Who Started Christianity?

[cabse5]

Well, I agree with you, that it started with Christ and his apostles. But the point of the OP was to get them to say who THEY say started Christianity, and their evidence to back up their theory.

Thanks for your views.

Christianity during the life of Christ and his disciples was based in Judaism. A Christian had to practice Jewish law. The phrase the kingdom of heaven is at hand uttered by Jesus and, I believe, John the Baptist meant Palestine would soon be (rightfully) governed by the Jews.

Saul (Paul) could be regarded as the man that spread Christianity to the rest of the world. Paul made it possible for gentiles to be Christian. Then there was the Roman emperor Constantine who saw the vision, consequently won the battle, and converted the official Roman Empire's religion to Christianity.

 

[Visbek]

That's the general consensus. Was looking for something more specific.

Specific in what sense? Do you want the names of early Christian theologians and martyrs? The names of early disciples, whom history has swept into anonymity?

Sure, would love to see it, but I doubt you've got anything like that that can stand up to close scrutiny....

What sources do you offer that stand up to "close scrutiny," do not have a vested interest in a particular answer, and are not circular in nature?

Anyway. These ought to get you started. I expect your book report to be handed in by next Friday.

The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan: 9780060616601: Amazon.com: Books
Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide: Gerd Theissen, Annette Merz: 9780800631222: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Logicman]

I'm asserting, and the video I included offers some evidence to the idea that the "god of Abraham" is nothing more than one of many gods (specifically the god of war) who's adherents demanded that worship of the other gods cease. There is significant evidence that over the ages parts of the bible were re-written to make it look as if Christianity was a purely monotheistic religion. The Books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus (if memory serves) are the two books that are largely original, but were written much later.

Sure, the ancient Jews, in their rebellion against their one true God, often committed harlotry and worshiped after other 'gods.' But none of those others, that I can see, had any relation to the founding of Christianity. And none of those other "gods" had any staying power when it came to a show-down with Jehovah. Case in point the 450 prophets of Baal and their demise when they went up against the real God of the Jews.

 

[Logicman]

I won because I didn't continue your shabby attempt to discuss scripture in the Philosophy and Atheism section when it should be in the religion section.

Phillipians 1:18, lying for Jebus is sanctioned.

In your dreams. Skeptics like you have yet to present a cogent argument per the OP, and back it up with any credible evidence.

 

[Logicman]

Christianity during the life of Christ and his disciples was based in Judaism. A Christian had to practice Jewish law. The phrase the kingdom of heaven is at hand uttered by Jesus and, I believe, John the Baptist meant Palestine would soon be (rightfully) governed by the Jews.

If it were all so "Jewish," and according to the Law, why did they give Jesus and his disciples such a bad time?

Saul (Paul) could be regarded as the man that spread Christianity to the rest of the world. Paul made it possible for gentiles to be Christian. Then there was the Roman emperor Constantine who saw the vision, consequently won the battle, and converted the official Roman Empire's religion to Christianity.

That's true, Paul spread Christianity, but the Christianity of Jesus and his disciples preceded Paul.

Evidence of that is seen in Acts chapter 22 (Paul speaking):

1 “Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.”

2 When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.

Then Paul said: 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. 4 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5 as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.

(end)

So, before Paul became a believer, he was a persecutor of those who did believe in Christ.

 

[Logicman]

Specific in what sense? Do you want the names of early Christian theologians and martyrs? The names of early disciples, whom history has swept into anonymity?

We know the names of his earliest disciples from the Gospels. If you have a contrary set of disciples please identify them for us, along with your source(s).

Anyway. These ought to get you started. I expect your book report to be handed in by next Friday.

The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan: 9780060616601: Amazon.com: Books
Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide: Gerd Theissen, Annette Merz: 9780800631222: Amazon.com: Books

See my remarks above.

 

[Econ4every1]

Sure, the ancient Jews, in their rebellion against their one true God, often committed harlotry and worshiped after other 'gods.' But none of those others, that I can see, had any relation to the founding of Christianity. And none of those other "gods" had any staying power when it came to a show-down with Jehovah. Case in point the 450 prophets of Baal and their demise when they went up against the real God of the Jews.

It's really weird how your disowning the old testament almost as if it is an entirely separate religion.

 

[Logicman]

It's really weird how your disowning the old testament almost as if it is an entirely separate religion.

Not disowning the OT. I embrace it for what it is. I also embrace the OT prophecies of Jesus Christ, as we find them in Matthew, etc. Do you have anything like that to support your theories?

 

[Econ4every1]

Not disowning the OT. I embrace it for what it is. I also embrace the OT prophecies of Jesus Christ, as we find them in Matthew, etc. Do you have anything like that to support your theories?

Just for clarity, I don't have any theories, I read other peoples work and try to decide which offers the best evidence. There is a good deal of evidence, specifically having to do with the study of language that seems to show that the books of the bible were changed many times over many years to suit the culture and rulers of their times. This is supported by the fact that 100,000's of thousands of pieces of ancient bible texts seem to disagree over time. Any book/s edited over hundreds of years presented as original work would naturally look to contain proficiency and unusual levels of wisdom.

Now before you throw the "most bible scholars agree that "__________". I'll just agree to disagree as I don't accept the words of bible scholars as evidence of anything. What I'd need to see is how they justify their claims with evidence. Having said that, there really isn't enough time in this debate to broach the subject.....

 

[Logicman]

Just for clarity, I don't have any theories, I read other peoples work and try to decide which offers the best evidence. There is a good deal of evidence, specifically having to do with the study of language that seems to show that the books of the bible were changed many times over many years to suit the culture and rulers of their times. This is supported by the fact that 100,000's of thousands of pieces of ancient bible texts seem to disagree over time. Any book/s edited over hundreds of years presented as original work would naturally look to contain proficiency and unusual levels of wisdom.

I think that's way overblown. For instance, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls which confirm in a great many books what we have in our current Old Testaments. Example: The 150 B.C. "Great Isaiah Scroll." It the complete book of Isaiah. We also have the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament, which in most Bibles is the foundation for the NT books we presently have.

In addition, most of the discrepancies we see in the NT, compared to the earliest manuscripts, consists of spelling differences, inverted words (Son of God, God the Son), etc. Here more on that:

Stand to Reason | Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

Here's the text of the Dead Seas Isaiah scroll.

Great Isaiah Scroll Directory

 

[Visbek]

We know the names of his earliest disciples from the Gospels. If you have a contrary set of disciples please identify them for us, along with your source(s).

You want me to name the Apostles? That's what you're driving at?

You genuinely believe that anyone who qualifies as a skeptic is going to regard the New Testament as absolutely true, without subjecting it to any sort of scrutiny?

See my remarks above.

So basically, you're going to categorically rule out all modern scholarship. Glad to see you're willing to accept evidence... as long as it supports your pre-approved conclusion. Nice.

 

[RogueWarrior]

The Jews. QED

:respekt:

End of thread.

 

[Logicman]

You want me to name the Apostles? That's what you're driving at?

Only if you have a different set of apostles than the Gospels identify.

You genuinely believe that anyone who qualifies as a skeptic is going to regard the New Testament as absolutely true, without subjecting it to any sort of scrutiny?

This thread is to see if you skeptics have a better story and set of evidences than what's in the Gospels / NT. Do you or don't you? If you don't have a credible alternative we don't need to listen to you.

So basically, you're going to categorically rule out all modern scholarship. Glad to see you're willing to accept evidence... as long as it supports your pre-approved conclusion. Nice.

Nuts.

Have you got something better? Let's see that bad boy. Otherwise bug out.

 

[R-C]

Just like there was a political advantage in being able to assert that Jesus was divine.

LOL, you mean after being fed to the lions?

 

[Guy Incognito]

The Jews. QED

That does not warrant a QED.

 

[DDD]

That might work for "who started Judaism" (although I don't agree with your assessment), but I'm looking for specifics from skeptics about "who started Christianity"? Got some names and some evidence?

On what grounds do you not agree with the assessments?

As for who started Christianity I do not really care.

 

[DDD]

LOL, you mean after being fed to the lions?

No, he was crucified, not fed to the lions.

 

[Logicman]

As for who started Christianity I do not really care.

Well, that's the topic here.

This is now page 10 of this thread debate and so far the skeptics have yet to present a compelling argument, with evidence, that adequately explains who (apart from the traditional Gospel individuals) started Christianity.

And they will not embrace the Biblical narrative.

This is what I surmised when I started this thread.

And if they don't have a better explanation, WITH EVIDENCE, then their attacks on the traditional Gospels pales in credibility.

 

[DDD]

Well, that's the topic here.

This is now page 10 of this thread debate and so far the skeptics have yet to present a compelling argument, with evidence, that adequately explains who (apart from the traditional Gospel individuals) started Christianity.

And they will not embrace the Biblical narrative.

This is what I surmised when I started this thread.

And if they don't have a better explanation, WITH EVIDENCE, then their attacks on the traditional Gospels pales in credibility.

I do not know about them, but I can acknowledge that the gospels and Rome helped spread Christianity to Europe. But I interpret the data as political and historical.

The gospels just spread fairy tales of invisible yet omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient being that Rome could not fight. Hence Rome acknowledged, and later used to provide its slaves some hope for a better life.

Later Deoclecian, Constantine the Great, Justinian the Great (all Dardanians) helped change Catholic Christianity into Orthodox Christianity. We taught Slavs too. Not knowing that they will use it to assimilate us later! But yeah, this is a different story.

 

[Logicman]

I do not know about them, but I can acknowledge that the gospels and Rome helped spread Christianity to Europe. But I interpret the data as political and historical.

The gospels just spread fairy tales of invisible yet omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient being that Rome could not fight. Hence Rome acknowledged, and later used to provide its slaves some hope for a better life.

"In The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel (p. 112), Mike Licona said, "[Gary] Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by a large majority of scholars, including skeptics. We try to come up with the best historical explanation to account for these facts. This is called the Minimal Facts Approach."

William Lane Craig (sadly, a non-OSASer) does confirm Habermas recorded 1400 scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead bodily, for a vision wouldn't convince the disciples of resurrection."

12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

Jesus is Risen indeed!

 

[Visbek]

This thread is to see if you skeptics have a better story and set of evidences than what's in the Gospels / NT. Do you or don't you?

We do. But you have no interest in hearing it. E.g. I linked to two books on the specific topic by noted scholars, and you rejected it without even thinking. So why do you bother to ask?

 

[DDD]

"In The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel (p. 112), Mike Licona said, "[Gary] Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by a large majority of scholars, including skeptics. We try to come up with the best historical explanation to account for these facts. This is called the Minimal Facts Approach."

William Lane Craig (sadly, a non-OSASer) does confirm Habermas recorded 1400 scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead bodily, for a vision wouldn't convince the disciples of resurrection."

The above has to do with historical events that gathers anecdotal evidence.

12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

Anecdotal evidence is not a "fact" it is the weakest form of reporting since it is highly susceptible to bias. Much needed imaginary bias.

Jesus is Risen indeed!

So say people that do not have actual empirical evidence to support their claims.

 

[cabse5]

If it were all so "Jewish," and according to the Law, why did they give Jesus and his disciples such a bad time?...

Yeah. I deleted most of your quote. I only included your quote that pertained to my response...

Messiah. That word in Jewish lore meant the one who would deliver the Palestinian Jews from gentile dominance (the Romans). When on Palm Sunday, when the crowd in Jerusalem shouted Messiah to Jesus they were declaring Jesus to be the one who would deliver Palestine back to the Jews. Do you see why Pilate thought Jesus might be the king of the Jews?

Here are, off the top, some differences between Christianity and Judaism during Jesus' time:
(1) entrenched Jewish sects allowed Palestine to be ruled by the Romans (did they have a choice). These sects certainly didn't publicize the need for a messiah in Palestine. In fact, a successful messiah in Palestine would have destroyed their power in Jerusalem (given by the Romans).

(2) Praying and sacrificing in the temple in Jerusalem became a monied venture. Jewish supplicants paid for the right kind of sacrifice. Paid temple priests for the privilege to pray. Priests were one of the wealthiest Jews in Jerusalem.

(3) Women could not enter the temple in Jerusalem.

(4) The Holy of Holies was a chamber in the farthest interior of the temple in Jerusalem where, according to Jewish ideology, God was supposed to reside.
Only high ranking Jewish priests were allowed to enter this chamber.

IMO, the segment in the Bible, as Jesus died on the cross, referring to the veil of the temple being rent (torn) - referring to the seclusion of the Holy of Holies in the temple being destroyed - could mean either:
God was displeased with his limited access by special priests, God was displeased with the whole Holy of Holies arrangement in the temple, or God was displeased because Jesus died.

 

[zyzygy]

http://www.holland.com/us/tourism/article/dutch-drug-policy.htm

Jesus is Risen indeed!

Once again you have mistaken this forum for a church.

 

[Logicman]

We do. But you have no interest in hearing it. E.g. I linked to two books on the specific topic by noted scholars, and you rejected it without even thinking. So why do you bother to ask?

Linking to books we have to purchase to find out what you're saying? Get real. Make your case here.