually dealing with.

A better founder seems to me, at least, to have been someone from the line of Jesus himself. Ebion as a misunderstanding of the root word is understandable; Tertullian and Epiphanius weren't Ebionites. But Paul was certainly a Christian.

In my opinion, much of what they believed goes back to Jesus Christ.

Likewise, excerpt perhaps from Jesus the man himself, perhaps later disciples, converts from other disciples, and so on.

Relevancy?

gnosis92

I see you did respond. My point is that there does not appear to be much precedence within Judaism for following a non-existent messiah, and that there were Christians before Paul came on the scene.

spin

It depends on the Jesus and it depends on the god.

Is that a necessary criterion for something?

And when you try to get before those works, do you get anything other than traditions? Considering something as real doesn't make it real. Writing about something as real doesn't make it real. Unless some ancient text drops you into realia, you don't usually take it on face value.

Contemplation does wonders.

Paul was apparently writing before the non-Pauline traditions we have, so they are secondary to Paul. Our man who was swept up into the third heaven can fantasticate however he likes, but can it get us closer to any reality behind the Jesus tradition? He never met the guy of his own admission -- except of course in a vision. And that certainly doesn't make him real.

The mormons disagree with you.

Anyone OT3 and above would disagree with you.

When you get far enough into this sort of stuff you'll believe it whatever the case. Of course Xenu can have existed. Otherwise why would they believe?

Umm, Zarquon was a little levity.

Did I doubt the existence of Muhammad, Adams, or Hubbard?

Hey, I can find the differences when someone's looking at the similarities as well. The topic is dissonance between the fact that someone can report an entity and the existence of that entity. Plainly you have missed the point, otherwise you wouldn't have fallen down this track of eking some difference or other. You need a bigmac to lift your performance.

Your judgment was impared. You want to create existence from plausibilty. And that is plain silly.

Point missed yet again. Non-entities can be reified whether you like the fact or not. It doesn't matter whether someone believes in them or not. It is sufficient that someone believed they existed, which plainly Tertullian and Epiphanius did. You don't need reality behind a figure to give them life.

(And I rest my case, your honor, knowing, a fortiori, that the jury must convict.)

So you can get back beyond the founder into Ur-tradition. Why can't you do that with mainstream christianity?

Gnosticism is a very different kettle of fish. It cannot be dated with regard to the apparent birth of Pauline christianity. It would seem that Paul dealt with aspects of it.

Impressive! You can't see the relevance of knowing that you don't need to have experienced the claimed originator to believe in the person. When you try to eke out existence and you can't see that there is no need for that existence at all, it means you need to start again from scratch with your analysis.


spin