outhouse

What direction the movement went and Paul's popularity are two different things here.

The Jewish sect didn't survive past the real disciples lives as far as we know.

The movement never had a chance in Judaism, the whole point was the separation of Hellenistic Judaism form traditional Judaism.

I agree


Agreed



There was nothing orthodox early on anyway, but his writings were not destroyed as heretical like others, that and we have his disciples softening him up the best they could with the later epistles.

Your probably right that early followers collected what they could and they became the bread and butter of the movement.

I do know early on he was simply viewed as a martyr, and not that of the founder of the Hellenistic movement many falsely claim. He was just riding the wave and was noted because of the writings he left us.


Not sure I understand this correctly, Roman church and own apsotles?

Marcion was viewed as heretical while he was alive by his semi orthodox peers, who claimed "shame on Marcion's eraser" not as much for his views of Jesus, but that of his view of the OT god concept.


When Acts was being written, there wasn't that much of a Roman church per say. There may have been a few houses set up, but I surely wouldn't call it a church that had its own unique view, nor a Roman religion.


Its my opinion the movement was Jewish until his death and martyrdom, where the Jewish movement failed. When the Hellenist left the Passover event and took the legends of resurrection with them all over the Diaspora, the mythology of Jesus grew in Hellenism where it found popularity in the Proselytes and Gentiles Paul was a brilliant theologian and author who was lucky enough to carry enough Judaism into the new movement that his material survived.

Grog

It seems that to me that you are asking a circular question. If my point is that a religion evolved (and I have given you examples of that) then clearly I cannot document its origin. Can you tell me who the first human was? An evolution would not have a clear "start" point. Right? So you are asking me to document a case with a clear origin (and thus founder) that didn't have a founder. The definition of evolution itself precludes that. I do have a tentative one: the new movement. While not quite a religion, I would argue that it is a set of beliefs that incubates both cults and spiritual beliecs that have potential to be religions. In general, I think the new age movement is the closest contemporary to early Christianity.

Grog

I hear the idea that "Paul's version of Christianity won out" a lot. I am not so sure. I think Paul was mostly coopted by orthodox Christianity. There are some very major differences between Paul's teaching and what "won out."

aa5874

The Pauline writings have no influence writings attributed to 2nd century writings of Christians.

1. In the conversion of Justin Martyr--there is no mention at all of the Pauline Corpus. If Justin knew of the Pauline writings then he would NOT have needed the "OLD MAN" in "Dialogue with Trypho".

2. In the conversion of Caecilius in Minucius Felix the Pauline Corpus is unknown and unused.

3. In Origen's "Against Celsus" it is admitted that Celsus wrote nothing about Paul.

4. In Hippolytus "Refutation Against All Heresies", it is claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but those of Empedocles.

5. Aristides' in his Apology did NOT acknowledge Paul as one who evangelized the Gentile world--it was the Twelve disciples.

6. Arnobius in "Against the Heathen" did NOT use the Pauline Corpus or make any references to Paul as the primary evangelist to the Heathens.

7. The first non-Apologetic writing AGAINST the Pauline Corpus appears to be very late in the 3rd-4th century by Porhyry.

8. The Pauline Corpus appears to have NO influence on the Roman Empire in the 2nd century.

Grog

Ok. So you have decided to be deliberately obtuse. I will only observe rhat you are avoiding my position. That 's fine. But I 'm not going to engage with you on this anymore unless you can demonstrate a basic level of comprehension. For the record, I used Scientology as an example of the type of founder you claim is necessary to the orifin of any religion. So have a good day.

J-D

Is there a documented case of the kind of evolution you describe, in the case of any religion?

Grog

Go back and reread what I have already written. Maybe with a couple more attempts you'll be able to wrap your head around it.

Tenorikuma

I am perfectly aware of that. Mark portrays a symbolic empty tomb with the narrator himself appearing as a character, telling the reader that Jesus has been resurrected, and that he will shortly begin making his appearances to the disciples. I take this to be a reference to the visions of the resurrected Christ the apostles claimed to have had.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Mark provides a smooth bridge from the mission and death of Jesus to the miraculous visions of the apostles and Paul's spiritual resurrection theology. Every aspect of Jesus' mission itself is cloaked in secrecy and based primarily on quotations and stories from the Septuagint, just as Paul claimed to know what Jesus had done by reading the Scriptures. Mark and Paul are working from essentially the same playbook. Mark has simply developed the story further.

It is Matthew and Luke who contradict the Pauline corpus. Whether on purpose or due to ignorance, they completely misinterpret the Markan narrative and its Pauline theology. They make Jesus' secret ministry a public one. They replace Jesus' sudden appearance with a standard virgin birth narrative worthy of any Greco-Roman demigod. They ham-handedly make up genealogies to assert a literal descent from David's sperm, despite the fact Jesus had no daddy. They turn Mark's spiritual resurrection with no witnesses into a physical resurrection with many witnesses followed by a separate ascension to Heaven. They turn the mystical visions of the apostles into personal encounters in physical locations (albeit of a docetic nature).

You don't say!

J-D

I have read what you have already written on the subject of the evolution of Taoism and Judaism. The negative part of it is clear; the affirmative part vacuous. How did Taoism evolve? 'In response to changing times', you quote Wikipedia as saying, which tells me nothing. There's no indication of how this evolution in response to changing times is documented.

Again, you quote from Wikipedia on the subject of where the roots of Judaism lie, but there's no documentation of how it grew from those roots.

aa5874

There are many clues that the gMark story is earlier than the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline writers claimed that Jesus was raised from the dead BEFORE they received their revealed Gospel.

Well, in gMark, Jesus preached his own Gospel of God BEFORE he was dead.

The Gospel of God by the supposed Jesus in gMark was that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

The Good NEWS, the Gospel, was NOT that Jesus would die for the Sins of all mankind.

Mark 1 gMark did NOT use the Pauline Gospel.


The Salvation story was invented LATER.

In gMark, Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he would be delivered up, Killed, and resurrect after three days. That is all.

1. gMark 82. u]gMark 9[/u]3. gMark 10 There is NOTHING about dying for the Sins of mankind in gMark.

In fact, in gMark Jesus claimed he would suffer and set at naught.

Mark 9 The gMark story of Jesus predated the Pauline Gospel of Salvation by the death of Jesus.

It is the LATER gJohn that specifically claimed Jesus was Sacrificed for the Sins of mankind.

John 3:16 KJVGalatians 2:20 KJV The Pauline revealed Gospel is compatible with the Later gJohn's Jesus.

The Jesus of gMark's Gospel was that the Kingdom of God was a hand.