ApostateAbe

Yeah, that is a non-position that still strikes me as somewhat bizarre.

WVIncagold

Well since PAUL was the one who did that it aint on Jesus's accomplishments. Being the subject of multiple religions claiming him as the focal point maybe but he didn't found anything.

ApostateAbe

Paul certainly had an incredible influence on Christianity (opening up the cult to non-Jews), but it doesn't seem appropriate that Paul should be credited with the founding of Christianity, because, according to his own writings, Christianity was already a well-developed ideology, and he was acting on roughly the same level as other reputed apostles (Peter, James and John). His ideology is credited to Jesus, and Jesus would be the focus of his own explicit loyalty. In addition, the apostle Paul is not mentioned in any of the gospel myths surrounding the life of Jesus, because he apparently never met Jesus until the reputed Road to Damascus event, neither in his own words nor any other myth. Who was Jesus in your model of the origin of Christianity? Sort of a trickster who founded something accidentally and became a figurehead of a new religion? That would still make Jesus the founder and a very remarkable person, but maybe you should explain.

Toto

Ideology is a modern term that doesn't fit here. Christian theology seems relatively fluid, and continued to develop after Paul. Paul credited a spiritual experience to a spiritual encounter with Jesus, not to any historical Jesus.

The Road to Damascus is pure fiction. But it is generally agreed that Paul never met the historical Jesus. It is somewhat easier to believe in a historical Paul than a historical Jesus.

show_no_mercy

It depends on what you mean by "Christianity".

Modern Christianity seems to be focused on the resurrection of Jesus. Unless you are implying that Jesus really did return from the grave, then it seems like Toto's statement is correct - dead people don't start religions. If Jesus started Christianity then he started Christianity while he was still alive. This intimates that Jesus thought of himself as second only to Yahweh and planned on his own crucifixion and planned his resurrection.

If you say that Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus, then this is not modern Christianity. This would be closer to some sort of Ebionitism or Gnosticism.

ApostateAbe

My definition of ideology is very general. All ideologies are fluid, some more than others, and they are most flexible near the start, when they must adapt away from the initial propositions and find new audiences.

Edit to add: Yes, Paul did credit a spiritual Jesus. In my model, Paul believed in a Jesus who was both spiritual and human. I don't find the distinction especially relevant to the point about who should be credited with founding Christianity, but I understand it may be relevant to those who take Paul's focus on a spiritual Jesus as strong reason to doubt the existence of the historical Jesus.
Yes, OK.

aa5874

Based on the Pauline writings "Paul" attempted to DESTROY the FAITH. See Galatians 1

"PAUL" had a NEGATIVE influence on Christianity.

"Paul" even ADMITTED he LIED for the Glory of God. See Romans 3.7.

Up to the middle of the 2nd Century the Pauline writings had ZERO influence on Justin Martyr and NO author of the Gospel was INFLUENCED by the Pauline Gospel "Salvation through the Reurrection".

It is also most likely that "Paul" did NOT meet any apostles of Jesus in Jerusalem or that all the information that "Paul" claimed to have received from the resurrected Jesus is FALSE.

The "Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are PART of a fraud carried out by the Church or Christians to present a BOGUS post-resurrection history of the supposed Apostles and "Paul".

Justin Martyr wrote NOTHING at all about the DAY of PENTECOST the supposed SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT DAY in the post-ascension HISTORY of the supposed Jesus Cult.

There is SIMPLY no credible corroborative historical source for the Pauline writings that can show that there was a Jesus cult BEFORE the FALL of the Temple.

And further, if Jesus did exist he could have ONLY BEEN HUMAN and that would make the Pauline writings COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE historical and RENDER the Church writings untrustworthy.

You post complete nonsense. "Paul's" Jesus MUST be GOD INCARNATE, the OFFSPRING OF THE HOLY GHOST, Sent by God and born of a woman, and Compatible with the teachings of the Church or else it would NOT Canonised.

ALL the writings found in the NT CANON are NON-HERETICAL and were APPROVED by the Church.

In the NT CANON, Jesus was the BABY of a holy GHOST and a VIRGIN, without a human father, the Word that equal to God, the Creator of heaven and earth that walked on water, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

You simply cannot CLAIM "PAUL" was a HERETIC and preached the HERESY that Jesus was just a man like Cerinthus, Carpocrates and the Ebionites when "Paul" was NOT deemed a heretic by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus.

We know from writings of Antiquity that it was NOT at all NECESSARY for Jesus to have existed for MYTH FABLES to have been written about Sons of Gods that came to earth.

Marcion of Pontus PROVED without reasonable doubt that MYTH Sons of Gods could be INVENTED even WITHOUT BIRTH and still believe to have LIVED on EARTH.

"Against Marcion" 4 Jesus was a MYTH fable like Marcion's MYTH PHANTOM.

rlogan

Nobody has addressed that the entire religious theory and persona of Jesus is quote-mined from the Hebrew Bible, mostly Isaiah, as opposed to being invented fresh like a novel without constraints.

The constraints of the Hebrew Bible specifically call for him to be rejected by his own people, spat upon, that he be a naza-something, come out of Egypt yet be born in Bethlehem and hail from Judea, etc. etc.

So the short answer is that the story comes from Hebrew Bible midrash and cannot simply be written any-old way.



Yea, I think he dozed off on the cross from boredom.

The excitement in the Christ belief is not that he was born in Bethlehem or rode a Donkey like the HB prophesizes, but in liberating us from the obligation to sacrifice.

If you come to a man of the 1st century and say "You don't have to sacrifice a goat every month to the Gods anymore" then you have laid a sack of gold at his feet.

The present value of one $150 goat per month is on the order of $60,000. That is to say, at present interest rates you would have to invest $60K to have the income stream to purchase one goat a month forever.

So conversely when you relieve his obligation to sacrifice a goat every month, you have just handed him $60K in gold.

We are talking about a time period when incomes were a tiny fraction of what they are now, and the elimination of religious obligation to sacrifice or pay $ in lieu of that to the temple represented an enormous relief.

Rich people don't have much problem buying a goat a month to get into heaven. For poor people, even a penny is a sacrifice.

It's more than that though. Now God is no longer this nasty, mean asshole that is always threatening you and making you sweat to make up for being imperfect.

Now God is this guy that loves you so much that he is the one who sacrifices for you!

So the message of Christian faith is indeed exciting: "Hey, forget about Judaism and all these financial obligations to God and wrath & all - head on over to the Christian camp where they are handing out sacks of gold to everyone and God is kissing their feet.

That excitement would explain the meteoric rise of Christianity.

aa5874

There is really no credible historical source that shows there was a meteoric rise in Christianity or BELIEF in Jesus. It is in Acts of the Apostles, a work of fiction, where it is claimed about 3000 and 5000 men were converted in two separate days. See Acts 2.41 and 4.4.

And when "Against Celsus" is examined it would appear that the Jesus cult were OPERATING in Secret to avoid persecution and ridicule.

Up to the middle of the 2nd century Justin Martyr wrote that Marcion and the Marcionites RIDICULED or LAUGH AT those who worshiped Jesus born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

It was the doctrine of Marcion that appeared to have a METEORIC rise and seem to have been a DIRECT threat to the survival of the Jesus cult.

For HUNDREDS of years Church writers verbally Attacked the doctrine of Marcion and the Marcionites.

The Jesus cult should have had 100 years head start over Marcion but it would appear that within a few years he was gaining ground.

"First Apology"

mountainman

Have a look through the laws in the Codex Theodosianus. When Jesus got into the law codes of the Roman Empire BELIEF increased meteorically from whatever it may have been beforehand.