SLD

Paul talks about the church in Jerusalem at points in his letters and about raising money for them - something he intends to return to Judea as an offering that he had previously promised James.

There are also indications of conflicts between Paul and this Jerusalem Church over the issue of circumcision and hanging out with Gentiles.

But that begs two questions:

1) Was there truly a Jerusalem Church centered around James and Peter initially? If not, then why does the story have this conflict between Paul and them and why does Paul seem anxious to return to Judea with money he had promised them? I don't see why a later author would interpolate this kind of a story.

2) If there was a Jerusalem Church what did they believe? Was it really led by James, a brother of an original founder named Jesus? Did they in fact insist on following the old testament laws? Were they followers of this original founding character, expecting him to return and fulfill messianic prophecies by driving out the Romans?

This has always been a puzzle for me to understand in the context of a completely mythical Jesus. It seems to me that the tension between Paul and Jerusalem seems to be around Paul's mystical, truly mythical, understanding of Jesus, and a founding messianic figure whose followers persisted in Jerusalem until it's destruction by Titus.

Does this not point to a historical Jesus, although not as a founder of a new religion, but merely a messianic figure within Judaism - one of many of course.

I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the mythicist proponents, especially Doherty's although I realize he's real busy on a 2nd edition of the Jesus Puzzle. (I suppose I should read the 1st book though, huh Earl?)

SLD

aa5874

Your last sentence is a bit curious. Can you see why the author of Matthew claimed Herod killed all the children 2 years and under and why Luke's nativity story did not account for such a hideous act?

The problem with the NT is chronology.

SLD

There are lots and lots of problems with the NT. But yes Matthew's author (one of them anyways) may have been Jewish Zealot and thus hated Herod. But those problems do not preclude a HJ.

I certainly don't have to accept any of the NT stories to accept that there was a Jewish messianic figure named Jesus in the first century AD who was executed by the Romans and whom later Paul had dealings with the remnants of his movement and ultimately concocted his religion mix of pagan and judaic elements around. So the question still stands: if there was no HJ, then what was the original Jerusalem church that Paul was dealing with? Did those followers believe in a historical Jesus? Or are they mythical too?

SLD

aa5874

Now, Jesus is presented by the stories in the NT, if you do not accept any of the stories, how can you accept the main character? You are impling that you have pre-determined the historicity of Jesus the Christ regardless of the facts.

If there is no story or information about a character, then it will be futile to try to establish historicity.

Maybe your problem is that you ignore the facts and just ask questions.

Chris Weimer

Suetonius quotes Caesar as saying "και συ, τεκνον" upon seeing Brutus as one of his stabbers. Plutarch says he just covered himself and said nothing. However, Shakespeare says that he said "et tu, Brute?"

Caesar fiction because of the differences in these accounts? Because...that's what you're saying about Jesus.

aa5874

One does not establish historicity by a single stabbing incident.

SLD

There are many, many people who doe not accept the historicity of the NT but accept that there was a historical figure on which the religion is based. I am inclined to believe in a HJ. I'm certainly no Christian - as much an atheist as any on these boards. My reason for believing in a HJ though has little to do with the NT. My reason is precisely what I have stated in my OP. There seems to have been, as evidenced by the epistles of Paul, a core of followers from the original Jesus movement who had an extremely different outlook on the movement than Paul did. At the very least they demanded circumcision and preferred not to associate with Gentiles. I see them as an apocalyptic movement within Judaism that was quite popular at that time. This movement, along with many others, was wiped out in the rebellion.

The gospels were written much later and took a Pauline flavor in their stories, distancing themselves from those damned rebellious Jewish troublemakers and minimizing the role of those nice sophisticated Romans who ought to have ruled Judea. The gospels were written by a second generation of Christians who had not been a part of the original movement. They may have known some of the participants, but I'm even skeptical of that. Their stories smack of literature and not history. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a kernel of truth in them - that there was a first century jewish man claiming to be the messiah who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

On the contrary, I'm interested in the debate on the origins of Christianity and how it got started. If you'd like to respond to the OP - what were the beliefs of the original Jerusalem Church, perhaps we will make some progress.

But there is extra-gospel evidence. It is in the epistles - and it lies in the fact that there was an original Jerusalem very Jewish church that followed a Jesus or at least some messianic figure. Or so it appears in the epistles.

I won't respond to that. If you would post facts though instead of just engaging in polemical insults perhaps we'd get somewhere.

SLD

Toto

There are several possibilities. Some mythicists think that the Jerusalem Church was a Jewish group, which later Christians assimilated into Christian history. The Dutch radicals think that the story in Paul's epistles about the Jerusalem Church was written to represent Marcion's problems with the orthodox church.

In any case, if the orthodox story is true, and there was a Jerusalem Church centered around James and Peter, it has disappeared from history.

gnosis92

Acts report on others such as the Samaritan Prophet, Judas the Galilean,

"Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered."

spin

What can anybody really say about what we call the Jerusalem church (and I mean that institution Paul mentions in Galatians)? Ummm, Paul didn't agree with it and he had little respect for it. Can we say much about its theology? I'd guess that it was messianic ("christ" believing), otherwise why would Paul have any connection with it at all? Now what does all this say about Jesus? Nothing much.

Is James, the lord's brother (whatever that phrase means), the same person as James, one of the pillars?

We've discussed Peter in Galatians before and the strange fact that Paul uses Cephas whenever he talks about this person, except for the two verses Gal 2:7-8. (There is some manuscript variation, but the best understanding is just these two verses.)

We are relatively emptyhanded regarding the Jerusalem church.


spin