Didn't Nero launch Christianity?

[Amarok]

Paul writing are directed toward communities of believers, to churches, and not to unbelievers, and are focused primarily on issues with the individual christian communities he's writing.

Except when his audience isn’t familiar. In his letter to the Romans, introducing himself and his message, there is not a single direct citation of Jesus’ teaching. In fact, in Romans 15:3-4 Paul all but tells us there are no stories about Jesus to draw upon – nothing but what we read about in the Jewish scriptures.
Also Paul feels the need to repeatedly remind his congregations of what he himself has already taught them – why should he have any qualms doing the same for Jesus?

he was born of woman

You're probably talking about Galatians 4:4 but if you look at KJV you won't find "born" but "made" which is a right translation of "genomenos" that Paul uses here and in 1 Cor. 15:45, where Paul says Adam “was made,” not born, by God; using the same word, genomenos, as he uses for Jesus. Paul uses it yet again in 1 Cor. 15:37 when describing the new celestial bodies created by God awaiting believers in heaven. Paul does use the word genomenos hundreds of times, usually to mean “being” or “becoming” – but never to mean a human birth.

Indeed, if you actually read Galatians 4 you  would see it is an allegory about mothers, as Paul tells us explicitly (4:24). As Paul explains (4:24-31), using the two wives of Abraham (one a slave, one free), Lord’s “mother” in this metaphor is the same we are all born to: the mother of slavery, the mother of the old covenant “under the law,” whereas once Jesus died to that mother, he became the heir to God under the mother of the new covenant, the heavenly Jerusalem and freedom.

He also mentions Jesus message throughout his writing,...., returning good for evil, on divorce, on the elevation of love, as the highest command and virtue

Like I told you before, Paul repeatedly insists that he learned nothing of his Gospel from anyone else, despite all this, you still want to claim that Paul quotes from Jesus, but in every case (including the one on divorce), it’s never quite like anything we find in the Gospels… and anywhere Paul says something that sounds close to something from the Gospels’ Jesus.

the Lord's supper

Actually Paul mentions a lot of suppers because Lord's supper was already a very familiar pagan ritual. By Paul’s time, communion rituals involving bread and a cup of wine or water had long been a staple feature of the pagan mystery faiths found throughout the Mediterranean world. Even the name he uses for this ritual he claimed came exclusively to him is actually a term taken from the mystery cults, kuriakon deipnon, “the Lord’s Supper (or “the lordly supper”).
The similarity was so great that Paul expressly forbids his followers from participating in pagan sacred meals: “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table table and of the table of demons!” (1 Cor. 10:21).
Needless to say the honorary title of the cult gods in the mysteries was Kyrios, “Lord”

He also writes of his encounters with his disciples, and brother

Brother? You mean the one that Jesus renounce along with the rest of his family? So how does it make sense that he had privileged status? Also Paul didn't say Jesus's brother but Lord's brother, and Lord's brother is a title Paul uses to call all sorts of people, perhaps proxy for Christians, like 1 Cor. 9:5 “Do we not have the right to take along with us a sister-wife, as also the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephasdo?”

If you actually read Paul’s genuine epistles you could have easily seen that he speaks about James in the same way he refers to his fellow believers, all brothers of Christ and sons of God.

In fact Paul quotes Jesus words from the Lord supper "This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Cor 11. 

Actually Paul is just re-writing Genesis 14:18, the priest-king Melchizedek, like Christ, also takes bread and wine and offers a blessing. Moses, too, offers a blood sacrifice in Exodus 24:8, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”

So he's just repeating typical Apologist talking points and has done no research into how Mythicists have a refutation for each and every one of them . That fucking text book length texts have been written refuting his nonsense and he's simply ignorant or has these objection filtered through apologist sources .

[The Grand Nudger]

Your list will invariably contain references to inauthentic paul, Acro..but that's neither here nor there, as we know for a fact that a significant number of early christians believed in a jesus that wasn't in any sense a real man and that alot of the christian traditions stories are derived from that group.

The only thing we could be debating is whether or not paul or those who wrote under pauls name were among them while leveraging the narratives.   Or if he (or whomever), believing that jesus were a real man himself, accidentally used those narratives in ignorance.

No, there were no Christians early or otherwise who didn’t acknowledge a historical Jesus, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Even the gnostic sects that would have stood to gain the most out of a non-historical Jesus, recognized that he existed in the appearance of the flesh.

It would have been so easy for you to just look this up.

Marcion held Jesus to be the son of the Heavenly Father but understood the incarnation in a docetic manner, i.e. that Jesus' body was only an imitation of a material body, and consequently denied Jesus' physical and bodily birth, death, and resurrection.

Marcion was the first to introduce an early Christian canon. His canon consisted of only eleven books, grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon, based on Luke with parts removed that did not agree with his views,[10] and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle (also altered to fit his views),[10] whom Marcion considered the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings. The gospel used by Marcion does not contain elements relating to Jesus' birth and childhood, although it does contain some elements of Judaism, and material challenging Marcion's ditheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope

If you think that any of that is what anyone is talking about when they use the term "historical jesus"..then you should probably have looked that up too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

The idea that there was a faith based around a story of a god that appeared to people which was later historicized is the mythicist position.

[Acrobat]

No, there were no Christians early or otherwise who didn’t acknowledge a historical Jesus, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Even the gnostic sects that would have stood to gain the most out of a non-historical Jesus, recognized that he existed in the appearance of the flesh.

It would have been so easy for you to just look this up.

Marcion held Jesus to be the son of the Heavenly Father but understood the incarnation in a docetic manner, i.e. that Jesus' body was only an imitation of a material body, and consequently denied Jesus' physical and bodily birth, death, and resurrection.

Marcion was the first to introduce an early Christian canon. His canon consisted of only eleven books, grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon, based on Luke with parts removed that did not agree with his views,[10] and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle (also altered to fit his views),[10] whom Marcion considered the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings. The gospel used by Marcion does not contain elements relating to Jesus' birth and childhood, although it does contain some elements of Judaism, and material challenging Marcion's ditheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope

If you think that any of that is what anyone is talking about when they use the term "historical jesus"..then you should probably have looked that up too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

The idea that there was a faith based around a story of a god that appeared to people which was later historicized is the mythicist position.

Lol even Marcion, believed Jesus was a historical person, he even used a version of Luke for his scriptures even though he viewed the flesh as evil, Marcion still acknowledges that Jesus gave the appearance of being in flesh.

He didn’t believe that some of the events in the life of Jesus took place in some other realm, but in the historical place and time indicated in texts like Luke’s.


If that what early Christians believed as mythicist suggested, Marcion would been the sort of person that would have ascribed to such views, yet even didn’t.

Marcion held exactly the sort of views I indicated about Gnostics.

[The Grand Nudger]

Marcion believed that there was no historical jesus, Acro. There was no man that was born and lived and died..only a god that appeared to people in order to save them from yahweh, lol.

[Acrobat]

Marcion believed that there was no historical jesus, Acro.

That would probably of came as a surprise to Marcion, who wrote of Jesus having a historical life, even being brought In front of Pilate and being crucified

“And Pilate called together the chief priests
and the rulers and the people, and said unto them,
14 Ye brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people:
and, behold, I examined him before you,
and found no fault in this man of what ye charge against him:
15 No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him;
and, lo, nothing worthy of death hath been done by him.
16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him.
17 (Now he under a neces“

From the gospel of Marcion

[Fake Messiah]

In the NT itself you have plenty of other writers beside Paul saying they made careful search and inquiry into the Hebrew scriptures in order to get the answers from the "Spirit of Christ within them". So not witnesses or somebody who knew somebody who knew somebody who knew Jesus:

1 Peter, 1:10-12 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours made careful search and inquiry, inquiring about the person or time that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated, when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things that have now been announced to you through those who brought you good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven - things into which angels long to look!

Indeed that's how most religions begin - some guy claiming to be visited by celestial beings: Mohammed by Gabriel, Joseph Smith by Moroni, Hubbard by alien spirits.

There's a good lecture on it by Richard Carrier on how Christianity began and other religions
https://youtu.be/WUYRoYl7i6U

[The Grand Nudger]

Marcion believed that there was no historical jesus, Acro.

That would probably of came as a surprise to Marcion, who wrote of Jesus having a historical life, even being brought In front of Pilate and being crucified

“And Pilate called together the chief priests
and the rulers and the people, and said unto them,
14 Ye brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people:
and, behold, I examined him before you,
and found no fault in this man of what ye charge against him:
15 No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him;
and, lo, nothing worthy of death hath been done by him.
16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him.
17 (Now he under a neces“

From the gospel of Marcion

I don't know how repeating what you've already been linked would help..but, again, Marcion didn't believe there was a historical jesus.  He specifically rejected the birth life and death of any such man.  

The term "historical jesus" doesn't refer to a story about some god appearing in human form. That would be the mythical christ.

Do you understand?

[Acrobat]

That would probably of came as a surprise to Marcion, who wrote of Jesus having a historical life, even being brought In front of Pilate and being crucified

“And Pilate called together the chief priests
and the rulers and the people, and said unto them,
14 Ye brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people:
and, behold, I examined him before you,
and found no fault in this man of what ye charge against him:
15 No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him;
and, lo, nothing worthy of death hath been done by him.
16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him.
17 (Now he under a neces“

From the gospel of Marcion

I don't know how repeating what you've already been linked would help..but, again, Marcion didn't believe there was a historical jesus.  He specifically rejected the birth life and death of any such man.  

The term "historical jesus" doesn't refer to a story about some god appearing in human form. That would be the mythical christ.

Do you understand?

No you’re just being dishonest. Marcion believed in a Jesus who had a historical existence, as his Gospel indicated. He also believed Jesus died and was crucified and resurrected just not in fleshly form. But clearly you haven’t read his gospel:

“when they were come to the place, which is called the Skull, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 34[-34c] Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. 35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them scoffed at him, saying, Others he saved; let him save himself, if this is Christ, the chosen of God. 36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, and saying, 37 If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself. “

“returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, 34 The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.“

Do you want to suggest that Marcion didn’t believe in things he wrote of in his Gospel?

Or perhaps you’re trying to dishonestly equivocate between Marcions belief that Jesus wasn’t made of flesh, and he just appeared that way, with Jesus not having a historical life?

It’s clear you’ve never read Marcion, didn’t know much of anything about his beliefs, besides the snippet on wikipedia, and lack the honesty to just admit you were wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

How many times will I have to repeat that a story about a god that appears to people in human form is not what the term historical jesus refers to?

As to your question..yes, actually, Marcion did include things in his canon that he didn't believe. Moot point, since this isn't one of them.

[Acrobat]

How many times will I have to repeat that a story about a god that appears to people in human form is not what the term historical jesus refers to?

As to your question..yes, actually, Marcion did include things in his canon that he didn't believe.  Moot point, since this isn't one of them.

And what basis do have of saying that he didn't believe the things he included in his Gospel? Judging that he removed portions that he didn't believe in. And please tell us which portions of his own Gospel did Marcion not believe? Did he not believe that Jesus was brought in front of pilate, and was crucified, as his gospel indicates?

Historical means, of our concerning history. The life of Jesus for Marcion took place in 1st century Jerusalem, not in some supernatural realm. He lived in a historical setting, lived among historical people,  went around preaching about the kingdom of God, was brought in front of Pilate and crucified.

You're equivocating between a historical Jesus, and a Jesus who for Marcion wasn't made of literal flesh, that this was just a illusion. Which isn't really a historical question at all.

So quit with the dishonest nonsense, troll.