On religion

[speling bee]

That is perfectly plausible and I cannot prove it wrong.

I have never had my burden of proof for Jesus's existance satisfied and simply assumed that out of the squabbling mass of various messiahs and sects Christianity emerged with momentum and started to spread. There was no need for a real person to base it on, it might even work better if there is not because they you can truely make up what you want. (I was under the impression that Josephus was unreliable but I might have been too harsh on him considering what you were saying previously).

The religion eventually got formalised into the gospels and they co-ordinated their stories a little although they still have various contradictions.

Eventually the Romans picked up on it and integrated it into their empire and then brought it across Europe.

Obviously, I have no evidence for the first bit either.

There is no proof for Jesus. It is about weighing evidence and balance of probabilities. Work backwards from A.D. 64 and the persecution of Christians in Rome - an established sect that has spread a good distance (consistent with Paul's epistles to the Romans). Work backwards form the gospels, epistles, acts. Look at Josephus if you choose and work backwards.

It doesn't hang well off an invention. It hangs much better off a movement that lost its leader through execution.

[d000hg]

That's a whole other discussion that would involve bring in psychological as well as historical arguments.

[MyUserName]

There is no proof for Jesus. It is about weighing evidence and balance of probabilities.

Agreed.

Work backwards from A.D. 64 and the persecution of Christians in Rome

Were they actually persecuted other than being blamed for that fire?

It doesn't hang well of an invention. It hangs much better off a movement that lost its leader through execution.

This seems to be where we disagree, I thought it hung better of an invented figure to whom you can simply apply whatever attributes you like (after all there is no google or easy way for people to verify what you have claimed) and allow Chinese whispers to do the rest.

If this was the case then it would explain why Jesus was never mentioned by anyone else until 112 AD or so (apart from the NT writers who would have had a massive incentive to rhetro-fit things), as it took a while for these characteristics to become solidified and a name to be given to their representative.

Otherwise I would have expected his followers to be constantly talking and shouting about him, as they knew him by name, from midway through his life to the point where someone somewhere would have recorded it.

However, your previous post makes some good points about this.

[speling bee]

Agreed.


Were they actually persecuted other than being blamed for that fire? That is a pretty significant persecution but in any case my point is about the presence of an established sect in Rome.


This seems to be where we disagree, I thought it hung better of an invented figure to whom you can simply apply whatever attributes you like (after all there is no google or easy way for people to verify what you have claimed) and allow Chinese whispers to do the rest.

Look at cause and effect. It is quite hard to see how this movement would emerge and crystallise around an imaginary figure to the extent to which it has established itself in Rome 30 years later. What is significant is that it falls before the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple, after which it might be expected that Judaism would be in such crisis that splinters would emerge. What would be driving this between A.D. 30 and 60, other than a movement based around a real person?

If this was the case then it would explain why Jesus was never mentioned by anyone else until 112 AD or so (apart from the NT writers who would have had a massive incentive to rhetro-fit things), as it took a while for these characteristics to become solidified and a name to be given to their representative.

Otherwise I would have expected his followers to be constantly talking and shouting about him, as they knew him by name, from midway through his life to the point where someone somewhere would have recorded it. They may well have been shouting about him, but that does not mean they were leaving a literary record - they were a 'grass roots' movement in opposition to both Jewish orthodoxy and also followers of an executed rebel against the Roman state. We know they had influence - because they established themselves in Rome and other places if we are to believe the epistles, some of which date from the 50s (although accepting Paul never met Jesus except in a 'vision'.

However, your previous post makes some good points about this.

In bold.

[MyUserName]

That is a pretty significant persecution but in any case my point is about the presence of an established sect in Rome.

By persecution I was thinking of continuous harrassment rather than harsh one off reaction but I agree that they were an established sect in Rome.

What would be driving this between A.D. 30 and 60, other than a movement based around a real person?

An interesting point. I have no immediate rebuttal to that.

We know they had influence - because they established themselves in Rome and other places if we are to believe the epistles, some of which date from the 50s (although accepting Paul never met Jesus except in a 'vision'.

Doesn't this make it more likely that someone somewhere would have mentioned the name of their pseudo leader?

[speling bee]

Doesn't this make it more likely that someone somewhere would have mentioned the name of their pseudo leader?

So we have a first extant mention of Jesus in approx. AD 51, in early epistles from New Testament. There are many significant Roman figures who have first mentions that are a much longer time after their death.

[d000hg]

Paul writes often that he was imprisoned for his faith. Someone who was not Paul writes about how Paul authorised and promoted the persecution of believers before his conversion. It's written in Acts how when Paul first went to visit believers after his conversion, they were scared of him.

[speling bee]

Paul writes often that he was imprisoned for his faith. Someone who was not Paul writes about how Paul authorised and promoted the persecution of believers before his conversion. It's written in Acts how when Paul first went to visit believers after his conversion, they were scared of him.

But Paul was an evil and manipulative piece of work so we can't believe everything he says.

[MyUserName]

Paul writes often that he was imprisoned for his faith. Someone who was not Paul writes about how Paul authorised and promoted the persecution of believers before his conversion. It's written in Acts how when Paul first went to visit believers after his conversion, they were scared of him.

Do we have any more details on who actually wrote that and how credible it was?
Is there any record of Paul's influence from the Roman documentation?

[speling bee]

Do we have any more details on who actually wrote that and how credible it was?
Is there any record of Paul's influence from the Roman documentation?

Roman documentation was pretty disinterested in such matters. You just wouldn't expect to find mention.

You'll have to do your own research on authenticity. What can be said is that it is probably not a late forgery, as these are generally spotted fairly easily.