(February 20, 2013 at 11:00 am)EGross Wrote: If Paul had started selling the son of god stuff at that time, he would have been a dead man. If he was a snake oil salesman, then he would have found a market (slaves and women, the downtrodden), and sold stuff to them.

This is suggested by something in Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan. Translations differ when it comes to what the two slaves Pliny tortured did at the ceremonies - some say they were deaconesses while others say they officiated at the religious rites. A religion where slaves could hold an important position would definitely have had an appeal for the downtrodden.

(February 20, 2013 at 11:00 am)EGross Wrote: People have wondered why he would have yelled at anyone trying to incorporate Jewish stuff into their practice and said "circumcision, torah, and mitzvot I treated as crap in order to accept a Christ" (paraphrasing). He was so much on the other side, that the conspiracy that he was sent out by the pharisees to get jesus away from the jews has come up from time to time. It may be silliness, but it's still fun speculating.

This still relies on there being a Jesus somewhere. I've found an another idea about what could have happened.The Problem Of Paul

Quote:A source of information about Paul that has never been taken seriously enough is a group called the Ebionites. Their writings were suppressed by the Church, but some of their views and traditions were preserved in the writings of their opponents, particularly in the huge treatise on Heresies by Epiphanius. From this it appears that the Ebionites had a very different account to give of Paul's background and early life from that found in the New Testament and fostered by Paul himself. The Ebionites testified that Paul had no Pharisaic background or training; he was the son of Gentiles, converted to Judaism in Tarsus, came to Jerusalem when an adult, and attached himself to the High Priest as a henchman. Disappointed in his hopes of advancement, he broke with the High Priest and sought fame by founding a new religion. This account, while not reliable in all its details, is substantially correct. It makes far more sense of all the puzzling and contradictory features of the story of Paul than the account of the official documents of the Church.

The rest of the article goes on the assumption that there really was a Jesus and the Nazarene sect had been founded by his followers but maybe the above is enough to explain Paul's actions. Realising he wouldn't have a glittering career because he was a convert without Pharisaic training he decided to leave Judea and start a religious cult. People are still starting religious cults and lying about their backgrounds so it wouldn't be impossible for Paul to have done this.

There's still the question of who the Nazarenes were if Jesus never existed, though. Some people say that Nazareth itself didn't exist when Jesus was supposed to be alive but there's now reports that Nazareth Excavation Reveals Remains From Time Of Jesus. Looks like it's been turned into a Nazareth Village Living History Theme Park

It appears that the pagan Romans got Christianity confused with Judaism. Maybe this was due to Paul preaching that a divine being had been executed and resurrected in Judea and all his disciples were Jews.

Paul wrote a Letter To The Galatians where he says that after his conversion -

Quote:Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
[18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
[19] But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
[20] Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

It's unlikely that any of the Christians in Galatia (Turkey) had been in Jerusalem at the time so they just had to take his word for it that he was telling the truth.

He says something very odd in this letter.

Quote:11] But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
[12] For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Is he really telling them that he got the gospel from Jesus talking to him in revelations? He never met Jesus when the latter was supposed to be alive and, as Peter and James were supposed to be men, he couldn't have got the gospel from them either. He sounds more and more like a cult founder to me.

In Galatians 2 he wrote -

Quote:Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

I checked to see if Barnabas and Titus were ever in Galatia but couldn't see anything about it in the wiki articles about them. Maybe they didn't exist either.

I find it difficult to imagine how Christianity got started if Paul is as fictitious as Jesus. Paul as a snake oil salesman who started a cult could explain it, though.

PS:Epistle To The Galatians Composition

Quote:No original of the letter is known to survive. The earliest reasonably complete version available to scholars today, named P46, dates to approximately the year 200 AD, approximately 150 years after the original was presumably drafted.[2] This papyrus, is fragmented in a few areas causing some of the original text carefully preserved over the years to be missing, "however, through careful research relating to paper construction, handwriting development, and the established principles of textual criticism, scholars can be rather certain about where these errors and changes appeared and what the original text probably said."[3] Scholars generally date the original composition to c. 50-60 AD.[4]

This was after Celsus first mentioned Jesus in AD 180. Did Paul ever call his divine being Jesus? Perhaps he just referred to him as our Lord because he doesn't say he met Jesus's brother, James - it's "James the Lord's brother".

And Paul never mentions stuff like Virgin briths and the like. But the story about him trying to climb the ladder as a Temple worker is cute. If your father was not a Cohen. It's sort of a show stopper. Also, there's a tradition that Cohanim will not let their child marry a convert. Not sure where that comes from, but them's the breaks!

Thanks for the other details.

With all the debate that Christianity was invented by some religious fanatics that wanted to control the world.... Aren't you wondering just why they created such an ordinary character as Jesus?

Wouldn't a sword wielding dynamo, on a winged horse suit a conqueroring saviour much better, in your atheistic opinions? Really now...what harm can a poor, lovable carpenter from Nazareth afford you, or anyone else for-that-matter?

Why all the fuss about someone who has no effect on your lives (in a hands-on way) whatsoever? And please don't use his followers... because as you all agree...we are on the downslide in numbers! In that case... pretty soon there won't be a need for anyone to come here?

Is it the lack of understanding, or fear, and/or rejection of the REAL answer that keeps an "unbeliever" lashing out..... at the much maligned, and [percieved impotent] shadow called Christianity that is following him/her around?

...maybe.... Jesus is a surgical knife to our conscience? A crimp in our style...or an A-bomb to [our freedoms]...whatever they be nonadays?

And.........just maybe.........that's the real issue here. So, whatever you may think, it's still Jesus that has brought you here today!

I don't know too many ordinary people with magical powers Ron. A sword swinging dynamo who, you know, fulfills all the sword swinging "prophecies" of the OT probably would have faired better as a tale - particularly to jews. Trouble is, it would be difficult for the peddler of such nonsense to explain why none of the tangibles in the narrative had materialized. Which is why the dealer of intangible magical services makes for such a long lasting and pervasive narrative, imho. Even between two fictional characters, say Merlin and Arthur - Merlins the showstopper, aint he.

(February 20, 2013 at 4:31 pm)ronedee Wrote: With all the debate that Christianity was invented by some religious fanatics that wanted to control the world.... Aren't you wondering just why they created such an ordinary character as Jesus?

Wouldn't a sword wielding dynamo, on a winged horse suit a conqueroring saviour much better, in your atheistic opinions? Really now...what harm can a poor, lovable carpenter from Nazareth afford you, or anyone else for-that-matter?

I think you are selling that godling a bit short.

Exorcizing thousands of demons in a day? Casting devils into pigs and forcing them to leap off of cliffs? Disrupting a Temple event by trashing all of the trading going on and being the tough guy when such an act could have gotten his throat slashed? Killing a fig tree with his magic stare? And then picking up a severed ear and sticking it back on as part of a sword battle?

And so much more! Oh yeah, and he is a god that talks to himself a lot. ("Father...")

So don't play the "poor little carpenter meek and mild" card. It doesn't fly when you create a god.

(February 20, 2013 at 4:31 pm)ronedee Wrote: With all the debate that Christianity was invented by some religious fanatics that wanted to control the world.... Aren't you wondering just why they created such an ordinary character as Jesus?

How does the Christian portrayal of Jesus make him such an ordinary character? His mother was supposed to be a virgin impregnated by God, he performed miracles and then he came back from the dead three days after he'd been crucified. I've never met anyone like that where I live.

(February 20, 2013 at 4:31 pm)ronedee Wrote: Wouldn't a sword wielding dynamo, on a winged horse suit a conqueroring saviour much better, in your atheistic opinions? Really now...what harm can a poor, lovable carpenter from Nazareth afford you, or anyone else for-that-matter?

It seems that a lot of modern scholars think there might have been a real man behind the myths and legends. The subject of this topic is how Christianity could have got started when it did without Jesus existing at all in any shape or form. It's an interesting exercise.

(February 20, 2013 at 4:31 pm)ronedee Wrote: Is it the lack of understanding, or fear, and/or rejection of the REAL answer that keeps an "unbeliever" lashing out..... at the much maligned, and [percieved impotent] shadow called Christianity that is following him/her around?

But what is the REAL answer?

(February 20, 2013 at 4:31 pm)ronedee Wrote: ...maybe.... Jesus is a surgical knife to our conscience? A crimp in our style...or an A-bomb to [our freedoms]...whatever they be nonadays?

And.........just maybe.........that's the real issue here. So, whatever you may think, it's still Jesus that has brought you here today!

It's my interest in history that prompted me to make this topic. Christianity definitely got started so how it might have got started counts as history.

I'm an atheist because one of my main interests is comparative religion and I started reading about mythology when I was a child. I soon came to the conclusion that not all the religions people have followed throughout history could be true and I was unable to see a reason why any of them should be true.

For Minimalist. I've found some much better arguments for why the Pliny/Trajan letters might be a fake than KH's idea that Pliny never mentioned Nero's spectacle anywhere. After reading a six page biography of P the Younger I couldn't see any reason why he should have. I'm going to abandon KH altogether now because he just muddies the water with odd ideas such as Nero didn't set fire to Rome because he was in Antrium. I've browsed through several pages on his site and none of them had a well thought out article - they're just lists of what he regards as facts with a few comments thrown in.

Quote:At that time Paul and Peter were condemned to capital punishment, of whom the one was beheaded with a sword, while Peter suffered crucifixion.

I don't have time to reply to this right now ( busy day) but this is nothing but xtian tradition.

In Clement of Rome's First Epistle - and Clement of Rome was probably a later fiction himself! - he (or whoever) writes.

Quote:CHAPTER 5

5:1 But let us pass from ancient examples, and come unto those who have in the times nearest to us, wrestled for the faith.

5:2 Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death.

5:3 Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles.

5:4 Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.

5:5 Through envy Paul, too, showed by example the prize that is given to patience:

5:6 seven times was he cast into chains; he was banished; he was stoned; having become a herald, both in the East and in the West, he obtained the noble renown due to his faith;

5:7 and having preached righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before rulers, he departed at length out of the world, and went to the holy place, having become the greatest example of patience.

There is nothing in this which suggests that either was killed by Romans in any matter and - here we go again - this seems to be more of the same xtian persecution myth which is under discussion.

(February 20, 2013 at 5:40 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I don't have time to reply to this right now ( busy day) but this is nothing but xtian tradition.

I know it's nothing more than Christian tradition but I thought that part of this discussion was about how Christian tradition developed over the centuries. 5th Century Severus wrote that Peter and Paul had been martyred even though Clement of Rome who's supposed to have died in AD 99 probably didn't say it - there's a different translation to the one you quoted but I'll get to that in a minute.

(February 20, 2013 at 5:40 pm)Minimalist Wrote: In Clement of Rome's First Epistle - and Clement of Rome was probably a later fiction himself! - he (or whoever) writes.

5:4 Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.

That's the general translation but the Roberts-Donaldson one says something different about Peter and Paul.

Quote:Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects

Somebody called J B Lightfoot wrote about Clement and said -

Quote:But more precise and definite facts are contained elsewhere respecting the earlier and more severe assault on the Christians in the latter years
of the reign of Nero, where reference is made especially to the martyrdoms of St. Peter and St. Paul.

As I don't know Latin I can't check the untranslated text of the Epistle and see what it actually says for myself. My guess is that some people could have been influenced by what Severus said at the end of his description of Nero's spectacle.

Quote:It was in this way that cruelty first began to be manifested against the Christians. Afterward, too, their religion was prohibited by laws which were given, and by edicts openly set forth it was proclaimed unlawful to be a Christian. At that time Paul and Peter were condemned to capital punishment, of whom the one was beheaded with a sword, while Peter suffered crucifixion.

The way he worded it suggests that Peter and Paul were supposed to have been martyred after the fictitious laws were introduced. I just think it odd that anyone forging the Tacitus passage didn't jump at the chance to hint that Peter was crucified during the spectacle.

These days I personally subscribe to the view that Jesus started off as a mythical character who later got made into a historical character. Earl Doherty proposes this hypothesis in the Jesus Puzzle.

The fact that Christian apologists such as Mike Licona have said that subscribing to the Christ Myth Hypothesis is the same as holocaust denial, to me indicates that these people are deeply challenged by the Christ Myth theory. Since apologists dominate the biblical studies field, it is not surprising very few in that field would advocate the Christ Myth hypothesis, it is much akin to say biology being dominated by those who advocate intelligent design or creationism.

Because as I have stated earlier this reaction is because these people know all very well (unless they are idiots) that the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, let along attesting to the events in the New Testament is sparse and of dubious reliability. Which should ring alarm bells so to speak, because the Church took a lot of pains to preserve the writings of Church fathers at the expense of other ancient works* (which the church was not interested in preserving). Anything which attested to existence of Jesus and the events portrayed in the Gospels would have been meticulously preserved.

As the Minimalist has pointed out time and time again the references to Jesus in the works of Josephus and Tacitus may well have been later forgeries. Which would mean the earliest attestations to Jesus existing are in the later part of the 2nd century or more than 100 years after Jesus supposedly died.


*The notion that much knowledge was lost during the Dark Ages is true. Because of the church's desire to preserve all manner of writings from various Church fathers, at the expense of everything else. In the words of the historian Richard Carrer We have a hundred volumes of Jerome's inordinately boring letters, but not a single volume on Aristarchan heliocentric theory. Yes, heliocentric theory--over a thousand years before Copernicus.

(February 21, 2013 at 6:24 am)Justtristo Wrote: These days I personally subscribe to the view that Jesus started off as a mythical character who later got made into a historical character. Earl Doherty proposes this hypothesis in the Jesus Puzzle.

Does Earl Doherty suggest how Christianity got started round a mythical character? People who heard the myth and believed in it must have formed a religious sect. Where was the original sect and when was it formed?

I looked Earl Doherty up and found this - (I'm quoting it because of who said it.)

Quote:Doherty on the other hand has received strong criticism for his work. Bart Ehrman, an expert on textual criticism of the NT and Early Christianity, has dismissed Jesus, Neither God nor Man as "filled with so many unguarded and undocumented statements and claims, and so many misstatements of fact, that it would take a 2,400-page book to deal with all the problems...Not a single early Christian source supports Doherty's claim that Paul and those before him thought of Jesus as a spiritual, not a human being, who was executed in the spiritual, not the earthly realm."[19]

(February 21, 2013 at 6:24 am)Justtristo Wrote: Because as I have stated earlier this reaction is because these people know all very well (unless they are idiots) that the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, let along attesting to the events in the New Testament is sparse and of dubious reliability.

According to wikipedia, most modern scholars seem to think there was a real man behind the myth and so they dismiss the pure myth theory. What I'm trying to do is track down some of these modern scholars to see if they could have an agenda for taking the attitude that Jesus wasn't a myth. Bart Ehrman, for example, has written books on New Testament forgeries and contradictions as well as books where he says there was an historical Jesus. I can't help wondering if he's someone who analyzes texts to suit whichever book he's writing at the time.

It's the same with the question of whether the Pliny/Trajan letters are authentic. I've come across arguments for them being forgeries and a couple of good arguments in articles for them being genuine. The real problem is finding neutral analyses because Christians want them to be authentic while people like Kenneth Humphries want everything to be a fake. They're as bad as each other in my opinion.

(February 21, 2013 at 6:24 am)Justtristo Wrote: As the Minimalist has pointed out time and time again the references to Jesus in the works of Josephus and Tacitus may well have been later forgeries. Which would mean the earliest attestations to Jesus existing are in the later part of the 2nd century or more than 100 years after Jesus supposedly died.

I haven't looked into Josephus because I'm still on the trail of that Tacitus passage. People who say it's a forgery talk about chrestianos being changed to christianos and how Severus's account of Nero's spectacle is very similar but nobody I've found, as yet, has tackled the insulting comments that Tacitus supposedly made about Christians. It's like they have a blind spot where that part of the passage is concerned.

Maybe the insults are authentic because, in the original text, Nero fastened the guilt on the Christians, confiscated their property if it hadn't been lost in the fire and then banished them. This would tie in better with Suetonius's report of Christians being punished in an unspecified way.

Then there's the arguments themselves. Christian writers not referring to Nero's spectacle is suspect. High ranking pagan Romans not going on about it as if was the sensation of the age isn't suspect in my opinion. I found a biography of Pliny The Younger

Quote:Domitian was impressed, and allowed Pliny to become praetor (a juridical function) without the the prescribed year's interval. This was a new sign of imperial favor.

Later, Pliny would call the year of his praetorship and the following years the most difficult of his life.

Pliny felt that he was in a very difficult position. Some of his friends belonged to the stoic opposition, but he himself had to serve the emperor.

At the end of 93, Domitian acted against the opposition. Herennius Senecio and several others were rounded up and killed, others were sent into exile. Besides Herennius, two of Pliny's friends were put to death, and four banished.

A decade later, he wrote:
I stood amidst the flames of thunderbolts dropping all round me, and there were certain clear indications to make me suppose a like end was awaiting me.

Why would men like Pliny regard stories of Nero killing low ranking Christians as being more important than their own experiences during Domitian's reign?