For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[DeistPaladin]

I don't see how that section links up with any kind of folklore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution...man_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus

Whoever wrote that wikipedia article is taken in by melodramatic folklore of Christian persecution at the hands of dastardly pagan Romans allied with Jewish persecutors to crush an early Christianity which got off the ground quickly and spread rapidly. Christians get a free ride off this folklore that passes for history and then they construct their apologetic arguments based upon it.

Actual history tells a different story, which I will get to in my response to Ape.

---

My apologies, Ape. I will change gears and focus on the beliefs of early Christianity.

The glib assertions of Christian folklore is that a single, unified theology that formed Christianity sprang up out of nowhere, got off the ground quickly, endured fanatical persecution by the Romans (who were normally quite tolerant of and indifferent to alternative religions) and spread like wildfire and captured the Roman hearts with their message of peace, love, yatta yatta.

Actual history tells a different story.

In the first place, there was no unified "Christianity" during the first few centuries. As Bart Ehrman's research has unveiled, in points barely disputed by apologists, during the first few centuries, those who called themselves "Christian" might have believed any of the following:

1. Jesus was a higher god (superior to the one of the OT), a mortal man adopted by God as a son, an angel sent by God, or an illusion sent by God.
2. Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus was born as all babies are born, Jesus descended from Heaven as an adult or he was never a physical being at all.
3. Jesus preached that we must keep OT laws or that we need not keep the OT laws and must be saved on faith.
4. There is only one god or two gods or many gods.
5. Jesus died that we may be saved, or Jesus died that we need not sacrifice animals anymore or Jesus never died at all.

So as you can see, the picture becomes even murkier as we get into the real history of Christian theology.

Christian apologists do not deny the existence of these "heterodox" forms of early Christianity. Instead they try to dismiss them as minor schismatics and heretics. However, the fact that heterodoxy was a big problem for the early "church" and echoes of their conflict are found in the very Bible itself.

1st John 4:1-3
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2nd John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

These epistles were allegedly penned by John, a supposed companion of Jesus who knew him personally. He writes not one but two epistles that survive condemning the Docetic Christians (who saw Jesus as an apparition sent by God). They did not believe in a flesh-and-blood Jesus for such a materialistic Jesus would be an abomination to God (as all things material might be).

It's interesting that he uses the language not of recent history and obvious reality but of faith. "Believe"? "Confess"? Why not just dismiss the Docetics as crazy? Were there not relatives of Jesus or those who lived in his hometown who could have testified of his childhood, of his growing up, of his being a real, physical being?

There was no single unified theology in existence TO get off the ground quickly or spread rapidly. Orthodoxy in Christianity had to be established through the Council of Nicaea and enforced with Roman authority.