For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[The Grand Nudger]

Pagan Romans wouldn't have bothered to study the differences in beliefs that the various Christian sects had. They would have just called all followers of these sects Christians the same as we refer to all followers of today's 40,000 different denominations as Christians.

Minor nitpick, we don't all call them -all- christians today because people are inclined not to give a shit, we used to cal them by their denominational names......it was a concerted political and social effort of the past 50 years or so that left us with the idea that there where christians in the world - as opposed to catholics and protestants, for example.

[Confused Ape]

Minor nitpick, we don't all call them -all- christians today because people are inclined not to give a shit, we used to cal them by their denominational names......it was a concerted political and social effort of the past 50 years or so that left us with the idea that there where christians in the world - as opposed to catholics and protestants, for example.

I suppose it depends on how one defines denominations. These days the general view is that Christianity is split into branches and the Protestant branch has different denominations within it.

Christian Denominations by number of members

This is a list of Christian denominations by number of members. It is inevitably partial and generally based on claims by the denominations themselves. The numbers should therefore be considered approximate. The list includes all the Eastern Catholic Churches affiliated to the Catholic Church, all the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches with some recognition, relevant breakaway churches of the Catholic Church, the Protestant denominations and the Anglican churches with at least 0.2 million members, and all the other Christian branches with a distinct theological tradition.

Not all Christians regard every denomination as Christian, though. There are articles on the internet saying that Roman Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah's Witness aren't Christians, for example.

[The Grand Nudger]

-until its time to hit the voting booth, than any christian is good enough - as a christian-

Which was precisely the aim of the re-branding in the first place. Dont buy their PR, call them what they are, rival cultists.

[Justtristo]

Your argument sounds quite plausible, however as I read the Pauline Epistltes and the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is clear they portray a Jesus who lived and died in the heavenly realms.

Which isn't as easy to relate to or spin a narrative about as a living breathing buddy jesus in the here and then. Some narrative structures are successful and the stories wrapped around them survive, some are not and they eventually stop being told. I wouldn't keep telling a story about a heavenly jesus and his magical realm for very long myself. Not alot of those heavenly realm stories are still making their way to any best seller list, know what I mean? Whens the last time you saw any anthology of myth top the charts? Is it really surprising that whatever the jesus narrative was once it's become what it is today? Especially in the light of how the rest of our fiction trended in the same time?

As Doherty states people in that place and time believed that the heavenly realms weren't in some other dimension, rather there were somewhere above the atmosphere somewhere between the Earth and the Moon. So to these people this place was as real as our world. Doherty also argued that only later on Jesus was "brought down to earth" to speak.

[FallentoReason]

From a Norse fable called The Saga of Eirek the Traveller:

...
Eirek said, “I'll do exactly what you urge. But tell me what I ask you: Where is hell?”

The [Greek] king says, “Under the earth.”

Eirek asked, “What is above the earth?”

“Sky,” says the king.

Eirek asked, “What is above the sky?”

“The Firmament-Heaven. In that heaven are all the stars like burning fire.”

Eirek said, “What is above the firmament?”

“Waters are fixed there, as cloud.”

“What is above the waters?”

“The Spiritual Heaven, and it's believed that angels live here.”

“What is above that heaven?”

“The Heaven Apart. In that heaven God himself and his kingdom may be seen, by those who are capable of this.”

...

Eirek asked, “How far is it between heaven and earth?”

“You are curious, Eirek,” says the king, “From earth to the highest heaven it's said to be one hundred thousand, three hundred and eighty-five miles.”

http://www.northvegr.org/sagas%20annd%20...h/032.html

I don't think it's not far-fetched at all to think that Jesus was seen as a spiritual being in the heavenly realms. Support of this view comes from the Bible itself and the controversy outlined in 1 John (or 2 John, can't remember) where some Christian groups were proclaiming Jesus hadn't come in the flesh.

[Minimalist]

What do you mean? Are you saying the Christians before Theodosius's day had local Inquisitions and heretics were burned at the stake?

No, that shit came later. When xtians started persecuting pagans and/or heretics they created this whole "you started it" routine to excuse their own crimes.

I think it's common knowledge that Christianity developed over the centuries. What point are you trying to make here?

We do not know when the whole doctrine of holy horseshit was put together. Certainly the absurd concept of the "trinity" was not part of it until Tertullian invented it in the 3d century, for example.

One can have christians ( people awaiting an anointed one) without some schlepper named jesus auditioning for the role. The fact that the earliest Roman writers knew of xtians but never heard of "jesus" suggests that all the mary/joseph, pilate/nazareth shit...which "Paul" doesn't know about either, was later chrome plated onto the bumper of this bullshit religion.

If this is not what Minimalist was inferring, I apologize.

Close enough, E.

Christians want to see God. Agnostics can't see God. Atheists won't see God.

Atheists don't hallucinate.

---

The Kebra Nagast is a pile of medieval shit, too.

The Kebra Nagast concludes with a final prophecy that the power of Rome will be eclipsed by the power of Ethiopia, and describes how king Kaleb of Axum, will subdue the Jews living in Najran, and make his younger son Gabra Masqal his heir (chapter 117).

Really puts in on a par with bible "prophecies," I'd say.

[Confused Ape]

The fact that the earliest Roman writers knew of xtians but never heard of "jesus" suggests that all the mary/joseph, pilate/nazareth shit...which "Paul" doesn't know about either, was later chrome plated onto the bumper of this bullshit religion.

I don't find it astonishing that pagan Roman writers didn't give details of what they regarded as superstition. The only way that the development of Christian beliefs can be figured out is by studying the early Christian writings which survived. There's no way of knowing what was in the texts which didn't survive unless somebody quoted from them.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and even then "knowing" isn't quite the word. Look at how our resident apologists like to quote this and that? It would be more apt to say that whomever quoted whatever we found endeavored to make this particular quote part of the overall narrative. Whether it's actually a quote at all - or just a "wise men have been said to have said", an honest mistake, culturally important fiction, or flat out propaganda...well....

[Confused Ape]

-and even then "knowing" isn't quite the word. Look at how our resident apologists like to quote this and that?

Knowing as in being able to read the texts. Gospel Dating is a bit haphazard.

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [29]) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73,[30] c. 65–70[31]
Matthew: c. 70–100.[30] c. 80–85.[31]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[30] c. 80–85[31]
John: c. 90–100,[31] c. 90–110,[32] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

If copies of first century gospel texts were found in a cave somewhere it could turn out that there are some significant differences.

[Minimalist]

The only way that the development of Christian beliefs can be figured out is by studying the early Christian writings which survived.

But did they survive "intact?" Were they later forgeries? How do we know that they were not edited to reflect the doctrinal views of later redactors?

The fly in the ointment is that early xtian writings were saved by later xtian writers/copyists.

It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that the Pliny correspondence is genuine. No xtian forger would have included the bit about how xtians said "Fuck Christ...Hail Trajan" when confronted. That is completely opposite to the martyrdom scenario being pushed in later times.

They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

No xtian would forge that. Neither would a Roman. A Roman wouldn't give a shit.

However, there is another possibility.

http://historyhuntersinternational.org/2...hrestians/

"Christians" evolved from Chrestians."