who created christianity

[Justtristo]

If you were to historically and geographically trace the roots of christianity back to its origins, you would find that in fact there were christians before 1000 BC, way before the time of Paul or Constantine. There is historical evidence of these people and their faith in a divine creator, and accounts of their stories which have been scientifically dated to be from before 1000 BC.
You would also find that when a man named Jesus went around teaching and living with these christians about 1000 years later, they adopted a refined spirituality. It then led to many different writings about this man Jesus and his life. These have been scientifically proven to have been from as early as 60 AD.

So, to say that one person 'created' christianity isnt exactly a fair statement at all. I would believe that God did, not only because I'm a christian, but the intellectual part of my brain also wouldnt let me think that one person 'created' christianity because if you look at the historical evidence, there really isnt any proof that ANYONE created christianity.


Also, the biblical canon was not simply 'cobbled' together at the council of Nicene. Christians in or around 80 AD got together and started to make decisions on which of these writings were to be in the new testament. They used many different pieces of information to try to see what should and shouldn't be in the bible. These included but were not limited to:
-The author had to be either one of Jesus' apostles, or a close associate of an apostle
-The teachings within the writings could not directly contradict Christianity or god's word
-The writings had to be accepted by christians everywhere at that time
Because of the last criteria, 3 writings that were generally accepted as going into the NT were then under dispute. Christians then waited for over 200 years to see just what people thought about these 3 books, and they also prayed to their god to ask him to show them what to do. In 325, at the council of Nicene, it was decided that these 3 books would be accepted into the bible.

Firstly in 80AD according to biblical scholars not even all the books you find today in the New Testament were written yet (that includes at least two gospels). Canonization of the Christian bible was a drawn out process, which the main stage occurred after Constantine declared Christianity legal in the 4th Century. Also Constantine by doing that action, favored one group of Christians (Bart D Erhman calls the Proto-Orthodox) over the other groups (including Gnostics). Hence any books which made it into canon would have to agree with Proto-Orthodox dogma.

Even in the 4th century there was still dispute what books would get included in the New Testament, books such as James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and Revelation also did not make it into New Testament canon. While books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, Didache and the Letter of Barnabas* narrowly missed out on getting into Canon.

* The consequences for western civilization if the Letter of Barnabas got included into New Testament canon would be interesting, because it says in that letter Hyenas change their sex every year

---

Um.....evidence?

this MIGHT help: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html
and this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1...ament.html
this is, however, assuming that by the fact that the Old Testament has only been verified, and not disproved, by archaeology, history, and geography, that what it says can be taken as fact.

Please do me a favor read The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts and then I can chat with you about biblical archeology.

[Anomalocaris]

it's insulting to use the word 'propaganda' for something that is purely just evidence for something that some people believe in. Especially when that 'something' is God and the bible, the basis on which I live my life

It does not rise to our standard of evidence. It does not even rise to our standard of respectable propagada. It's propaganda of the shabbiest and crudest kind to promote perhaps the most damaging fantasy every prepetrated by men. That fact that you live your life by it and glorify it with a capital "g" does not improve our opinion of it. The fact that some people might actually live their lives by it is all the more reason for us to express in the clearest of terms what our view of it is.

[16three-john]

It does not rise to our standard of evidence. It does not even rise to our standard of respectable propagada. It's propaganda of the shabbiest and crudest kind to promote perhaps the most damaging fantasy every prepetrated by men. That fact that you live your life by it and glorify it with a capital "g" does not improve our opinion of it. The fact that some people might actually live their lives by it is all the more reason for us to express in the clearest of terms what our view of it is.

I do not understand what is so shabby and crude about the evidence listed on that page. If you have proof that these facts, which verify events in the bible (therefore evidence for the reliability of the bible), are not true, then please share them.

[lilyannerose]

It does not rise to our standard of evidence. It does not even rise to our standard of respectable propagada. It's propaganda of the shabbiest and crudest kind to promote perhaps the most damaging fantasy every prepetrated by men. That fact that you live your life by it and glorify it with a capital "g" does not improve our opinion of it. The fact that some people might actually live their lives by it is all the more reason for us to express in the clearest of terms what our view of it is.

I do not understand what is so shabby and crude about the evidence listed on that page. If you have proof that these facts, which verify events in the bible (therefore evidence for the reliability of the bible), are not true, then please share them.

Could it be that Laurence Gardner also uses the Sumerian Texts but comes up with an entirely different POV as his translation states that the events in these alleged Texts are from a previous Golden Age? I give Gardner the same level of credibility as I give organized religion. Whatever my POV, you still have the same texts with opposing points of view.

Next?

[Minimalist]

Um.....evidence?

this MIGHT help: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html
and this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1...ament.html
this is, however, assuming that by the fact that the Old Testament has only been verified, and not disproved, by archaeology, history, and geography, that what it says can be taken as fact.

WTH does an archaeological find from the 6th century BC in Jerusalem have to do with your statement that there were xtians before 1,000 BC?

Further, what does the fact that the "Jews" borrowed an Sumerian tale and scripted a moral purpose onto it for their god have to do with xtians before 1,000 BC?

---

this is, however, assuming that by the fact that the Old Testament has only been verified, and not disproved, by archaeology, history, and geography, that what it says can be taken as fact.

Get your head out of your.... bible ( you thought I was going to say "ass" didn't you!) and read The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and learn exactly how wrong you are.

In the last 30 years modern archaeology has trashed the OT stories. They are crapola.

[16three-john]

Here is a page with many examples of archaeological finds verifying the writings in the OT. For example, for hundreds of years, the city of Ur, wrote about in the OT, was thought to have not existed. However, early in the 20th century, the city was found and excavated, and contained scrolls and tablets which were completely independent of the bible, but verified its historical accuracy. The finds from 6th century Jerusalem show that there were people all the way back then following God, and that was my point, that there were christians back then. Also, please don't get confused between the people I'm calling christians, and the common christian found today. These were people who followed God directly, not a bunch of people claiming that they were better than them (ie cathoilic and protestant priests). I do not have time to read a book right now because I have a lot of work, but is there any shorter links or things to read that get across your point? I will, however, order that book and read in when I do have time.

[lilyannerose]

Here is a page with many examples of archaeological finds verifying the writings in the OT. For example, for hundreds of years, the city of Ur, wrote about in the OT, was thought to have not existed. However, early in the 20th century, the city was found and excavated, and contained scrolls and tablets which were completely independent of the bible, but verified its historical accuracy.

Then why is Pietro Della Valle credited with finding the first of the cuneiform written on the walls and the Seals in 1625?

[16three-john]

I have not heard of this man before. From what I think, he found writings from the city of Ur, not the city itself. The finding and excavation of the city, as far as I am sure, is credited to a British man named J.E. Taylor, in the years 1854-55. The British Museum commenced its excavations of the acient city in 1919. Can you please specify as to whether you think Pietro Della Valle found the city, or just the writings and seals?

[lilyannerose]

I have not heard of this man before. From what I think, he found writings from the city of Ur, not the city itself. The finding and excavation of the city, as far as I am sure, is credited to a British man named J.E. Taylor, in the years 1854-55. The British Museum commenced its excavations of the acient city in 1919. Can you please specify as to whether you think Pietro Della Valle found the city, or just the writings and seals?

I can suggest that you google

Pietro Della Valle ur seals 1625

I was addressing the tablets and scrolls issue I suggest that you can do your own homework regarding your questions. I find it best to let individuals cure their own ignorance by doing their own research.

[16three-john]

I am trying to understand what exactly you are saying, and what basis you have for saying it. I have not said that your claim about the tablets and scrolls was wrong. In fact, you're being ignorant by making claims but refusing to provide reasons for your claims