Duvduv

Isn't it interesting how the ancient apologists can make all sorts of claims about sects and heresies as a backhanded way of reinforcing their own official status as the imperial religion, and yet not a shred of these sects exists anywhere? They could have just as easily invented Martians or Vulcans, and it would have made no difference.
There is not a shred of evidence of any Jewish Christian sect at all anywhere. All the hearsay and wild claims does not change that.

outhouse

What evidence is there for the beginning of the, Pharisees? Sadducee's? Zealots? Sicarii? Essenes?

What evidence would there be for the beginning of any small cult?

Duvduv

Outhouse, I don't know if you want to rely on the claims of mutually antagonistic groups such as rabbinic Jews, NT texts, Karaite Jews and Samaritans concerned the existence of Saduccees. You could look at it in terms of relying on FAITH in the claims of earlier writers, in your case the early Christian apologists, and in my case the rabbinical writings of the midrashim and Talmud. But the problem is simply that so-called secularists won't admit to their reliance on FAITH, preferring instead statements about "evidence."

In the case of the Ebionites, among all types of sects, there are no claims about their existence outside of those based on the early Christian writers. I guess you would have to decide which heretical sects those Christian writers invented out of thin air for their purposes and which were authentic.

Remember the claims about Cerinthians, that they were libertine in sexual matters but followed the Torah? Doesn't that sound absurd? There is no evidence of such a sect either.

aa5874

Again, you imagine your own history. BC&H was not really intended for imagination based opinion.

The Jesus cult was not small in the NT.

There were THOUSANDS of Jews who converted in Acts of the Apostles.

In two days, according to Acts, there were 8000 Jewish converts.
Acts 2:41 KJVActs 4:4 KJV There are also Pauline letters to Churches all over the Roman Empire.

In the Epistle to the Romans, the Pauline writer claimed the Faith of the Roman was known throughout the world.

Romans 1:8 KJV1. We have nothing about Jewish Christians of the Jesus cult outside of apologetics.

2. We have nothing of the Pauline Network of Chuches in the Empire outside of apologetics.

Thousands of Christians of the Jesus cult in the Roman have melted away--never heard of--never seen--vanished without a trace.

But, we have writings about Jesus the Son of Ananus, a loner and madman.

We have writings about Jesus the Son of Sapphias, a leader of a band of robbers and mariners.

We have writings about Jesus the Son of Damneus the high Priest.

We have writings about Theudas the prophet who got his head chopped off.

It is clear that the Jesus story and the cult of Christians in Jerusalem were invented and were never known by apologetics until the 2nd century.

outhouse

I stated this

How is that relying on any claims?


The Sadducees are not up for debate here, nor anywhere really as far as them existing. They did and were hated.

There is no case, there is only speculation. Off topic really, there is no real tie to them and the real apostles.

No real connection to the real apostles either.

Cheerful Charlie

I can think of one. Check out Lucian's Alexander of Abonuchia, or Alexander the Miracle Monger. A laugh riot.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/luci...chapter30.html

Cheerful Charlie

Onias

The pacifistic miracle-working Jesus of the souped-up extant gospels would be the one that was mythical, while the historical Jesus (or his prototype in the original MSS) would be the one who attempted to be a successful Jewish messiah but failed.
Onias

aa5874

Your claim is mere conjecture. You are supposed to present the sources for your claims.

If the Jesus story was souped up then you are merely acknowledging that your sources are not credible.

There is no evidence for an historical Jesus and no evidence of a Jesus cult in Jerusalem before c 70 CE.

Not a single known Jewish writer of antiquity mentioned a Jesus cult whose members worshiped a man from Nazareth as a God.

Not a single known Jew was member of the Jesus cult in the writings of non-Apologetics.

Onias

An historical savior Jesus by that name may be irrelevant. I think the name 'Jesus' is a red herring. It is a generic term for those who may have promised salvation. It seems all theories I see are mere conjecture, but I am merely explaining that a pacifistic 'Jesus' does not fit the bill for a messiah in the days of the Judean revolt. It think the pacifistic 'Jesus' is a satire of a real messianic claimant who failed to be all that he could be.
Onias

mountainman

The author of Acts wants people to know they first appeared at Antioch.


When was Acts written?


What a mystery.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia