In a now-closed thread, robertb disputed the Roman origins of the Christian church with these words:

"The problem with Christianity being invented in Rome is its growth and spread is documented *from* Palestine *to* the Roman Empire. After leaving Palestine it grew among the Hellenized Jews in the Diaspora and then later took root among the Pagans. Stark also shows that efforts by Pagans to create a Gnostic Christianity was a failure and that these groups were little more than a minor bother to the main church.

To makes his points Stark uses data he collects from other researchers on the ancient world and statistical methods to create and test specific hypotheses."

I'm pretty sure robertb is not trying to prove the Bible FROM the Bible, that would be circular logic and confirmation bias on steroids. So I asked to see the non-Biblical documentation showing the spread of the early Christian church from its place of origin in Palestine, to the gentile world in Europe.

I am hoping that robertb will use this thread as an opportunity to share this documentation with us.

I believe John C. Lennox brought up the historicity of Jesus in his books and gave references. Look there if you wish - "Gunning for God".

No thanks, drilldoc, altho I imagine your reference is interesting. I'm just looking for robertb's documentation of the early Christian church's origins in Jerusalem.

Do Lennox's books give documentation of the Jerusalem origins of the Christian church?

I would use the Mormon church as an example. It was born from the imagination of a few, not in Salt Lake City, but in in various places in the Eastern US. Christianity's roots were similarly born in various places like Jerusalem, Greece and Egypt. The Edict of Milan cemented Christianity the same way the migration to SLC cemented Mormonism.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would use the Mormon church as an example. It
> was born from the imagination of a few, not in
> Salt Lake City, but in in various places in the
> Eastern US. Christianity's roots were similarly
> born in various places like Jerusalem, Greece and
> Egypt. The Edict of Milan cemented Christianity
> the same way the migration to SLC cemented
> Mormonism.

Interesting jacob, altho off topic. I have never said that the Roman state originated Christianity, nor have I attempted to tie its origins to any council or edict. I have only said that the church-related tales seem to have had their origins in Rome, which is simply a place. By the time the Roman state got involved with officially endorsing Christianity, the young religion was already fully fledged, with scriptures and theologians of Roman origins, buildings, congregations, competing sects and bishops, etc..

But when I examine the earliest documents and scriptural fragments that seem to show the origins of the early Christian church, I see they appeared in Rome (c. 125-150AD), with likely Roman authors. The names associated with the early church and its scriptures are Roman.

I don't find any credible evidence that either scriptures, fragments, or other corroborating historical documents, first appeared in Jerusalem. I was hoping robertb could show me some evidences. But apparently, the "documentation" he claims is in the form of some novel statistical analyses of Stark's personal investigations of ancient Mediterranean demographics. So this looks very much like one sociologist attempting to flesh out his theories with some questionable statistical analyses based on estimates of population movements, as revealed in graveyards, etc.

This is certainly not history. And, I must ask, is it even sound science? Further peer review may shed more light on Mr. Stark's novel theories.

But none of this comes in the form of any primary documents originating in Jerusalem after Jesus' departure. Apparently, for such claims we have as evidence only the Bible, which, if it is indeed a fiction from Rome, cannot be trusted in the least to provide any insight into the real world origins of the Christian church. The whole purpose of the Bible is to propagandize (long after the fact) for the story of Jesus and his holy church. Just as the whole purpose of the BOM is to propagandize (long after the "fact" :)) for the story of Jesus and his holy church in the Americas.

And you can't use the fables in the BOM to support the fables of the BOM. The BOM ain't history and it ain't science. So this goes for the NT also.

I think it is unwise, and in fact is deceptive and possibly purposefully confusing in open debate, for some Bible believers to grasp at straws in their efforts to confirm and promote their personal biases. Please, Bible apologists, do not claim documentation, when and where none exists. You will only confuse the issues, muddy the waters of logic, and embarrass yourselves.

Rather helps if you actually read the book.

I suppose so, robertb. But perhaps, if you have something else relevant to show us, you could quote important sections of Stark's works for our edification?

If you put his works forward as evidence, then it devolves upon you to demonstrate that evidence. Do you have other quotes, or documentary evidences, beyond the one already included in your post?

Please don't try to shift the responsibility of presenting Stark's evidences effectively in this thread onto me.

Well, how do you know Stark exists?

Perhaps Robert B has a life and isn't willing to do your homework. You want the info, you do the reading.

Stark's Cities of God presents the information in the format that would be easiest to show. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide it to you on the board. The book is available as a PDF download if you Google. I'm sure you can also get it through interlibrary loan.

Stark is not presenting a new concept on the growth and spread of Christianity but he has been able to quantify data and draw a number of conclusion for it using statistical methods, which is what I wanted to show. It shows growth from Jerusalem outward and explains why Christianity grew so well in some parts of the Empire and more slowly in others.

While I am at it, I will also mention in the book I reading now, The Triumph of Christianity, Stark presents the idea that perhaps Jesus was actually well-off and educated and did have scribes following him around, something I disagree with you on in another thread. So I'm thinking about that, too. One thing that hangs me up on that idea is the archeological excavation at Nazareth shows a small, poor town.

Does not seem very likely. Q would have been more likely to have been found, and that doesn't fit the cultural context of oral traditions.

Also, Jesus' major disciples would have been more likely to have been educated and rich too.

Which they weren't! They was poor!!! N dumb!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2012 09:35PM by Raptor Jesus.

Yeah, it made me go "Hmmmmm." But it is an interesting idea. I'm willing to think about it.

Or is this another unfounded claim?

LOL Is there any evidence I think at all? And if I don't, therefore, am I?

Stark mentioned that Christianity not only spread from Jerusalem west to the Roman Empire, but very early on spread east into Central Asia. However, there are not the records available to document its progress as for the Roman Empire.

Stark:

"The initial activities of the Jesus Movement beyond Palestine probably were mainly directed eastward to Syria and Persia, which is consistent with the fact that following his conversion, Paul spent more than a decade as a missionary in that area. It is reflective of our ignorance that we know nothing about what Paul accomplished during these years or even where he actually went. Indeed, the conclusion that there were vigorous mission efforts to the East is mostly inferred from the impressive extent of Christianity in this area by the second century, for almost nothing survives about how this success was achieved, or by whom."

Stark, Rodney (2011-10-25). The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World's Largest Religion (Kindle Locations 995-999). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2012 09:55PM by robertb.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stark mentioned that Christianity not only spread
> from Jerusalem west to the Roman Empire, but very
> early on spread east into Central Asia. However,
> there are not the records available to document
> its progress as for the Roman Empire.

no docs...

Mere conjecture...

>
> Stark:
>
> "The initial activities of the Jesus Movement
> beyond Palestine probably were mainly directed
> eastward to Syria and Persia, which is consistent
> with the fact that following his conversion, Paul
> spent more than a decade as a missionary in that
> area. It is reflective of our ignorance that we
> know nothing about what Paul accomplished during
> these years or even where he actually went.
> Indeed, the conclusion that there were vigorous
> mission efforts to the East is mostly inferred
> from the impressive extent of Christianity in this
> area by the second century, for almost nothing
> survives about how this success was achieved, or
> by whom."
>
> Stark, Rodney (2011-10-25). The Triumph of
> Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the
> World's Largest Religion (Kindle Locations
> 995-999). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

See, robert, this is a problem, when it comes to documentation. In the first sentence of your quote, Stark's use of the word, "probably", indicates that he doesn't know, nor does any one else know. He is guessing.

Then he says his guess is consistent with the **FACT** that Paul did this or that. As sourced and recorded where? In the BIBLE! This is called confirmation bias. It is like Mormons using "geography" from the BOM to try to find the real world location of the city of Nephi. But, the BOM is entirely fiction. See the problem here?

It is at least honest that Stark admits we know almost nothing about Paul, or his activities. We can't even demonstrate that a Paul figure ever really existed. Any more than Mos can demonstrate that a real Nephi existed. And Stark also admits that his best ideas on the subject of the spread of the early church are INFERENCES, which are guesses, and which are all based on the Bible tales themselves.

Again, Stark presents no documentary evidence.

Well, if Jesus didn't exist and Paul didn't exist, who started Christianity? There is a poster on Post Mo who read a book that claims it was the Flavian emperors who wanted to pacify the Jews by giving them a peaceful messiah. Personally, I think that is crap. The general consensus is that both Paul and Jesus were real. Of course, you are free to differ, but then you have the problem of accounting for Christianity.

Well, on the basis of how you evaluate, I don't have any reason to believe or entertain anything you say on the subject as well. So why I am bothering to talk to you? It seems to me that rather than talk about it, whenever you are presented with information you go to superskeptic mode in which no one can believe anything. So I guess there is nothing to talk about with you.

If we hold most people in the ancient world to the standards of the mythicists, there is almost no one we can assume existed.

You claimed documentary evidence. You presented none. Now you want to kick dirt at me, take your toys and go home. Buh By-eee!

It was Roman pagan influence that started the cult of Mary.

More likely the worship of Isis who is often seen holding her baby Horus who was magically conceived with a magic phallus.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2012 10:22PM by bona dea.

You are all using the word "Christianity" as though it were a homogenous, correlated system of beliefs. Rather it was more like a hodgepodge similar to Mormonism after the death of Joseph Smith.

Just as Christianity has conveniently forgotten about the many Messiah-Prophets running around at the time of Jesus, they have also forgotten that there was no organization at first.

It always struck me as hilarious that the LDS church claims to be identical with the early Christian organization. They are as far from the bearded, sandaled nomadic apostles as men could possibly be.

Anagrammy

We don't know enough about Christianity immediately after Jesus to know much at all about what they believed or agreed about.Other than Acts, it is pretty much guesswork. There just isn't enough info. The Gnostic gospels are later and we don't know how far back Gnosticism goes.Let me add that a number of scholars doubt that things were quite as harmonious between James and Paul as the Book of Acts make it seem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2012 10:08PM by bona dea.

Books such as Revelations show a diversity of belief.

"The author of Revelation hated Rome, but he also scorned another group – a group of people we would call Christians today, Pagels says."

"There’s a common perception that there was a golden age of Christianity, when most Christians agreed on an uncontaminated version of the faith. Yet there was never one agreed-upon Christianity. There were always clashing visions."

"The author of Revelation was like an activist crusading for traditional values. In his case, he was a devout Jew who saw Jesus as the messiah. But he didn’t like the message that the apostle Paul and other followers of Jesus were preaching."

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/31/four-big-myths-about-the-book-of-revelation/

The book of Revelation is just one example. There is plenty of conflicting ideas on who Jesus was. Obviously he became more deified as time went on...not reaching his status as God until rather late in the Gospel of John.

Revelations wasn't written immediately after Jesus though. It has to be at least 30 or so years later if the beast was Nero ans many scholars believe.

But there is good reason to believe that that the ideas put forth by the author of Revelation predate the beliefs of Paul. I can pull up numerous examples of competing ideas about Jesus that it seems were believed relatively soon after his death. I think Annagrammy's point was accurate.

I'd like to see them.

As I noted before, Jesus' status as God evolved over time. Jesus was probably first believed to be a Messiah who would return with the soon to come Apocalypse. As time went on his death achieved symbol. Paul begins to describe him as someone who takes on other's sins "He became sin," etc. After Paul we get the ideas of virgin birth. Then finally he becomes God himself.

The author of Revelation simply believed in Jesus as a Messiah that would return. Paul's beliefs evolved from this.

I agree that beliefs evolved, but the problem is that Paul didn't talk a lot about Jesus personal life so we don't know for sure what he thought about things like virgin birth. I think it probably came later too, but we reaaly are just guessing.Acts really is about as early as we get.

But either way, I don't think you are refuting my claim that the author of Revelation probably held to beliefs that were closer to Jesus' earliest disciples.

I don't think we know although I will agree that Revelation probably predateds the Gospels.

It helps to remember how difficult communication was back then. Paul did not know the "Jesus story" that we know today. He didn't know about the virgin birth, the miracles, etc. All he knew was Christ crucified and risen because he (supposedly) appeared to him.

They didn't even call themselves "Christians" at first, rather labeled themselves as disciples of the leader they followed. We see that being corrected back to "we are all Christians."

Anagrammy

Simon Magus was probably the first Gnostic encountered by the apostles.

I think that is guesswork.

I take the episode as Simon Magnus thinking, "Hey, these guys have great magic. I wonder if they will sell me the secret of how they are doing what they are doing?" Lot of wonder-workers back then.

I think that depends Annagrammy about what period you are talking about. There was a main church and a number of apparently minor heresies, again according to Stark at least. As for the other messiah's running around, that was well none but the Christians identified with a particular one.

The Christians didn't accept the other messiahs because, to them, Jesus was the messiah. There could only be one and Christians believed they had found him. Why would they care about the others?

The plurality of messiahs is interesting because that's why Jesus and his disciples had to carefully to fulfill each prophecy to make sure that their candidate stood out from the others.

Especially since theirs was not the political/military type people were looking for to give them relief from Roman occupation.

Anagrammy

Origin of Christianity and the Roman Conspiracy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuqwmMpV2oo&list=WL472C166A367F0E07&index=14&feature=plpp_video

Atwill has a theory with very little to back it up.There is a big debate on Post Mo on the book and personally I think Atwill is full of it.At the very least, he has failed to offer any evidence.