aa5874

You really don't know what you are talking about. You have ZERO sources of antiquity to support your UNSUBSTANTIATED claims .

Why are you posting here if you don't know that there are OTHER explanations that is supported by WRITTEN statements of antiquity and NOT imagination?

"Paul" of the NT is NOT an explanation for the start of Christianity.

In the NT, "Paul" NEVER made such an explanation, in fact, "Paul" claimed he PERSECUTED the Christian Faith which ELIMINATES "Paul" by his own words that he is an explanation for the start of Christianity. See Galatians 1

"Paul" was NOT the FIRST to preach Christ.

Secondly, "Paul" claimed there were already WRITTEN sources with the claim that Jesus died for the Sins of mankind, was buried and raised on the THIRD day. See 1 Cor.15

"Paul" was also NOT the first written source about Christianity.

Thirdly, "Paul" claimed he was the LAST in a LIST of over 500 people to SEE the resurrected Jesus. See 1 Cor.15

"Paul" was also NOT the First to SEE the resurrected Jesus.

In the NT, "Paul" was LAST and the LEAST among the apostles.

There IS ZERO sources of that can show "Paul" started Christianity.

Again, if you would CONSULT the actual written statements in the NT, you would see that Christianity was STARTED by the HOLY GHOST on the DAY of PENTECOST long AFTER Jesus Christ was DEAD, resurrected and ascended.

Jesus Christ was NOT around when Christianity started

That is the EXPLANATION of the CHURCH in its CANONIZED Acts of the Apostles.

Acts 2: - Jesus Christ was NOT the START of Christianity.

People were FIRST called Christians when Jesus in the NT had ALREADY VANISHED from the face of the earth.

Ac 11:26 - Jesus Christ did NOT START Christianity and he was NOT a man in the same books. Jesus Christ was described as the Child of a Ghost.

And further, to show that Jesus Christ did NOT start Christianity, in the very NT, on the day Jesus Christ died, PETER denied that he ever KNEW Jesus or was associated with him and the Jews REJECTED Jesus as Christ after he publicly declared for the VERY FIRST TIME to the Jews that he was Christ.

We are NOW dealing with the WRITTEN TRANSCRIPTS not with IMAGINATION.

If you have NO SOURCES for your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that Christianity started with a man call Jesus then I don't want to hear your unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Please, get SOURCES, GET DATA from antiquity.

Jesus Christ was UNKNOWN to the Jews. Jesus Christ in the NT did NOT even tell his disciples he was Christ it was PETER who told Jesus.

Matthew 16 In the NT, Jesus did NOT even tell his OWN disciples he was Christ.

It was PETER.

archibald

error

Iskander

archibald

Sorry Toto, but there's a huge flaw in that. Without meaning to, you have introduced a strawman standard of 'insist that something must be', which neither I, nor any historian I have ever read of would ever use in relation to ancient history.

No, the truth is that where we don't have much good evidence, historians will decide on the basis of 'probably'. Of course, history is a Humanity, not a science, so it's a professional estimate, based on the best tools they can use. This is as much true, as I understand it, for the basic question of whether someone existed as much as it is for the details of their supposed lives.



Wow. I have rarely seen the actual situation so badly turned upon its head. Lewis Carroll could hardly have done a better job.

Toto, the actual pieces of extant written evidence, in case you hadn't noticed, are heavily in favour on an HJ. That is to say, almost all of the texts we have appear to reference an EP, including even Paul. There is, in fact, a surplus of evidence for Jesus in comparison to many, many other minor characters from Ancient history.

There are different ways of dealing with that, but it is indisputably the objective starting point for any historical enquiry.

This is not me saying that MJ has the burden of proof, by the way. Personally, I don't go much for 'B of P'. I think all sides share such things.

How so?

Sheshbazzar

Agan, what you are promoting is only 'an' explanation.
That one being the old propaganda 'explanation' presented by, and so long promoted by Christianity.

It is an error to imply that this particular 'explanation' is either accepted by or believed by all.
This 'explanation' exists, but its mere existence is no indication that it is a true or at all accurate 'explanation'.
It is NOT a explanation that is employed or endorsed by all.
I, and many others, have found it to be a invalid 'explanation', one that is sorely lacking both in its depth of explanitory power, and in its credibility.
[If the alleged 'historical' JC 'figure' did not DO what is attributed to him, that imagined -unknown nobody who really did nothing- alleged individual is NOT the JC that is described within the NTs fictional texts.]

Whereas the naturalistic explanation recognises the literary and cultural evolvement of a legendary annointed 'Joshua' 'type figure'. A King, Priest, and Redeemer sucessor to Moses that would lead the people into 'The Promised Land' defeat all enemies, and rule over the Gentiles.
The 'Joshua' legends and midrashic tales provided the genesis of the NT texts, No flesh and blood person was ever needed, or ever existed.

Iskander

I am not promoting anything.

That Jesus is an explanation for the existence of Christianity is what I am saying.

I am inviting the learned audience to provide another explanation for the existence of Christianity and I am doing this out of respect for the intellectual prowess of this forum and their presumed ability to satisfy legitimate human curiosity.

You should discard the unnecessary body armour and put on the thinking hat instead.

Toto

What I meant to write was that in the absence of evidence, historians leave the question of historicity as undecided. They don't construct scenarios where the existence is "probable" based on their subjective evaluation of the situation.

Historians do not feel the need to decide what "probably" happened and then insist that it did happen and anyone who claims different is a lunatic. I think you have been reading Apostate Abe, who suffers from that confusion.

The actual written evidence is lacking. Paul's letters, which we know have been interpolated by later editors, make vague and formulaic references to someone who might have been on earth at some undetermined time. The gospels clearly have no historical record to rely on, and spin a story about Jesus out of references to the Hebrew scriptures.

You can look at the various Quests for a historical Jesus, and see that the attempt to find a historical person behind these accounts has not worked to produce a coherent picture. The theories of the historical Jesus are full of explanations for why the evidence for this person is not available. The latest is that the gospels represent "refracted memory" of the man.

That has to be your starting point. The historical Jesus left no imprints on the history of his time and place. He left no writings, no one who met him recorded the fact, and later "followers" felt free to create imaginative and contradictory stories about him. When Docetists claimed that he was a spirit, no on stood up and said they knew him when they went fishing on Lake Kinneret, or watched him eat and drink at the Galilee Bar and Grill.

If there had been a historical person, why would the stories of his life and death have to be based on myths from the Hebrew scriptures? Why did the writers of the gospels feel free to change the story based on their own theology?

Toto

Why are you ignoring all of the posters who have provided other explanations?

Iskander

I am not ignoring any explanation

J-D

If it's not a historically reliable source, why are you referring to it?