Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I beg you not in this religion forum to refer to we ( attemping Christianity) to refer to us as religious.In spite of respecting any process that man utilizes to maintain faith in Christ or their god substitute I never want to be associated via "title" as having anything to do with religion repulsed by Jesus, circumvented by Him, frustrated with the nonsense of manufactured doctrines and self serving. The earliest Christians may have been the Essenes aka "The Way". Paul also had his hands full. with " religious" who lacked focus on Yesuha , Baptism and the need for dumping ceremony and customs.
Interesting. I would like to ask - and I am by no means disagreeing with you - what form of Christianity (assuming you still identify as such) you follow, absent 'religion'?
I beg you not in this religion forum to refer to we ( attemping Christianity) to refer to us as religious.In spite of respecting any process that man utilizes to maintain faith in Christ or their god substitute I never want to be associated via "title" as having anything to do with religion repulsed by Jesus, circumvented by Him, frustrated with the nonsense of manufactured doctrines and self serving. The earliest Christians may have been the Essenes aka "The Way". Paul also had his hands full. with " religious" who lacked focus on Yesuha , Baptism and the need for dumping ceremony and customs.
Christianity is a religion like all the rest, nothing special! Christianity wasn't invented until well after Jesus was a rotting corpse somewhere in the Middle East!
Interesting. I would like to ask - and I am by no means disagreeing with you - what form of Christianity (assuming you still identify as such) you follow, absent 'religion'?
Now this has just confused me even more about my Christian faith
Now this has just confused me even more about my Christian faith
Understandable. It is just that I have come across a number of god believers - some of whom identify as Christians - who have no interest in organized religion, church attendance and ritual forms of worship, and one can point to Jesus as arguing against the same things.
If Christianity wasn't "invented" until well after Jesus' death, how do you explain all of the New Testament manuscripts that date back to the first century?
How do you explain all of Paul's epistles being written to communities he traveled all over the Empire to convert before his death in 67 A.D.
I was writing a reply but cut it as it was turning into a Thesis. Suffice it to say that stories of Jesus and perhaps even written accounts were going around a decade after his death. Paul began writing to his converts between 40 and 50 AD, when he was summoned to Jerusalem to explain his Gentile -friendly Messianism that rejected the Jewish Law (Pauline Christianity as opposed to Nazorean Jewish Christianity).
Already the Jesus story was being written from the Pauline point of view, arguing against Jewish observance and predicting that he would be killed and rise again. Already the crucifixion was being blamed on the Jews rather than the Romans
After the Jewish war, Gentile -friendly Pauline Christianity was able to make huge gains, claiming that Jerusalem had fallen because the Jews had rejected Jesus and were to blame for his death (never mind that it was necessary for salvation) and we see this idea in Mark 13. 1- 2, and the parable at 12.7, the letter of Bar Serapeon, often cited as 'evidence of Jesus' (which it isn't) Mathew 23. 37 Luke 20. 16 -18. (oh, and the OT was being ransacked for 'prophecies' of Jesus which were fitted into the Gospel story as 'Fulfilled prophecy'. John 19. 24, 28, 36, and most blatantly fiddled, Matthew 27.9 and Acts 1.20)
Well this is turning into a Thesis again. But by the 1st century, a Greek -speaking pro Roman - gentile -friendly Paulinist version of the Jesus story was being written. John's near divine messiah appeared later on, the oldest fragment being 2nd c. I believe there is no undisputed fragment of a 1st c (canonic) gospel, but those fragments themselves (if Gospel as claimed) are 'Mark' which is to say the original synoptic similar to Mark.
There were later elaborations with Matthew and Luke writing Nativities and all but Mark writing (contradictory) resurrection accounts. Luke went on to write a biography of Paul, very much making him look like the only important apostle and the rest just patting him on the back and saying what a good job he was doing. That is probably the latest gospel before it was codified into the Bible by Constantine after Christianity became the state religion and began suppressing all the Paganisms. And heresies.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-28-2015 at 04:22 AM..
If Christianity wasn't "invented" until well after Jesus' death, how do you explain all of the New Testament manuscripts that date back to the first century?
How do you explain all of Paul's epistles being written to communities he traveled all over the Empire to convert before his death in 67 A.D.
We have no original fragments of any significance prior to about the 3rd century, if memory serves.
In any case, allowing for the sake of argument the supposed dating of the originals that we have copies of copies of copies of copies of, it's actually another problem for you. Because the Jesus Paul describes beginning about 15 or 20 years after the crucifixion, is a very VERY different one from the flesh and blood Jesus of the much later gospel narratives. And for an appeal to authority for his teaching, Paul does not cite, say, Peter (with whom he had a fractious relationship at best) or any other still-living eyewitnesses, as you'd expect, but a personal heavenly vision direct from god. Almost as if his ideas were all brand new and provocative at the time, rather than simply building on common knowledge, so he had to resort to "god himself told me!"
But then evangelical Christianity rejects higher criticism, or any such reasoning because of its freedom to contradict dogma if the facts don't support dogma.
Jesus and religion where extremely tenitive during His life He perceived many of the High Priests and tbe Pharisees adding laws not ordained , philosophies, , self edifying rules that repulsed Him and attempted to distance himself knowing in time that religions would proliferate mankind with distracting nonsense mixed with diluted truths. Those seeking a relationship with Jesus, via faith and His grace calling on His name are what many refer to as Christians that I refer to as "believers" and grouped as " the church". They are saved via what scripture supports ( I don't qualify to "judge"salvation) But I can perceive the guidelines for salvation from Gods word and arrive at a conclusion (quasi- judgment at best). Believers are a huge mix and if fellow posters wish to refer them as " religious" that's fine as it at least communicates a links to God especially by seculars lacking any better description and are so distant from God , fellowship, knowledge to decipher evil, prayer , child nurturing that it's like a carnival or a side show.
I'm rather inclined to think that getting on with your perception of God's word is more important than taking issue with your fellow -believers about the use of the word 'religious'. You are falling into the same trap as the (misrepresented) Pharisees that Jesus railed against.
We have no original fragments of any significance prior to about the 3rd century, if memory serves.
In any case, allowing for the sake of argument the supposed dating of the originals that we have copies of copies of copies of copies of, it's actually another problem for you. Because the Jesus Paul describes beginning about 15 or 20 years after the crucifixion, is a very VERY different one from the flesh and blood Jesus of the much later gospel narratives. And for an appeal to authority for his teaching, Paul does not cite, say, Peter (with whom he had a fractious relationship at best) or any other still-living eyewitnesses, as you'd expect, but a personal heavenly vision direct from god. Almost as if his ideas were all brand new and provocative at the time, rather than simply building on common knowledge, so he had to resort to "god himself told me!"
But then evangelical Christianity rejects higher criticism, or any such reasoning because of its freedom to contradict dogma if the facts don't support dogma.
We have no earlier codices of the NT prior to the 3rd c. The earliest fragment is the Rylands fragment of John (Jesus talking to Pilate in the praetorium and Pilate coming out to say there is no fault in him) dated on palaeographic grounds to the early 2nd c. half a century after the end of the Jewish war and near a century after Jesus' death.
Egerton (unknown) gospel fragment est 150 AD
Magdalen papyrus (Matthew -Jesus anointed) late 2nd c.
Gospel of Judas (later 2nd c.)
The claim of a fragment of Mark (1) amongst the Qumran scrolls doesn't seem to have gained much acceptance and a supposed fragment of 'Mark' in a Ptolemaic/Roman -period mummy -mask still awaits publication.
(1) if indeed genuine, it would be the Synoptic original, not the amended Mark, because this 'Mark' only fits the estimated page - size if the word 'land' (of Genesssaret) is dropped - Theide argued that it predated the Jewish war when there was a town of Genessaret and the Gospel of Mark that we have now was revised afterwards (2) to refer to an empty land. In fact I think Theide was wrong and Genessaret was only ever a 'land': the 'area' of Nazareth, which was the Nazareth Jesus came from, not the town, which was only built after the Jewish war.
(2) proven by many additions peculiar to Mark which we do not find in either Matthew or Luke - for example, the hired hands in the boat and Pilate's surprise at Jesus dying so quickly and most importantly, Mark's confusion about where Bethsaida was and which direction Jesus was going which Matthew and Luke would have copied if Mark had been the original gospel.
P.s sorry - but not Too sorry - for the off -topic Thesis....let me just check the date of the non -canonic Peter...always fascinated me, though it is after all just a disappointing conflation of the existing gospels - like the fudged up Endings of Mark.
Later 2nd c Peter elaborates on Matthew's tomb -guard, and the blame for the crucifixion is transferred from Pilate to Antipas, a move foreshadowed in Luke who blames the mocking of Jesus on Antipas, though Pilate proposes to have Jesus flogged, there is no account of his soldiers doing so.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-29-2015 at 08:19 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suffice it to say that stories of Jesus and perhaps even written accounts were going around a decade after his death. Paul began writing to his converts between 40 and 50 AD, when he was summoned to Jerusalem to explain his Gentile -friendly Messianism that rejected the Jewish Law (Pauline Christianity as opposed to Nazorean Jewish Christianity).
this is turning into a Thesis again. But by the 1st century, a Greek -speaking pro Roman - gentile -friendly Paulinist version of the Jesus story was being written. John's near divine messiah appeared later on, the oldest fragment being 2nd c. I believe there is no undisputed fragment of a 1st c (canonic) gospel, but those fragments themselves (if Gospel as claimed) are 'Mark' which is to say the original synoptic similar to Mark.
