Christ did not produce the church.

[d.thomas]

The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ.
http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... _live.html



The oldest Christian writings are the epistles, and from them we learn of a church and also of a risen Christ that is known through the visions, revelations of apostles. Later, after Paul is dead and Jerusalem is sacked the gospels are written, of which stories tell of a Jesus of Nazareth, a Jesus completely foreign to the epistle writers. The epistle writers are unaware of Jesus as a miracle worker and a teacher, and never mention disciples or a Jesus of Nazareth, or Galilee. Due to the time line of these writings, it appears that Jesus was an invention of the church.

Do any of you already see it this way?

If not, why not?

[smitty42]

Of the 21 Epistles in the New Testament 13 were written under Paul and 6 of these are probably pseudepigraphal: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessaloneans, 1&2 Timothy, and Titus. Of the others Hebrews and James are anonymous. Of 1&2 Peters, 2Peters is a forgery.

Most people were illiterate, thus oral transmission of stores were used. The majority of the people in the Near East spoke a Semitic language. The New Testament was written by highly educated and literate Greek speaking and writing authors. Paul did not know any Semitic language.

[Flail]

The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ.
http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... _live.html



The oldest Christian writings are the epistles, and from them we learn of a church and also of a risen Christ that is known through the visions, revelations of apostles. Later, after Paul is dead and Jerusalem is sacked the gospels are written, of which stories tell of a Jesus of Nazareth, a Jesus completely foreign to the epistle writers. The epistle writers are unaware of Jesus as a miracle worker and a teacher, and never mention disciples or a Jesus of Nazareth, or Galilee. Due to the time line of these writings, it appears that Jesus was an invention of the church.

Do any of you already see it this way?

If not, why not?

It is interesting to note that in Jesus' final instructions to His disciples, arguably the most important conversation of His life to Him, He fails to mention 'Churches' at all; He makes no reference to starting a new religion or engaging in an old one; He mentions no ritual practices or worship requirements; He tells His disciples elsewhere to pray at home rather than in Church. It appears as though Jesus was not very religious, ritualistic or 'Churchy'. I doubt He would approve of Christianity.

[d.thomas]

My take on the origin of Christianity is that the Biblical gospels were written because of the destruction of the Jewish temple, which was very devastating to the Jews. Wouldn't it be nice if their Messiah were to come? Maybe he already did, and is coming back soon. A story was born, and it grew to dominate the world.

My take on the gospels is the same. Mark might be best read as an allegorical fiction of a failed Pauline tradition. http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... l_mark.htm

[WinePusher]

The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ.Source

The author of this article makes some dubious claims and hints at the idea that Jesus was not a historical person. That should be an immediate indicator that the article was formed in the absense of actual historical scholarship.

Generally, the way the authenticity of a text can be proven or disproven is by checking to see whether it meets historical criteria and passes the historical method. The Gospels and a large fraction of the Pauline Epistles do, so when people print articles like the one above it shows that historical methodology is being rejected and ignored.

The oldest Christian writings are the epistles, and from them we learn of a church and also of a risen Christ that is known through the visions, revelations of apostles.

Epistles are thought to have been the earliest texts of the New Testament to have been written, not the oldest.

Later, after Paul is dead and Jerusalem is sacked the gospels are written, of which stories tell of a Jesus of Nazareth, a Jesus completely foreign to the epistle writers. The epistle writers are unaware of Jesus as a miracle worker and a teacher, and never mention disciples or a Jesus of Nazareth, or Galilee. Due to the time line of these writings, it appears that Jesus was an invention of the church.

Which epistle writers are you talking about? Paul, Peter, John, James? The point of epistles were to strengthen and rally the conviction of early christian communities which is why the content of most letters contain an address a purpose and an instruction. They were not meant to be biographical texts of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Question Everything]

My take on the origin of Christianity is that the Biblical gospels were written because of the destruction of the Jewish temple, which was very devastating to the Jews. Wouldn't it be nice if their Messiah were to come? Maybe he already did, and is coming back soon. A story was born, and it grew to dominate the world.

My take on the gospels is the same. Mark might be best read as an allegorical fiction of a failed Pauline tradition. http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... l_mark.htm

I just finished reading it. Absolutely incredible. The author, R.G. Price, clearly has done his homework and makes a very strong case.

I am now starting to read the companion articles, which are numerous, very detailed, and very well researched.

I have a feeling that I will be coming up with quite a few questions for debate from all this. Right now, I am just trying to take it all in.

[Furrowed Brow]

, the way the authenticity of a text can be proven or disproven is by checking to see whether it meets historical criteria and passes the historical method. The Gospels and a large fraction of the Pauline Epistles do, so when people print articles like the one above it shows that historical methodology is being rejected and ignored.

Which historical method are you referring to. Ok so I went to [url=wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method]wiki[/url]


Historical Method Core principles
1/ Relics are more credible than narrative.

New Testament narrative: There are no relics except one foundation stone that indicates Pontius Pilate was real.

2/ Sources can be corrupted. Strong indications that source is original increase reliability

New Testament narrative: The sources are written in educated Greek and therefore not original. There are some textual indications that some passages were translated from Aramaic. There are other later Greek insertions too.

3/ The closer a source is to the event the more it can be trusted
Sources are decades later.

4/ A primary source is better than a secondary source is better than a tertiary source.
The Gospels are at best secondary sources. The sources we have i.e. the Greek translations are not from the time of study.

5/ independent sources increase the credibility of the message
Debatable but unlikely the Gospels are independent

6/ Tendency

The point of epistles were to strengthen and rally the conviction of early christian communities which is why the content of most letters contain an address a purpose and an instruction.

Yes there is potentially huge motivation to present a bias.

7/ Does a source have no direct interest in creating bias
Of course it does it is a copied and recopied and edited text aiming to persuade folk of its narrative.

The Bernheim criteria.
1/ Do all sources agree.
No they dont. Even if we disregard any internal disagreement between the four main Gospels and the differences that appear in the various existing Greek copies there are still the apocryphal gospels.....

2/ Textual analysis
Yes there does indeed look to be narrative in the Gospels that originates from Aramaic source/s.

3/ It is impossible to confirm the text with outside sources.

4/ There are no experts.

5/ there are no expert or eyewitness. There are sources that are not originals that present a report the sources say belong to an eyewitness......big difference.

6/ There are no meaningfully independent sources e.g. roman execution records.
7/ common sense....o boy if we are allowed to inject some common sense then walking on water and bodily resurrections are fantasy.

Garraghan criteria
1.When was source written?
Decades later.

2. Where?
Largely unknown or surmised.

3. By whom ?
The writers of the exiting copies of the Gospels are unknown.

4. From what existing material.....ultimately if there is any truth in the narrative then everything traces back to verbal stories told by itinerant preachers that are then reported in letters and these are copied and recopied.

5/ Original form?
Verbal, then letters.

6. What is the evidential value.
Excellent for seeing what a small group of folk were writing about decades after the time of the narrative.

Using Garraghan, Bernhien and the core principles the Gospels and the rest are junk evidence for deciding what went on in Palestine decades earlier. They are excellent evidence recording the beliefs, powerplays, and attitudes of a small but growing group of folk decades later.

[earl]

The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ.
http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... _live.html



The oldest Christian writings are the epistles, and from them we learn of a church and also of a risen Christ that is known through the visions, revelations of apostles. Later, after Paul is dead and Jerusalem is sacked the gospels are written, of which stories tell of a Jesus of Nazareth, a Jesus completely foreign to the epistle writers. The epistle writers are unaware of Jesus as a miracle worker and a teacher, and never mention disciples or a Jesus of Nazareth, or Galilee. Due to the time line of these writings, it appears that Jesus was an invention of the church.

Do any of you already see it this way?

If not, why not?

It is interesting to note that in Jesus' final instructions to His disciples, arguably the most important conversation of His life to Him, He fails to mention 'Churches' at all; He makes no reference to starting a new religion or engaging in an old one; He mentions no ritual practices or worship requirements; He tells His disciples elsewhere to pray at home rather than in Church. It appears as though Jesus was not very religious, ritualistic or 'Churchy'. I doubt He would approve of Christianity.

I do not see that Jesus failed to mention churches but I believe he ommited it purposely.In general,from what I have studied, I agree to that statement as true.
True again ,he makes no reference to starting a new religion or otherwise.
True again ,he tells his disciples to personnally pray by themselves.
He does state that man should not forget to assemble.
True again,Jesus was not ritualistic or churchy but religious is unclear on your end to me but he is recognized by believers as producing a gospel.
From this I recognize Paul is the one laid the ground work for churches,not Jesus for Paul states on occasion "my gospel"which is to me an add on or a extention of Jesus's gospel or an expansion of Jesus's gospel thus establishing a "my gospel " framework for Paul's christianity.
There are some major differences between Jesus's gospel and Paul's gospel,from what I have knowledge of.