3 ms·

That theory doesn't fit any of the evidence, though. What we see in the first few decades of the movement is group that's come from a common source and is start

by bnralt 4y ago

That theory doesn't fit any of the evidence, though. What we see in the first few decades of the movement is group that's come from a common source and is starting to split off as they argue over in what light their leader should be seen and how people should follow his teaching. It seems bizarre that the followers of multiple different preachers would somehow come together, unanimously decide to forget their leaders and create a fake composite leader who supposedly existed and was publicly executed a few years prior, as well as composite teachings. Somehow they get everyone on board for it (we don't see any evidence of other sects that didn't follow), but just as soon as this disparate groups all agree to create a fake founder they suddenly split apart again. But none of them ditch the idea of the fake founder. It's really bizarre when you think about it. There are figures that historians think might have been composite figures developed over centuries, but nothing like disparate groups suddenly creating a fake founding figure from a generation back (the Pauline letters are written a couple of decades after Jesus is supposed to have died). And the theory doesn't solve any problems. Instead of one preacher we have some evidence for, we now have multiple preachers we have no evidence for, multiple proto-Christian movements we have no evidence for, councils to unify the movements by falsify their origin we have no evidence for, etc.

coliveira 4y ago
> followers of multiple different preachers would somehow come together, unanimously decide to forget their leaders and create a fake composite You're assuming that there were leaders. Not really, the earlier christianity was the combination of several loose teachings taken from different sources, including jewish and pagan. They were then combined by Paul, who preached a celestial being, not a human, as their ultimate source. His writings were later harmonized with the tale of a human Jesus, who appeared on a somewhat remote past and in a remote country that had been destroyed by the Romans (Judea). So, no wonder that nobody disagreed about this tale, nobody had really seen it happening other than by "revelation".
- bnralt 4y ago
  That theory doesn't match with the evidence we have at all. The Pauline letters (the ones considered authentic) show us that there were many early leaders, some of whom clashed with Paul, as well as many different factions of Christian, some of whom Paul disagreed with. 1 Corinthians, for instance, he's talking about different Christians (or rather, proto-Christians) saying they're the followers of different leaders. You also see Paul as a late comer to the movement really try to defend himself as being considered an apostle. And one really has to twist Paul's words to say he's treating Christ as a merely celestial being (Paul even talks about Christ's human brother). You're also claiming that the proto-Christians weren't working within a messianic Jewish framework (which the academic view of early Christianity fits nicely), but a completely different framework that we neither have evidence of before and that completely disappears afterwards. Speaking of completely disappearing afterwards - Paul's letters are from ~50 AD, Mark is ~70 AD. So you have still have to posit a massive and seemingly unified (even though the early Christians were hardly unified) agreement to adopt the human narrative, since soon after we get a lot of information about heresies, and lots of criticisms about Christianity, but no one is aware that it (supposedly) was as a completely separate religion within living memory. It's just a very strange theory, one that posits a completely different religion suddenly appearing and disappearing, and seems to be based solely on ignoring most of the content of the Pauline letters, twist the words of some of the others, and just making up the rest whole clothe. It's about as historical as Dan Brown's version of Christianity, and has as much scholarly support.
  - Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
    to me it's dogmatic bias to build your whole theory on the letters of one person. myths are created all the time and always has been. i guess my problem really lies with what you call evidence.
    - bnralt 4y ago
      > to me it's dogmatic bias to build your whole theory on the letters of one person. It's not built entirely on the letters of one person. Anyone who's studied early Christianity knows that there's a large variety of early sources, including Christian proto-orthodoxy, other Christian sects (including things that get labelled as heresies and gnostic today, though those terms are misleading), and early critics of Christianity. This all gives us a decent understanding of how the religion developed during the first couple of centuries. Though we see a great deal of variety in early Christian thought, we don't see any of the evidence of this proposed precursor religion. The idea seems to entirely exist because people want it to, which is why it's been rejected by historians as a fringe theory. I brought up the letters of Paul because the claim was that Paul personally created Christianity on his own as an entirely separate religion (one where Christ is a celestial and not earthly creature), and that it was completely changed (by...someone?) within a few years of his death. I'd think Paul's writings directly contradicting this theory would be rather important, not "dogmatic bias." > myths are created all the time and always has been. I can't think of any religion where historians believe the found preacher was invented within a few decades of it's creation. And the existence of myths in the past isn't carte blanche to ignore evidence and then make up one's own theory that's completely devoid of evidence.

by bnralt 4y ago

coliveira 4y ago

> followers of multiple different preachers would somehow come together, unanimously decide to forget their leaders and create a fake composite You're assuming that there were leaders. Not really, the earlier christianity was the combination of several loose teachings taken from different sources, including jewish and pagan. They were then combined by Paul, who preached a celestial being, not a human, as their ultimate source. His writings were later harmonized with the tale of a human Jesus, who appeared on a somewhat remote past and in a remote country that had been destroyed by the Romans (Judea). So, no wonder that nobody disagreed about this tale, nobody had really seen it happening other than by "revelation".

bnralt 4y ago
That theory doesn't match with the evidence we have at all. The Pauline letters (the ones considered authentic) show us that there were many early leaders, some of whom clashed with Paul, as well as many different factions of Christian, some of whom Paul disagreed with. 1 Corinthians, for instance, he's talking about different Christians (or rather, proto-Christians) saying they're the followers of different leaders. You also see Paul as a late comer to the movement really try to defend himself as being considered an apostle. And one really has to twist Paul's words to say he's treating Christ as a merely celestial being (Paul even talks about Christ's human brother). You're also claiming that the proto-Christians weren't working within a messianic Jewish framework (which the academic view of early Christianity fits nicely), but a completely different framework that we neither have evidence of before and that completely disappears afterwards. Speaking of completely disappearing afterwards - Paul's letters are from ~50 AD, Mark is ~70 AD. So you have still have to posit a massive and seemingly unified (even though the early Christians were hardly unified) agreement to adopt the human narrative, since soon after we get a lot of information about heresies, and lots of criticisms about Christianity, but no one is aware that it (supposedly) was as a completely separate religion within living memory. It's just a very strange theory, one that posits a completely different religion suddenly appearing and disappearing, and seems to be based solely on ignoring most of the content of the Pauline letters, twist the words of some of the others, and just making up the rest whole clothe. It's about as historical as Dan Brown's version of Christianity, and has as much scholarly support.
- Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
  to me it's dogmatic bias to build your whole theory on the letters of one person. myths are created all the time and always has been. i guess my problem really lies with what you call evidence.
  - bnralt 4y ago
    > to me it's dogmatic bias to build your whole theory on the letters of one person. It's not built entirely on the letters of one person. Anyone who's studied early Christianity knows that there's a large variety of early sources, including Christian proto-orthodoxy, other Christian sects (including things that get labelled as heresies and gnostic today, though those terms are misleading), and early critics of Christianity. This all gives us a decent understanding of how the religion developed during the first couple of centuries. Though we see a great deal of variety in early Christian thought, we don't see any of the evidence of this proposed precursor religion. The idea seems to entirely exist because people want it to, which is why it's been rejected by historians as a fringe theory. I brought up the letters of Paul because the claim was that Paul personally created Christianity on his own as an entirely separate religion (one where Christ is a celestial and not earthly creature), and that it was completely changed (by...someone?) within a few years of his death. I'd think Paul's writings directly contradicting this theory would be rather important, not "dogmatic bias." > myths are created all the time and always has been. I can't think of any religion where historians believe the found preacher was invented within a few decades of it's creation. And the existence of myths in the past isn't carte blanche to ignore evidence and then make up one's own theory that's completely devoid of evidence.