Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 06-13-2013, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

The question that really needs to be examined has a different nuance than what you present, Ted. We need to ask to what extent Christianity actually arose among Jews, and what was the form of it in its initial stage. There is a huge difference between the idea that Jews in Jerusalem responded to a preaching, miracle-working sage and came to take his disciples' word for it that he had walked out of his grave and was consequently the redeemer of the world (all of which enjoys no evidence in the entire epistolary record, in contrast to the 2nd century Acts) and the idea that some Jews in Hellenistic influenced milieus, with many gentiles taking part as well, were persuaded that God had a Son along Logos lines and that scripture revealed activities of that Son in the heavenly realm.

Your "among Jews" really needs to be defined and analyzed first. (My apologies if that has been done in subsequent postings in this thread.)

Earl Doherty

Yes, that problem became clearer as the postings unfolded. I am persuaded by the evidence that Christianity began with the Jews, and that it began in Jerusalem, and spread among Jews who lived far away. Gentile conversions came slightly later. I think Acts, Paul's epistles, and the secular references provide fairly strong evidence for this being accurate. Even if the sequence is wrong, we can still be confident that many Jews believed, and resided in Jerusalem itself, which was the location of its earliest leaders.

I wonder what those Jews were responding to, and why. What started Christianity among them? A few visions? A story? What NEED was being met that enabled them to adopt such a radically different belief system from their own native Judiasm?

steve_bnk · 06-13-2013, 12:48 PM

First, the message in the gospels presented an offer of hope and all's one had to do was believe.

The whole of Christianity is based on the alleged eye witness accounts of the resurrection and the promise of eternal life for the believers. Still a powerful message today.

Second, there was a promise/prophesy of a Jewish messiah. Jews were in distress with a lot of turmoil. Susceptible to a messiah figure.

But as evidenced on the forum discussions, we have no idea what really happened.

I don't know if 'took hold' is right. If you go by the NT early Jewish adherents to the new Jewish variant were at odds with mainstream Jews. Paul was on the run from Jews and took refuge in his Roman citizenship.

Again by the NT as we have it, Paul removed the traditional Jewish practices and opened it up to gentiles.

outhouse · 06-13-2013, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Again by the NT as we have it, Paul removed the traditional Jewish practices and opened it up to gentiles.

No

Paul flat tells us he was not the only teacher, teaching what he was. He didnt change anything. he was one voice viewed as a martyr early on.

He was not rsponsible.

Paul didnt start or change anything, he was one who looked at himself as a apostle to the gentiles, but in his time there were others, and more scripture floating around, with different views.

There were many variations of the movement at this time, some out of jewish tradition and some closer to Judaism, all we know is the surving sects grew in Hellensim.

Quote:

But as evidenced on the forum discussions, we have no idea what really happened.

Speak for yourself.

WE have plenty of ideas, hell even Earl has a idea. I posted my idea.

steve_bnk · 06-13-2013, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Again by the NT as we have it, Paul removed the traditional Jewish practices and opened it up to gentiles.

No

Paul flat tells us he was not the only teacher, teaching what he was. He didnt change anything. he was one voice viewed as a martyr early on.

He was not rsponsible.

Paul didnt start or change anything, he was one who looked at himself as a apostle to the gentiles, but in his time there were others, and more scripture floating around, with different views.

There were many variations of the movement at this time, some out of jewish tradition and some closer to Judaism, all we know is the surving sects grew in Hellensim.

Quote:

But as evidenced on the forum discussions, we have no idea what really happened.

Speak for yourself.

WE have plenty of ideas, hell even Earl has a idea. I posted my idea.

Huh?

Ideas yes. Actual details and knowledge, not a clue. Personally I believe a likely HJ of some sort on which the stories were based and embellished..

There were no Christians at the beginning. Rome saw them as heretic Jews, which for a while actually gave them some cover. Later Christians became a separate identify, coopting Jewish scripture as their own.

Again going by the NT, The Jesus of the gospels was a Jewish rabbi preaching to Jews. He did nor start a new religion, appeared to reinforce Mosaic law in his rejection of divorce, and referenced Jewish scripture and prophets.

IOW he appeared to keep kosher not rejecting Judaism. According to the gospels JC did not come to change, but fulfill.

Modern Christianity free of the Leviticus-Mosaic conventions comes down from Paul. Christianity as it evolved is more aptly called Paulism.

From Paul, a Jew is by what is in the heart, not by circumcision. Hard to get converts when adult circumcision would be required.

outhouse · 06-13-2013, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

No

Paul flat tells us he was not the only teacher, teaching what he was. He didnt change anything. he was one voice viewed as a martyr early on.

He was not rsponsible.

Paul didnt start or change anything, he was one who looked at himself as a apostle to the gentiles, but in his time there were others, and more scripture floating around, with different views.

There were many variations of the movement at this time, some out of jewish tradition and some closer to Judaism, all we know is the surving sects grew in Hellensim.

Speak for yourself.

WE have plenty of ideas, hell even Earl has a idea. I posted my idea.

Huh?

Ideas yes. Actual details and knowledge, not a clue. Personally I believe a likely HJ of some sort on which the stories were based and embellished..

There were no Christians at the beginning. Rome saw them as heretic Jews, which for a while actually gave them some cover. Later Christians became a separate identify, coopting Jewish scripture as their own.

Again going by the NT, The Jesus of the gospels was a Jewish rabbi preaching to Jews. He did nor start a new religion, appeared to reinforce Mosaic law in his rejection of divorce, and referenced Jewish scripture and prophets.

IOW he appeared to keep kosher not rejecting Judaism. According to the gospels JC did not come to change, but fulfill.

Modern Christianity free of the Leviticus-Mosaic conventions comes down from Paul. Christianity as it evolved is more aptly called Paulism.

From Paul, a Jew is by what is in the heart, not by circumcision. Hard to get converts when adult circumcision would be required.

Well said.

Nothing at to really argue there.

Agreed. Paul was only popular later because he became orthodox in time. Not at the beginning while he was alive..

EarlDoherty · 06-13-2013, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Don't let "aa" or Aristides fool you, Ted. The single 'gospel' passage in that apology is almost certainly a later insertion. I posted here my full Appendix from Jesus: Neither God Nor Man on that subject a couple of months ago, but "aa"s mind is on such auto-pilot that he just keeps parroting his quote and didn't even deign to comment on it. Of course, neither did anyone else, which shows the abysmal extent to which people here are willing and able to actually engage with the arguments that they so readily pontificate against.

What absurdity you post!! Why are you not fooling people with your claims?

Your statement about me are totally useless and are just part of a propaganda drive which only discredits you.

I present the written statement of Aristides and others of antiquity NOT your flawed opinion.

It must be noted that Aristides did claim Jesus the Son of God came down from heaven and was pierced by the Jews on earth which completely contradicts you.

Based on Aristides, Justin, Tertullian, Origen, Ignatius, the Gospels and others you may be the one who is actively fooling people with your claim that the crucified Jesus of the Jesus cult was never on earth.

The Jesus cult did start with the claim that Jesus the Son of God came down from heaven and LIVED in the daughter of man, did have 12 disciples, and was PIERCED by the Jews.

Aristides "Apology"

Quote:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they have become famous.

Your opinion about the start of the Jesus cult of Christians is wholly flawed because you cannot ever present any actual evidence to show that the Jesus cult started with a heavenly crucified Jesus.

I've presented a mountain of evidence. But as you did with my case for the quote from Aristides being likely an interpolation, you ignore it all. That is why your postings here are pointless.

Earl Doherty

aa5874 · 06-13-2013, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... I am persuaded by the evidence that Christianity began with the Jews, and that it began in Jerusalem, and spread among Jews who lived far away. Gentile conversions came slightly later. I think Acts, Paul's epistles, and the secular references provide fairly strong evidence for this being accurate. Even if the sequence is wrong, we can still be confident that many Jews believed, and resided in Jerusalem itself, which was the location of its earliest leaders...

What evidence from secular references are you talking about?? In your OP you did specifically admit you ASSUMED Christianity started with the Jews.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

This is open to all views with regard to history and the Bible and Jesus, with the one assumption that it Jews were among the early believers:

I'm curious what the main 1 or 2 reasons is that Christianity took hold among early JEWS.

What did the Jews respond to, and why?

All of a sudden your ASSUMPTION has now become evidence.

It is already known that Acts is a work of fiction and it is stated that it was the Holy Ghost came down from heaven and gave the disciples the Power to start the Jesus cult.

There is no corroborative evidence for the accounts in Acts about Jesus, the cult and Paul in secular references. And most disturbing is that you very well know that there are no strong secular references to Jews who worshiped a man called Jesus of Nazareth as a God at any time.

It is the complete opposite.

Even Apologetic sources have contradicted Acts and admit the Jews did not acknowledge the advent of a character called Jesus Christ.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

"Now I am aware that your teachers, sirs, admit the whole of the words of this passage to refer to Christ; and I am likewise aware that they maintain He has not yet come; or if they say that He has come, they assert that it is not known who He is; but when He shall become manifest and glorious, then it shall be known who He is..

There is no secular evidence whatsoever that Jews worshiped a dead Jewish Christ called Jesus as a God in any time from the 1st to the 4th century.

The Jesus cult started with Non-Jews.

Hippolytus' Against the Jews

Quote:

1. Now, then, incline your ear to me, and hear my words, and give heed, you Jew.

Many a time do you boast yourself, in that you condemned Jesus of Nazareth to death, and gave Him vinegar and gall to drink; and you vaunt yourself because of this.

Come therefore, and let us consider together whether perchance you do not boast unrighteously, O Israel, (and) whether that small portion of vinegar and gall has not brought down this fearful threatening upon you, (and) whether this is not the cause of your present condition involved in these myriad troubles.

TedM · 06-13-2013, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What evidence from secular references are you talking about?? In your OP you did specifically admit you ASSUMED Christianity started with the Jews.

Agree, the evidences are best left for another thread. Let's stick with the assumption: Jews were among early believers. IF so, why? What were they responding to and why did it resonate with those that responded?

I prefer to mostly read what people have to say. It's been a pretty good discussion so far. Appreciate your input too.

Toto · 06-13-2013, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What evidence from secular references are you talking about?? In your OP you did specifically admit you ASSUMED Christianity started with the Jews.

Agree, the evidences are best left for another thread. Let's stick with the assumption: Jews were among early believers. IF so, why? What were they responding to and why did it resonate with those that responded?

I prefer to mostly read what people have to say. It's been a pretty good discussion so far. Appreciate your input too.

No, don't leave us hanging. What are those secular references? The earliest Roman references to Christianity (Tacitus if valid, Pliny - don't give a hint that these Christians were connected to Jews. Jews had a legal religion, and the Christians were subversive atheists.

Chili · 06-13-2013, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Again by the NT as we have it, Paul removed the traditional Jewish practices and opened it up to gentiles.

No

Paul flat tells us he was not the only teacher, teaching what he was. He didnt change anything. he was one voice viewed as a martyr early on.

He was not rsponsible.

Paul didnt start or change anything, he was one who looked at himself as a apostle to the gentiles, but in his time there were others, and more scripture floating around, with different views.

There were many variations of the movement at this time, some out of jewish tradition and some closer to Judaism, all we know is the surving sects grew in Hellensim.

Quote:

But as evidenced on the forum discussions, we have no idea what really happened.

Speak for yourself.

WE have plenty of ideas, hell even Earl has a idea. I posted my idea.

20.000 Ideas with a salvation recipe each except for one and they are not Christian, but Catholic in case you wonder, and they do not ascribe to the Jesus cult that in this tread is identified as Christian then.

Of course they do not argue that point but just left him hanging there as pigfeed for others to chew.

Slippery Paul a martyr you say?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-13-2013, 12:48 PM	#82
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	First, the message in the gospels presented an offer of hope and all's one had to do was believe. The whole of Christianity is based on the alleged eye witness accounts of the resurrection and the promise of eternal life for the believers. Still a powerful message today. Second, there was a promise/prophesy of a Jewish messiah. Jews were in distress with a lot of turmoil. Susceptible to a messiah figure. But as evidenced on the forum discussions, we have no idea what really happened. I don't know if 'took hold' is right. If you go by the NT early Jewish adherents to the new Jewish variant were at odds with mainstream Jews. Paul was on the run from Jews and took refuge in his Roman citizenship. Again by the NT as we have it, Paul removed the traditional Jewish practices and opened it up to gentiles.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.