EarlDoherty

While acknowledging Toto's pointer to Ehrman's The Lost Christianities, might I point out that my own books provide all sorts of evidence on the "riotous diversity" of early Christianity. (In fact, didn't I invent that phrase?)

You see what a disadvantage you are at, judge, here lamenting against the folly of Jesus Mythicism, when you have not read the relevant literature on the subject?

Earl Doherty

aa5874

What I find completely mind-boggling is that so-called Scholars are claiming the Pauline writings are early when in the NT Canon every single book or non-Pauline letter that the Church writers claimed were early has been deduced to be late and that it has been further deduced that more than one person wrote under the name "PAUL" and at different times.

It is MOST obvious that the ENTIRE Canon is of a LATER time period than acknowledged
by the Church and this is SO blatant that I simply cannot understand how so-called Scholars have completely IGNORED ALL the SIGNS that the Entire NT Canon is LATE or AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

It simply cannot be even close to reality that the "Pauline writings" as found in the NT contain HERESIES, that is, that "Paul" preached some other Jesus that was NOT Compatible with the Church.

ALL the writings in the NT are NON-heretical and are ALL Compatible.

They promote the very same Jesus story , the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin, the Word, the Creator of heaven and earth, equal to God, baptized by John, tempted by the devil, did miracles, walked on water, transfigured, betrayed in the night some where around Mount Olives, was on trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate, was crucified, died, was RAISED from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

The "Pauline writings" were NOT regarded as HERESIES. "Paul" was NOT claimed to be an Heretic.

The NT Canon is a compilation of NON-HERETICAL writings but there is ONE MAJOR problem. ALL claims that the NT Canon including the Pauline writings, was Compiled or was KNOWN before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE is completely BOGUS.

The NT Canon is a product of the BOGUS early history of the Roman Church.

The Gospel of "Paul", "Salvation through the Resurrection" is UNHEARD of up to the middle of the 2nd century.

No Gospel story writer was AWARE of Such a Gospel of "Salvation through the Resurrection" since NEITHER the Synoptic Jesus NOR the Johanine Jesus taught his disciples the PURPOSE of his resurrection.

The ENTIRE Canon is LATE and AFTER the Fall of the Temple c70 CE based on the ABUNDANCE of Evidence from Antiquity.

Any theory using an EARLY "PAUL" is FLAWED.

"Paul" in his story met Jesus AFTER he was RAISED from dead. The Jesus story about the resurrection is BEFORE "PAUL".

Toto

Earl is correct. "A Riotous Diversity" is the title of Chapter 13 of the Jesus Puzzle.

It seems that the only real controversy is over whether there was a 'riotous" diversity or just plain "diversity."

From James Hannum's review of The Evidence for Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by James D. G. Dunn
From the Amazon preview, at p 81 Dunn writes "During the apostolic age the church had remained a virgin, pure and uncorrupted. But since then false teachers had tried to defile it with godless error." If you really think there is evidence to support this view, where is it?

judge

After seeing your postings here, i strongly suspect you no hard evidence of "riotous diversity" predating the gospels. Which is not to say that there was n't any just that you are unable to produce any evidence. None.

I've read Ehrman.
I don't hold as high an opinion of you as you do earl ,sorry. And pointing out, as you did, that you received favourable coments in an Amazon review aint that persuasive.
Yes your books might sell a few copies and get some interest, but not because they are any good, I suspect, from what I see here.


Questions about Jesus and traditional views are at this point in history naturally going to draw attention. And so your ideas do draw attention.
personally I look forward to the demise of traditinal understandings of xtianity, and I can applaud you efforts and work, but all the evidence we se on this forum, with your evasion and dodging, is that your work wont cut it.
Of course you might find this difficult to admit now as you have committed yourself and make money from your ideas, so naturally, your might be less inclined to accept the weaknesses of your position.

judge

And so, back to the opening question.

Just what evidence is there that xtianity was riotously diverse prior to the gospels being written?

Maybe Neil can answer if he passes by.

So far neither Toto nor earl Doherty have been able to produce any evidence at all. None.

Personally I think there would have been diversity, but I just dont see much evidence to support that view, with the exception of galatians, that's all. And thats not really riotous diversity.

judge

Come on Toto, I never claimed there was evidence to support that view. So I wonder why you are insinuating I did?

I asked whether there was evidence to support Neils claim. See the Opening Post.

aa5874

It is MOST amazing that people here still think that the Jesus story was the start of Christianity.

But, Anyone familiar with the writings of Antiquity KNOW that there were RIOTOUS DIVERSITY in Christianity.

Please read "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus, "Prescription Against the Heretics" by Tertullian and "Refutation of ALL Heresies" by Hippolytus. It was CHRISTIANS that were the Heretics NOT non-Christians.

Even MAGICIANS were called Christians since the days of CLAUDIUS before the Jesus story was written.

This is Justin Martyr in "First Apology" The Jesus story was NOT origin of Christians. There were so-called HERETICS long before.

Simon Magus the Magician and Menander demonstrate that there were RIOTOUS DIVERSITY in Christianity.

neilgodfrey

I used the words "riotously diverse" in quotation marks in a paragraph in which I was making it clear I was summarizing Earl Doherty's views. I think most people who have read anything by Doherty -- website or Jesus myth books -- will recognize the descriptor (slightly varied) as his.

I am also a little surprised that "judge" challenges what I wrote with others and not with me. But this seems to be the common modus operandi of a number of people opposed to "Jesus mythicism". Get a vague idea from a few internet snippets here and there and then rather than follow up with any serious investigation of what is behind those snippets, declare one's scepticism to the world and dismiss any responses from those who have actually taken the time to read the details and know what they are talking about.

judge

I asked the question. Its public forum. Im open to anyones thoughts on this.



i'm not opposed to it. I'm interested in the evidence for or against it.



Do you have any evidence, yes or no?

If you have evidence then what is it?

judge

I asked whether there was evidence prior to the gospels. It's a simple question.