Are we at the 2,000th anniversary of Jesus’s death?

[Jarhyn]

At that point I would think the conversation would pivot to "what was supposed to happen afterwards", not "what happened earlier".

Apocalypse.

The day when "there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed."

Alas, we're still waiting.

Well, some of us are. The funny thing is, I never really stopped believing in the promise. But somewhere along the line, I stopped waiting for it. It's like waiting for a parent to love you, the wound never quite heals, but the pain becomes more familiar with time.

But like, the point is that before that, the church is supposed to be duped into following a charlatan while the true followers of the message of Christ are castigated and chastised and even executed by the false-faithful; the waters of the world being poisoned, and plagues being unleashed primarily upon the false-faithful...

Famines must first walk the land.

And even so, we have a warning from Herbert West that this may be done on purpose by interested and dishonest worldly forces interested in stepping into prophecy.

 

[Politesse]

As indeed has happened many times. We never seem to learn that popular and just are not synonyms.

 

[Swammerdami]

How is Jesus' death year derived? 33 and 36 AD were popular guesses several years ago, but scholars now seem to have settled on 30 AD as most probable.

One specific "fact" that helps dating is Paul's statement in Galatians that 14 years separated his two trips to Jerusalem and another three years from his "return to Damascus" (or does it? see quote below). The (Apostolic) Council of Jerusalem is dated to 50 AD ±2 which puts Paul's "return to Damascus" at 33 AD ±2 and thus Jesus' crucifixion several(?) years before that. But where does the 50 AD ±2 estimate for the "Apostolic Council" come from? Is it just circular, starting with a date for the crucifixion and counting forward from there?

IIUC some estimates are based on the Jewish calendar, looking for a year where Passover coincided with a Sabbath. But

• IIUC there is an off-by-one-day discrepancy between John and the other three Gospels; and
• The ancient Jewish calendar was like the present-day Islamic calendar, with month alignment at the whim of Jewish astronomers rather than fixed in advance. (And IIUC, there is no record of the chosen alignments from 2000 years ago.)

I think my question is an interesting one that may shed light on the craft of scholars of ancient history. It would be sweet if my question could be addressed objectively without turning it into yet another round of Christian-vs-Mythicist ranting.

For you have heard of ... how intensely I persecuted the [Christian] church of God and tried to destroy it.... But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me.

Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.

 

[Jarhyn]

"I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie."

So this part's a lie then. He probably didn't even see James?

People telling the truth tend not to reiterate their truthfulness, having confidence in the underlying truth of their words. They just say it, because the feeling of support by the universe tends to carry them.

It is people who feel doubt in the truthfulness of their words who do this thing of reassuring others: they are banishing away their own feelings and the demons of their mind accusing themselves, insisting not to others but themselves.

 

[Swammerdami]

"I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie."

So this part's a lie then. He probably didn't even see James?

People telling the truth tend not to reiterate their truthfulness, having confidence in the underlying truth of their words. They just say it, because the feeling of support by the universe tends to carry them.

It is people who feel doubt in the truthfulness of their words who do this thing of reassuring others: they are banishing away their own feelings and the demons of their mind accusing themselves, insisting not to others but themselves.

My division into paragraphs of several verses from Galatians was arbitrary. IIUC all we're left with is divisions into chapters and verses with any paragraph divisions in the original unclear.

In other words the "I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie" may refer to most of Chapter 1 -- incorporating Paul's alleged encounter with God (who "reveal[ed] his Son in me"). The encounter with God might be fictitious, but not necessarily the failure to meet with any apostle except Cephas (and James).

 

[Jarhyn]

"I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie."

So this part's a lie then. He probably didn't even see James?

People telling the truth tend not to reiterate their truthfulness, having confidence in the underlying truth of their words. They just say it, because the feeling of support by the universe tends to carry them.

It is people who feel doubt in the truthfulness of their words who do this thing of reassuring others: they are banishing away their own feelings and the demons of their mind accusing themselves, insisting not to others but themselves.

My division into paragraphs of several verses from Galatians was arbitrary. IIUC all we're left with is divisions into chapters and verses with any paragraph divisions in the original unclear.

In other words the "I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie" may refer to most of Chapter 1 -- incorporating Paul's alleged encounter with God (who "reveal[ed] his Son in me"). The encounter with God might be fictitious, but not necessarily the failure to meet with any apostle except Cephas (and James).

This is fair; he might be mixing truths with lies, but he's definitely lying about something.

 

[bilby]

"I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie."

So this part's a lie then. He probably didn't even see James?

People telling the truth tend not to reiterate their truthfulness, having confidence in the underlying truth of their words. They just say it, because the feeling of support by the universe tends to carry them.

It is people who feel doubt in the truthfulness of their words who do this thing of reassuring others: they are banishing away their own feelings and the demons of their mind accusing themselves, insisting not to others but themselves.

"...that's what he really said. Fuckin' oath he did. Honest mate, fair dinkum, now look would I tell you a fib? 'Cos shit, mate, I was there, I ought to know, may lightning strike me dead. Honest mate, fair dinkum, that's what he really said!" - Kevin Bloody Wilson.

 

[Jarhyn]

"I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie."

So this part's a lie then. He probably didn't even see James?

People telling the truth tend not to reiterate their truthfulness, having confidence in the underlying truth of their words. They just say it, because the feeling of support by the universe tends to carry them.

It is people who feel doubt in the truthfulness of their words who do this thing of reassuring others: they are banishing away their own feelings and the demons of their mind accusing themselves, insisting not to others but themselves.

"...that's what he really said. Fuckin' oath he did. Honest mate, fair dinkum, now look would I tell you a fib? 'Cos shit, mate, I was there, I ought to know, may lightning strike me dead. Honest mate, fair dinkum, that's what he really said!" - Kevin Bloody Wilson.

(Which means he said nothing of the sort)

 

[Swammerdami]

Paul's bringing Christianity to uncircumcised Gentiles during the mid- 1st century may be considered one of the most successful con jobs in all of history! Nero felt threatened by the Christian movement even before Paul arrived in Rome, and Paul's version of Christianity spread very rapidly soon after the Fall of Jerusalem.

Yes, although D.J. Trump will appear on any List of the Greatest Con Artists in History, many of us will accept that "Saint" Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) should beat Trump for the #1 slot. And, being a con man, we can stipulate that the tale of his encounter with "God" on the road to Damascus was ... exaggerated.

BUT contrast this fiction with the fiction promulgated by the fraudster Richard Carrier -- and endorsed by some right HERE on THIS message-board -- that Paul's mid-1st century writings AND their corroborations in Luke's Acts and by other writers were all concocted by fiction writers in the late 2nd century!! Concocted at least 100 years after archaeological evidence like St. Peter's cave church in Antioch.

I like good fiction, and realize that to enjoy the fiction one often has to suspend disbelief. But fictions do NOT appeal which, like Carrier's, have zero plausibility and are just laughable nonsense.

 

[Jarhyn]

Paul's bringing Christianity to uncircumcised Gentiles during the mid- 1st century may be considered one of the most successful con jobs in all of history! Nero felt threatened by the Christian movement even before Paul arrived in Rome, and Paul's version of Christianity spread very rapidly soon after the Fall of Jerusalem.

Yes, although D.J. Trump will appear on any List of the Greatest Con Artists in History, many of us will accept that "Saint" Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) should beat Trump for the #1 slot. And, being a con man, we can stipulate that the tale of his encounter with "God" on the road to Damascus was ... exaggerated.

BUT contrast this fiction with the fiction promulgated by the fraudster Richard Carrier -- and endorsed by some right HERE on THIS message-board -- that Paul's mid-1st century writings AND their corroborations in Luke's Acts and by other writers were all concocted by fiction writers in the late 2nd century!! Concocted at least 100 years after archaeological evidence like St. Peter's cave church in Antioch.

I like good fiction, and realize that to enjoy the fiction one often has to suspend disbelief. But fictions do NOT appeal which, like Carrier's, have zero plausibility and are just laughable nonsense.

What I would like to know is how, after seeing what happened to the Mormons, scientologists, etc. how anyone thinks the "second-stringer" effect is in any way fictional.

Cults have a process. It's well documented and highly visible at this point: first prophet comes in, drops some truth, gets some stuff a bit wonky or leaves things unclear; second-stringer comes along when the primary prophet is dead, sees a cult "ripe" for control, and they slide in. Some time later they have the powerful position they couldn't have gotten in their old cult.

And then they *twist* it.

 

[Swammerdami]

@Jarhyn -- I'm not sure what your point is, or your question. But professional historians do not start with a preconception and twist the facts to fit. Instead they (I'm putting this in a Spoiler since it seems to be a secret!) examine the EVIDENCE and then based on that, determine what is most LIKELY.

 

[Swammerdami]

There is beaucoup evidence that Christianity BOOMED in the IMMEDIATE aftermath of the Crucifixion. I don't know who your "second stringer" is -- perhaps some Doppleganger of Saul of Tarsus who lived a century after the real one?

Some of you pin your delusions on the "discrepancy" that Tacitus writes both "Christian" and "Chrestian". I guess it was disappointing to learn that TACITUS HIMSELF confirms that BOTH spellings refer to the SAME cult.

Hope this helps.

 

[Jarhyn]

@Jarhyn -- I'm not sure what your point is, or your question. But professional historians do not start with a preconception and twist the facts to fit. Instead they (I'm putting this in a Spoiler since it seems to be a secret!) examine the EVIDENCE and then based on that, determine what is most LIKELY.

My point is to criticize Paul as nothing more than the ancient equivalent of Brigham 'likes em' Young and David Miscarriage (ok, I spelled it right and autocorrect still did that so I'm keeping it and editing Brigham...).

I examine evidence (this shit has happened, repeatedly, across many, many cults) and conclude that Paul really did live, because his existence is consistent with contemporary evidence fitting the pattern.