bacht

That's fine. If these people were called Christians then who or what was the Christ they followed? The people that Pliny questioned apparently weren't ordinary Jews or pagans.

As for Acts and the epistles, I really don't know how to date these or which came first. It may all be fiction anyway. I was only humouring Abe, who wants to build an argument about Paul versus the "pillars".

ApostateAbe

Thank you. Providing a possible alternative explanation that is logically consistent is the easy part. The hard part is to provide an explanation that beats out all competing explanations in terms of how well it matches the evidence and historical patterns. Those winning explanations, I believe, are the explanations that we should accept. Toto informed me about the "Argument to the Best Explanation," and there is a summary of it on Wikipedia here.

bacht

We also have to accept that we may never have a full explanation of Christian origins. Modern scholarship has helped to explore what didn't happen (like the slanted view of the Pharisees), but this is only the negative side.

Basing arguments on documents alone isn't enough. If we had more "hard" artifacts like inscriptions or tombs we might be able to get a fuller picture.

The basic question to me is whether Christianity started among Jews or gentiles. Clearly the church wanted to maintain a connection with the Jewish tradition, but that doesn't prove that the whole thing started with some sort of unorthodox messiah.

As for Paul, we don't even know if he was real person, or a pseudonym for someone like Simon Magus or Marcion, or a fictitious character.

aa5874

Justin Martyr has explained ALL who were called christians.

"First Apology" VII You seem not to understand that people were being called christian by others even if they themselves did not refer to themselves as christians.

This is "Theophilus to Autolycus"1.1 And again in "Theophilus to Autolycus" 1.12 Now, belief in GOD PREDATED belief in JESUS.

It is most likely that Christians were FIRST only believers in GOD alone.

But, we know that Saul/Paul in Acts was AFTER JESUS ascended through the clouds. See Acts 1.9.

And we know that Saul/Paul in Acts was AFTER the day of Pentecost when the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost. See Acts 2.

We know that Saul/PAUL in Acts was AFTER the stoning of Stephen. See Acts 8.

We know that Saul/Paul in Acts 9 persecuted Jesus believers.

We know that Paul persecuted Jesus believers in Galatians 1 and 1 Cor. 15.

We know that Saul/Paul in Acts 9 was in a basket by the wall in Damascus.

We know that Paul was in a basket by the wall in Damascus in 2 Cor. 11.

We know PAUL was AFTER the JESUS STORY.

IT has been deduced that the JESUS STORY WAS AFTER the fall of the TEMPLE.

We have dates for Paul and Acts of the Apostles, they are all after 70 CE.

ApostateAbe

OK, I think the Argument to the Best Explanation should at least tentatively decide whether Christianity started among Jews or Gentiles and whether Paul was a real human being of just pseudonym. The way of thinking I advocate is that we should be arguing based on what is most likely given all of the evidence. The way of thinking that Toto, you and others seem to advocate is that the most likely conclusions do not matter if there is still insufficient evidence. Dismissing or minimizing the importance of all textual evidence will certainly allow almost all conclusions to be on the table. There is no evidence that I dismiss as worthless, however. If one conclusion fits the evidence far better than all alternative explanations, then I favor the one conclusion, even if the evidence is scant and ambiguous, because that one conclusion really is likely to reflect the truth at least somewhat. It is analogous to best-fitting a linear function to five input coordinates. If you draw a second line using 100 input coordinates, then your new line will certainly be more precise than your old line, but your old line will still probably be accurate enough.

If there are two competing explanations that seem about equal in probability, then I make judgments maintaining consideration for both explanations. If no proposition fits the evidence, then I will make no conclusion, and that is the only condition that persuades me to have no conclusion. So, the way of thinking of Toto and the others, that we should simply remain agnostic about history simply because we can't trust the textual evidence enough, is a strange and foreign concept to me. Why not make tentative conclusions with the evidence that you have, doubtful as it may be?

Toto

OK... but I still don't think you have grasped how untrustworthy the textual evidence is.

Answer me this: why make any conclusion about ancient history based on insufficient evidence? What forces you to come to a conclusion? Why heap insults on people who don't agree with you on the probabilities in evaluating this murky area?

aa5874

Well, I don't know if you can see this with the glaze but there was only one apostle called Peter in the NT Canon and the Church writings.

Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus, Against Marcion" by Tertullian, and "Church History" by Eusebius are some of the writings that were used to establish that Peter in Acts is the very same Peter in the Pauline writings.

ApostateAbe

Thanks, Toto. I'll answer your questions.

"why make any conclusion about ancient history based on insufficient evidence?"

It is about the pursuit of knowledge and the dissuasion of unlikely beliefs. Regardless of the certainty of the evidence, one conclusion or one set of conclusions is typically more likely than all of the other conclusions.

"What forces you to come to a conclusion?"

To say that I am forced to come to a conclusion may actually be a good way of putting it. It may have a lot to do with my innate personality and the fundamental way that I think. I take relative probability differences very seriously. For example, I never went from Christianity to agnosticism. I skipped a step and went directly from Christianity to atheism. The agnostic argument says that there is no direct evidence whether or not God exists, and therefore we shouldn't make a conclusion. The premise is certainly correct--we really do not have direct evidence that God does or does not exist. But, the elegant model of the universe, the philosophical absurdities of theism, the skeptical explanations of religious myths, together build a strong probability that no gods of any sort exist--the same as Santa Claus and leprechauns, and we don't make practical allowances for the possible existences of those beings either, for good reason. Even though it is possible that the gods exist, one conclusion is far more likely than the other, so I go with the more likely conclusion in building my model of the universe. When I propose an explanation for tetrapod origins and evolution, I don't take seriously the objection, "You are resting on the unfounded assumption that God couldn't have created mice, snakes, birds and humans just the way they are. Prove your assumption first." Some people would respond to that objection with methodological naturalism. But, I find fault in that philosophy, and I just go straight to plain-old evidence and probability.

The differences in probabilities surrounding the study of history may not be as pronounced, but in many cases the difference is still vast. If there is a dispute about whether or not Paul thought of Jesus as no part human, then the evidence is so strongly on one side of the debate and not the other that I very much encourage the more likely conclusion. The probabilities are not drastically changed by the presence of very many alternative possibilities. The possibilities that the highly skeptical camp points to--possible alternative interpretations, possible redactions, possible forgeries--evidence for each of those things should be expected if they are true, but, when the evidence seems to be against those explanations, then they do not change the game.

"Why heap insults on people who don't agree with you on the probabilities in evaluating this murky area?"

There is no good reason to do that. It is only a strong temptation to heap insults on people when they seem wrong, in part because we want to discourage and deter the dissemination of stupid ideas, and in part because we want to defend our pride.

maryhelena

I would agree with that statement.... It truly is the basic question regarding christian origins, or more correctly pre-christian origins. Did it all start with some sort of unorthodox messiah, even a gentile or non-Jewish messiah figure, or something in-between. Is the whole Galilee and Jerusalem storyline a top-dressing - move the action here in order to present an orthodox Jewish scenario? And thus to confuse the real origin history - and focus on what should have been, what could have been. Expectations thwarted by historical realities thus requiring a re-interpretation and a new messianic storyline - moved in its re-telling to where it was wanted to be....

Of course - going this route - throwing open the doors to the world beyond Galilee and Jerusalem - is not for the faint-hearted! Uncharted territory - but when the low road to Jerusalem can only deliver a nobody, an everyman Jesus of no historical significance, and thus no possibility of ever historically validating such a man's existence - then perhaps we need to be like 'Paul' and follow that road to Damascus. A road that takes one close by the area in which the gospel Jesus asked his disciples who did people say he was. Caesarea Philippi - on the 'highroad' to Damascus.......
Indeed.

aa5874

But, you must agree that once there were no tombs or inscriptions then we have the full picture.

And all we have to do is to examine the description of Jesus in the NT Canon.

Would you expect to find a tomb which held an offspring of the Holy Ghost?

Would you expect to find a tomb which held the Creator of heaven and earth?

We have the full picture.

JESUS of the NT, the disciples and Paul had no tombs, and inscriptions in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

Since the 2nd century Justin Martyr gaves US the full picture. There was a picture of a BIG BLACK hole for 150 years.

I got the picture.

Again, the use of the word "Christianity" is ambiguous. You must know that the writings of Tacitus and Pliny which mention the words "Christian" did not mention Jesus.

The writings of Philo and Josephus have answered the questions about Jesus the offspring of the Holy Ghost and Creator of heaven and earth.

Jesus of the NT was fiction.

Now, what is the Greek words for "messianic" is it not the same word for "christian"?

People who believe that they were anointed by God were most likely the first to be called Christians. After all the word Christian is derived from the Greek word for "anointing with oil".

But, not all Christians had a connection with Jewish tradition.

But, Paul did not claim he was Simon Magus and neither did the Church writers.

According to the NT and Church writers, Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who used to persecute Jesus believers and met the apostles in Jerusalem after he escaped in a basket by a wall in Damascus.

We know who PAUL was. Paul internally corroborated the author of Acts. He was a fictitious character who witnessed and participated in fictitious events. Only fiction can do that.