Originally Posted by Elijah

You’re left with having to rewrite history “What-if” style to explain how the movement really started with no evidence to support your position .......

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Well, I thought the OP was asking the question 'How Did Christianity Begin'....

Did Christianity begin with the deification of a historical person? - I very much doubt it. I don't think its wise to confuse the history of a historical person with the gospel Jesus storyline - myth-making is one thing - history something else entirely.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your post is just highly speculative and unsubstantiated however the time zone for Paul cannot be ascertained and with time works attributed to Paul have been withdrawn or deemed to be of uncertain authorship.

Unless it can be ascertained when the Pauline writings were made it is pointless relying on an author that the Church itself seemed to have lost track of.

It would appear that Church did not know what Paul wrote. How can you tell if the fake Paul did not write Romans and that the real Paul wrote Hebrews? After all, some believed Paul wrote Hebrews.


It would appear that the Canon produce by the Church is filled with bogus information about the dating, authorship and chronology of the writings within.

The Pauline writings do not match the time zone in which they were placed no historical source external of apologetics can account for the Pauline doctrine or character in the 1st century from Aretas to Nero. There is no external historical where Jews were worshiping a man as a God.

Up to the middle of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr only accounted for a single book found in the Canon by the name of Revelation.

It would appear that the Church destroyed and manipulated their own history and then want others to retrieve and re-construct their past with forgeries and bogus information.

The history of Jesus believers may be lost forever due to deliberate fraud within the Church itself.

Originally Posted by mountainman

One only needs to reject Eusebius.

Originally Posted by J-D

'One only needs to reject Eusebius' in order to what? One only needs to reject Eusebius in order to have no evidence? Because that's what you've got, a great big pile of no evidence.

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Where did Christianity begin? Syria? Alexandria? Rome? Jerusalem? Antioch? Paul had followers in various places, so it misleading to ask if Christianity began in any place in particular?

Originally Posted by mountainman

Without the "evidence" gathered together in the "research of Eusebius" the case for the historical jesus looks like an empty glass of flat lemonade. The question is not whether we are able to reject the evidence of Eusebius. The question is what does the topography of the evidence outside of Eusebius look like in terms of corroboration for Eusebius. The answer to this question is that the evidence external to Eusebius does not corroborate Eusebius.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Whoever wrote "Paul" in Greek could have been writing in any of the cities you mentioned. We have no guarantee that any "Paul" wrote "Paul" -- it is just as likely that "Paul" was fabricated along with his letters to Senecca. It is far more likely that Christianity began with fraudulent mispresentation of history, forgery and a whole host of false documents in order to fabricate the myth of the "Nation of Christians".

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Where did Christianity begin? Syria? Alexandria? Rome? Jerusalem? Antioch? Paul had followers in various places, so it misleading to ask if Christianity began in any place in particular?

Originally Posted by J-D

Possibly not. At this stage I'm not expressing an opinion on that. All I know is that there's no evidence to corroborate your hypothesis.