dog-on

Same can be said for a non-Jewish origin of Christianity.

The more I consider this question, the more it actually seems probable and not just possible.

I await some good evidence, or even a decent argument that secures Christian origins to Judea, Jerusalem, or even simply to some Jews.

Doug Shaver

You mean, evidence other than the earliest Christian writings?

aa5874

And, look at the internal information coming from Eusebius in Church History 4.


It should be noted that there is virtually nothing at all about the bishops of circumcision mentioned by Eusebius from around 62-138 CE, even James the Just.

The information on James the Just is that he was clubbed or stone to death, and was the Lord's brother, there isn't much else.

The history of Jesus believers in Jerusalem after the ascension of so-called Jesus is virtually zero, but that is expected if Jesus did not exist there in the first century or was unkown to the Jews at that time.

It is just bizarre that Eusebius did not even state the duration as bishop of any of the bishops of circumcision or did not mention a single writing by any of those bishops, except the letter of James, which the very Eusebius claimed is disputed.

There is a just a vacuum in Jerusalem and 15 names.


It would appear the Jesus stories or Jesus believers did not originate inside Judaea.

mountainman

We are forgetting the tribes and religions of Alexander the Great. The greeks (aka gentiles in the new testament) are neither jewish or christian.

The Jews are not alone in the negatively defined mass of non-christians in the new testament, because of the greeks.


The fictional Christ himself: the Roman non-Greek non-Jewish fiction --- perfectly defined by His negatives. The fabrication of the christians was political, and as such it was no new river. It was rather more like someone simply renamed the old river(s) to suit themselves in a certain and specific epoch, and not before. Someone wanted a new empire. The old was was not good enough.

dog-on

You mean Paul, "I tell no lies, I really went up to heaven and really saw the risen lord and I can be a Greek, a Jew, or even a flying pig, if it helps gain converts", of Tarsus?

Looks....

Sees...

Nope,no evidence there...

Doug Shaver

Yes, I mean that Paul, except I don't think he was "of Tarsus." That appellation was put on him by the author of Acts, and I don't trust that author for any historical data.

show_no_mercy

I always wondered about that. Paul himself never claims to be from "Tarsus", that title is only found in Acts of the Apostles. Which I find no reason to deem as retelling any sort of history. Paul in his own words calls himself "timid" (a play on his name) in speech and demeanor, yet the Paul presented in Acts is the opposite: brave and brazen, a man of many words.

Paul being from Tarsus seems to be an invention of the writer of Acts.

dog-on

True, but I could have simply said Paul Who?

You see the problem?

Clivedurdle

But what is Jewish? The whole point of the festival of light is that it celebrates the victory of orthodox Judaism against Greek Judaism 250 years before Jesus that was trying to stop circumcision!

The idea of separation of the Jews is also an orthodox Jewish propaganda idea.

So the strongest argument against a Roman origin might actually be a Greek Jewish origin and not necessarily a diaspora one because Judaism then was already spread around the med with continual interactions between different Jewish populations. Is diaspora also a fiction? Maybe Judaism was already spread around?

The New Testament is written in Greek isn't it about Jewish matters? Why not a self produced matter?

The Greek Jews may actually have been extremely embarrassed by the idiots in Palestine provoking the Romans and may have come up with their Messiah tales as a way to calm things down - Logos in John makes more sense from this perspective. Blessed are the peacemakers. Turn the other cheek. Stoic ideas.

Why did Jewish priests in Jerusalem have Greek names again?

mountainman

Once upon a time the Indian "priests" in Indian threw off the idea of Greek names somewhere near the River Hypasus. But the Roman priests, the Persian priests and the Jewish priests were not that lucky, and became subject to Alexander the Great. Priests in all these "nations" suddenly found greek names emminently prophetable (excuse the pun) and this "state" continued for some centuries (despite Buddhism flowing in from India).

However the Romans got the upper hand over the greeks in the first century BCE but they were not interested in religion, only warfare, slaves and the imperial reserves, so the greek priesthoods continued under Roman imperialism.

The Jewish priesthood with Greek names was destroyed and scattered by the Romans in the first century. The Greek culture in Persia was not overthrown until the third century when Ardashir formed the political state of Sassanid Persia (Iran) from the Hellenistic Parthian state.

The greek priesthoods (with greek names) within the Roman empire (focussed in the east on Alexandria, Antioch, Aegae) were finally overthrown by only by Constantine in the fourth century when he formed the political state of "Christendom". So ended the popularity of greek names in the fourth century Roman empire for priests (and civilians). Christian names (that we are used to --- like in the NT) only start appearing with appreciable numbers in the fourth century and not before according to all the evidence available to us. We might therefore say that there was a transition from Greek names to christian names for priests in the Roman empire at that time (and no earlier).