luvluv

Who was the first Christian, and how did you come to this opinion?

Can you direct me to any scholarly literature on the non-existance of Jesus?

This might sound like I'm picking a fight, but I'm not. I'm sincerly looking into this argument.

Toto

I don't know who the first Christian was. Perhaps Paul, perhaps someone later.

A brief tour of literature on the non-existence of Jesus:

Journal of Higher Criticism, published in New Jersey, is an attempt to carry on the tradition of the German higher criticism, which included a number of mythicists.

Earl Doherty's site

Peter Kirby's Theories of the Historical Christ page lists 2 categories of mythicists, Doherty plus Freke and Gandy, who are neo-pagan polemicists and probably not "scholarly"; and two other scholars, Alvar Ellegård and G.A.Wells , who hypothesize that the person behind the Christ myth may have lived 100 years or so before Christ.

Doherty's site is the easiest place to start.

Gregg

Hi luvluv,

Welcome to this topic! It's a very fascinating one, to say the least.

I would say that presently, the foremost authority on the Jesus Myth theory is actually a self-educated layman, Earl Doherty. His Web site is www.jesuspuzzle.org. Don't let the fact that he's a layman put you off; he knows his stuff.

Doherty's thesis is what convinced me that Jesus was a mythical figure from the start. Prior to that, I accepted the more common view that there was a historical figure behind the myth. Now, I feel that the "pure myth" explanation fits the historical facts much better.

However, I'm not so invested in the mythicist case that I wouldn't go back to the historical Jesus position if some solid evidence for his existence was presented. The James ossuary had me wavering for a while, but there are just too many questions surrounding it now.

As to your question "who was the first Christian," that is probably lost to history. When you've studied the mythicist position more thoroughly, you'll understand why. According to the mythicist view, Christianity most likely didn't start with one person, or even one group of people. Rather, it sort of rose spontaneously in several different places, in a variety of expressions, emerging from the seething religious and philosophical currents of the time. Eventually some individuals and groups, in particular Paul and the Jerusalem group under James, became more influential than others.

All this will make a heck of a lot more sense as you systematically read through Doherty's site. After you've had a chance to check out some of his arguments, let me know--I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

Gregg

Amos

The Resurrecred Jesus of Nazareth was the first Christian because the mythmakers decided that Christ would be his name.

Jesus was real but only real in the myth. This also means that Jesus was real in the flesh because both the mind and body are renewed. The mind is renewed because it becomes one with the soul and the body is renewed because the renewed mind is in charge of the body and therefore without sickness and pain.

The entire event described by the mythmakers happened to "Joseph the son of Jacob who was betrodded to Mary" but can happen to anybody in the exact same way. The better question now becomes: was Joseph real and why would he not have been real if he was just a man like you or me?

lpetrich

That's http://www.jesuspuzzle.com

-DM-

The Historical Evidence for Jesus by G. A. Wells builds a case for the nonhistoricity of Jesus.

See also: The Jesus Myth, also by Wells.

-Don-

Vorkosigan

Define "Christian" Luv, and we'll tell you who first started it. The linguistic evidence suggests that the term was not used until at least end of the first century. Acts says Antioch was where Christians were first called Christians, recognizing that the term was not used initially. Paul's terminology does not include "Christian," as I recall. Ellegaard says Paul uses the same terminology that the Essenes used to describe themselves....so, what's a Christian?

Butters

In another thread someone was asking why christianity did not catch on so strongly in Israel as it did in other places. I think it could be because it was a myth, and they knew these events did not happen, but in Rome, it was easier to fool people with a story set in a foreign land.

Amos

The difficulty is that Christianity is the end of religion and not religion itself. This means that there cannot be any Christian religions but there can only be religions that lead to the Christian state of being wherein we are a new creation that is free from the bondage of slavery and sin. The area wherein this renewal event takes place is Christendom and the two religions that can possible lead to this are not Christian religions but are Catholic and Jewish by name.

Vinnie

Buy this book:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/07...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

:notworthy

Vinnie