Originally Posted by maryhelena

Obviously?

Methinks the JC historicists, and NT scholars, are not buying this vision idea as the root of early christianity. Visions don't take either the one claiming a vision, or those who buy into that vision, very far at all - just until the next big vision comes along. A Battle of the Visions - such a simplistic view of what started early christianity - a view that will continue to keep the ahistoricist JC position on the back foot in any debate over the gospel JC story.

The gospel JC story, a story set within Jewish history, is, like the stories of the OT, a story about Jewish history. A story about Jewish history retold, interpreted, through a prophetic lens. It is a very Jewish story - and it's roots are entangled within Jewish history. While that story, via it's resurrection element, has reached for the sky, it's roots are securely based on terra firm. Without that base, visions have no 'legs' by which to run very far at all. Visions, however imagined, might be, for some people, the cherry on the cake - but it's the 'cake' that holds and sustains that cherry.

'Visions', without relevance for living on terra firma are visions of the night; visions with no more value than the entertainment value of science fiction.
The 'visions' that are important, that have relevance for living on terra firma - are the 'visions' of the day. Day dreams about the reality that is - and the reality that could be.

Originally Posted by J-D

How did the fall of the temple and the words found in other books start a story that has things in it that are not the fall of the temple and not found in those other books?

Originally Posted by aa5874

What other books are you talking about? Please be specific.

Originally Posted by J-D

So, what did start the story?

Originally Posted by maryhelena

History, Jewish history. Someone, or some people, Jewish people, interpreted their history through a prophetic lens. Yes, of course, the original source of the gospel story, who created that story, what people were involved in spreading that story, is interesting........But, from our perspective today, a perspective that is seeking early christian roots, it's the JC story itself that needs, first, to be acknowledged for what it is: A prophetic rewriting, retelling, of Jewish history. From that position i.e. putting Jewish history on the table - one can then, perhaps, be able to take that further step back - naming those who would have had an interest in specific elements of that Jewish history - and might have had a hand in the creation and spreading of that JC story.

Originally Posted by J-D

The ones you just mentioned.

Originally Posted by outhouse

Here is my take.

A peasant Zealot Jew had been teaching and healing around Galilee in poor villages. What his political stance we don't know because in this case the authors were writing to and for Jesus enemies, and didn't want the Romans persecuting them, so that is lost. Galileans were known as Zealots and with their socioeconomic divide due to Antipas forcing many off their land so he could have farms to feed Sepphoris and Tiberious, its no wonder we don't see Jesus teaching or healing in these large cities of Hellenistic Jews. Add to that of the extreme taxation of these poor peasants, Galileans had it rough.

What we have here are gospels that really deal with the last week of his life and death at Passover and crucifixion and resurrection through a different view then the original movement. Written by people that had no relationship at all with the original movement.

The original movement was in Galilee for Galileans.


What happened is the man went into the temple and cause some amount of disturbances and Pilate punished him severely for it.

There were hundreds of thousand of people in attendance "Sanders claims 400,000". The man was martyred for fighting the known corruption in the temple. My guess is while Passover was still going on, legends of resurrection surfaced for who knows which reason, and it was pretty much the talk of the event.


After Passover people went back home all over the Diaspora with these legends and in a slight few, the story hit home and mythology grew. This explains why within a few decades the legends were all over the Diaspora.

Paul was not the only teacher, and he didn't spread the word as much as many people attribute. He tells us there were other teachers, and he only went to houses not churches, half the time correcting what he thought was wrong with their view and defending his version of the movement.

The movement grew in Hellenism in my opinion, because there was already a cultural divide in Hellenistic Judaism, and Judaism. Hellenistic Proselytes had been worshipping Judaism for centuries but would not fully convert. WE know there was tension between Jew/Hebrews and Hellenistic Judaism, Acts even talks about how the women in a soup line were not being taken care of over favor for the "real Jews"


This martyred man was the match that lit off theology that was found appealing to a few people, and within these few people, and from the Jewish theology, the Proselytes had grew the theology and mythology to fit their needs, much based on oral tradition, the mythology and theology grew a new, and within a few decades or so the movement grew and legends started hitting papyrus. having little to do with the original movement or man.

Originally Posted by J-D

Well, that's the question, isn't it? what started Christianity? and if the answer to that is, the story started Christianity, then the obvious next question is, what started the story? although of course there's another obvious question, namely, how did the story start Christianity?

Originally Posted by aa5874

Which ones?

Originally Posted by J-D

How did the fall of the temple and the words found in other books start a story that has things in it that are not the fall of the temple and not found in those other books?

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Well, stories have a habit of doing the rounds.....but that's the second leg is it not i.e. how the story gained ground. The fundamental question regarding the story is not how that story gained acceptance - all sorts of stories have their adherents. The fundamental question is: What is the gospel JC story about? The root of early christianity is not the spread of the gospel story - the root is the story itself - what is that story about?

1) the JC historicists claim it's about a flesh and blood JC (of whatever variant - i.e. cherry picking the gospel story).

2) mythicists of the Earl Doherty camp who claim christianity began via a vision.

3) my position, an ahistorical JC position - the gospel story is a prophetic interpretation, retelling, of Jewish history. Jewish history is fundamental, basic, the core, the root, of that gospel story.