Didymus

Why do you think that's a necessary assumption? Is it necessary to assume that Jupiter existed?

The Resurrection embodies the promise of eternal life. And eternal life is an essential ingredient in Christianity and most other religions. As Paul himself wrote, Christianity would not have survived without that belief. (1 Cor. 15:12-42).

Or, to look at it another way, Jesus we was believed to have been resurrected because of the "sightings" that purportedly took place after his death on the cross. Both Paul and the gospel authors describe these visions.

What "pre-existing Christian message" are you referring to? And what do you mean by "pre-existing," i.e., prior to what? Are you saying that the Christian message was all neatly packaged, then Jesus came along and the message was "attached" to him? I don't know where that idea comes from, but it certainly doesn't square with the evidence.

What "other brand of Christianity"? You seem to have misconstrued what I said. There's no evidence of another "brand of Christianity" until the second century, when there was a profusion of gospels and other Christian writings, and thus many "brands of Christianity." All but one of these "brands" were later rejected and declared heretical. I certainly wasn't referring to those.

Indeed, it can fairly be said that Christianity came into existence sans a "living Jesus," inasmuch as we have no evidence of a Christian church existing until after mid-century. Everything written about Jesus was written well after his purported crucifixion. There are no writings about Jesus by anyone claiming to have seen him during his earthly ministry, or by anyone who claimed to have interviewed such persons. And we know of no writings prior to 70 CE that describe in historical terms his life in Galilee or his death in Jerusalem.

Thus, it's entirely possible - highly likely, IMO, that Christianity originated, not with "some crucified man," but with Hebrew scripture, Middle Eastern Mystery religions, and various messianic traditions that included sayings, pericopes and a descending/rising savior.

What would Christianity look like "without any Jesus at all (either historical or mythical)"? Well, it would look like some other religion! Belief in a historical Jesus is the very foundation of Christianity. Your question seems nonsensical, like "What would a dog look like if it wasn't a dog?"

Keep in mind that the origins of Christianity are not entirely speculative. Although there are many gaps, there is a vast body of knowledge on the subject. In framing your questions, it might be helpful if you were to consult a sampling of Christian and skeptical scholarship. That way, you could avoid misconstrued assumptions that don't reflect what we do know.

Didymus

Johnny Skeptic

You need to clarify your position. The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe 2004 says "Most Gnostic sects professed Christianity, but their beliefs sharply diverged from those of the majority of Christians in the early church." So, your question should have been "How was ORTHODOX Christianity created?"

Not only how was Christianity created, but by what means did it survive and spread? Consider the following:

Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: '...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.'"

Pagels has also said "the victors [orthodox Christians, my words] rewrote history 'their way.'" What were the victors' methods of forcing their views upon other groups of people?

Larry Taylor: How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2002:

By the 3rd century Gnosticism began to succumb to orthodox Christian opposition and persecution. Partly in reaction to the Gnostic heresy, the church strengthened its organization by centralizing authority in the office of bishop, which made its effort to suppress the poorly organized Gnostics more effective.

In his book titled ‘The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World,’ Christian author S. Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., says the following:

“No one could have dreamed that the Christians, who had themselves suffered so much from persecution and protested so vehemently against the injustice and futility of persecution, would so quickly have turned persecutors and surpassed their Pagan predecessors in fanatical savagery and efficiency, utterly oblivious of the Beatitude of the Divine Master (Matt. V. 10, 44, 45). It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testified to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of the intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day – yet to dawn – when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains ‘the consent of happier generation, the applause of less superstitious ages.’�

The largest colonial empire in history by far that was conquered under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property. For about 90% of the time since Christianity was founded, the vast majority of Christians favored slavery and the subjugation of women.

TedM

Didymus, I'm simply trying to look at what this alleged "Jesus" was like if he had existed, was crucified and believed to have been resurrected, and that the very earliest Christians believed these things.

I'm asking people to consider the implications if these things were true, not to debate whether they were or not.

I hope this clarifies.


I thought that when you said this:..you were referring to ideas that existed before the alleged Jesus would have come along. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

ted

Didymus

Agreed.

Paul's verse is usually interpreted as a reference to a docetic christology that had Jesus incarnated in the form of a man, but not as an authentic human being. (Paradoxically, there's much in Paul that persuaded the gnostics to claim him as one of their own.) But, as you say, the context doesn't give us enough to go on.

I was actually referring to the crucifixion of another man named Jesus as a possible kernel of the scripture-derived Passion narrative. The earliest Christian writings (Paul's epistles) depict Jesus as an obscure and humble individual, so an unremarkable crucifixion could fill that bill.

Didymus

Didymus

I see. The quest for the historical Jesus. (A perfect topic for a Christian newsgroup!)

By the way, a very good case has been made that the earliest Christians did NOT believe these things. But now I know... you don't want to hear it.

I was saying that the crucifixion was only one element in the "gospel," and that by itself it did not generate the rise of Christianity.

Of course, I disagree with the premise that "Jesus came along." For me, the term "pre-existing" with regard to early Christianity would refer to anything that existed before Paul and his congregations. Or, from another perspective, before Mark's gospel - the first depiction of Jesus in a historical context. But there was no "pre-existing Christian message." While the Christian message may have incorporated a lot of ancient ideas from many sources, those ideas weren't merged into a coherent package until the widespread acceptance in the 2nd century of Jesus as a historical figure. Even basic questions of christology remained unsettled until the Council of Nicea in the 4th.

Didymus