My researches

[Giannino_S]

.

Hello at all!

I am a 'sui generis' italian scholar that for about 18 years is engaged in the study and research on the origins of Catholic Christianity (and not simply 'Christianity'). Since late 2004, date of my retirement from the work, I spend by the 12-14 hours a day at the computer, engaged in 'hectic' researches! ..

In late 2005, I started writing a book that should summarize the result of my studies and my researches. The work is not yet completed because it is not yet completed the cycle of my researches. I think that within two years the 'draft' should be ready, although I still have a 'sea' of material downloaded from the Internet yet to see.

As for the dichotomy mythical Jesus - historical Jesus, I am clearly for the second 'option': that is, I'm a 'historicist'. From the point of view of religious philosophy, I consider myself a staunch agnostic.

In the previous English-language area (a 'mythicist' group) in which I have written so far, I often I came across with people who are particularly intolerant towards the historicist thesis. The last clash prompted me to desist from continuing to post in that group. I sincerely hope that this does not happen here too ...

Best greeting at all!

Littlejohn S (Giannino in italian)

.

 

[Bronzeage]

Welcome to TFT. We are a fairly lazy bunch, so even if we vehemently disagree, no one has the energy to throw a brick through your window.

 

[Giannino_S]

.

Welcome to TFT. We are a fairly lazy bunch, so even if we vehemently disagree, no one has the energy to throw a brick through your window.

Thanks you very much!

.

 

[Angry Floof]

Welcome!

 

[Giannino_S]

.

Welcome!

Thanks you!...

.

 

[funinspace]

In the previous English-language area (a 'mythicist' group) in which I have written so far, I often I came across with people who are particularly intolerant towards the historicist thesis. The last clash prompted me to desist from continuing to post in that group. I sincerely hope that this does not happen here too ...

Shouldn't happen, as there are more than a few historical Jesus non-theists around here (myself included). Though there will be very little agreement about just how little or much about this person called Jesus is part of the real Jesus...

 

[Giannino_S]

.

In the previous English-language area (a 'mythicist' group) in which I have written so far, I often I came across with people who are particularly intolerant towards the historicist thesis. The last clash prompted me to desist from continuing to post in that group. I sincerely hope that this does not happen here too ...

Shouldn't happen, as there are more than a few historical Jesus non-theists around here (myself included). Though there will be very little agreement about just how little or much about this person called Jesus is part of the real Jesus...

.

Of course, being a 'historicist' does not mean endorsing all that the fathers of the origins (which I call 'fathers counterfeiters' .. ), who founded the Catholic Christianity (or 'catho-christianism'), have written about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a real historical character, but almost completely different from the one 'touted' by the Catholic teaching (ie the so-called 'Jesus of faith'). His human vicissitude was VERY complex, as complex was its real historical character

To make this story even more complex, were the forgers fathers of the origins, which have added to this matter any kind of mystification and historical distortions of the most disconcerting, as also has been done with his mother. The story of Jesus and Virgin Mary, it had to be of interest ONLY to historians and novelists and NOT for counterfeiters theologians, whom, to achieve their cynics objectives, have distorted deeply the historical and human profiles of both characters.

How long all this may seem incredible, however someone did so, and if nobody scholar in the world haven't still took act about it, this is due to the circumstance that the content is related to completely different characters ..

.

 

[Atheos]

I'm what I would call a "weak historicist." My belief at this point (and it is subject to change if new evidence becomes available) is that there was at the heart of this movement a cult leader who gathered a fanatical group of followers. He probably fancied himself to be the messiah and his fervent disciples believed he would liberate Israel from the oppression of Roman occupation and usher in a new, wonderful age.

My belief is that he spoke out against the religious leaders of his day (and possibly even went on a rampage at the temple as described in the gospels). The religious leaders had him whacked in private and had the body disposed of Jimmy Hoffa style. His followers continued to stick together for awhile, believing he would return (which is how the promise of his return began).

Somehow Paul got involved in this group as an outsider at first but managed to convince people that he was in some sort of mystical communication with Jesus. Jesus was speaking to him in visions. He convinced the group to give him money so he could go spread the word, which he did. He'd go to a town and preach about this mystical being who was speaking through him and set up a group. The group would collect money every Sunday to pay the preacher Paul would install in the town, and Paul would show up occasionally for his "cut." See I Cor 16:1-2.

As time went by Paul's efforts at selling this Jesus character were successful enough that people began to want more details about who Jesus was, what he taught, etc. The authentic Pauline epistles mention nothing about Jesus's teachings because they didn't yet exist. When Paul addressed subjects such as divorce, adultery, etc., he spoke authoritatively. He did not ever once appeal to anything Jesus had said about any of these subjects. The gospels, written decades later, place words in Jesus mouth addressing issues like this, but even then they don't always agree with what Paul had said earlier.

Since the Greek and Roman gods were already part of culture the christian movement felt a need to elevate their god above all those other gods. Bacchus was the god of wine and the harvest, but Jesus could make wine out of plain old water. Aesclepius was the god of healing and eternal life, but Jesus could heal even the most dread afflictions, including blindness and paralysis with a mere touch. Poseidon was the god of the waters, but Jesus could walk on storm tossed water as if it were dry ground. Zeus was the god of lightning and storms, but Jesus could calm even the fiercest storm with a mere command. Jesus was all that and a bag of chips.

So over time these stories developed, anecdotes about Jesus were fabricated, the result of pious fraud which continued through the centuries.

That's the problem though. Once you peel away all the fabrications and get down the the skeleton of whatever the historical Jesus was, there's very little left but speculation. There is absolutely no evidence other than fantastic myths about a miracle-working god-man.

 

[none]

.

Hello at all!

I am a 'sui generis' italian scholar that for about 18 years is engaged in the study and research on the origins of Catholic Christianity (and not simply 'Christianity'). Since late 2004, date of my retirement from the work, I spend by the 12-14 hours a day at the computer, engaged in 'hectic' researches! ..

In late 2005, I started writing a book that should summarize the result of my studies and my researches. The work is not yet completed because it is not yet completed the cycle of my researches. I think that within two years the 'draft' should be ready, although I still have a 'sea' of material downloaded from the Internet yet to see.

As for the dichotomy mythical Jesus - historical Jesus, I am clearly for the second 'option': that is, I'm a 'historicist'. From the point of view of religious philosophy, I consider myself a staunch agnostic.

In the previous English-language area (a 'mythicist' group) in which I have written so far, I often I came across with people who are particularly intolerant towards the historicist thesis. The last clash prompted me to desist from continuing to post in that group. I sincerely hope that this does not happen here too ...

Best greeting at all!

Littlejohn S (Giannino in italian)

.

What is the difference between historical Jesus and mythical Jesus?
How do you know there was a historical Jesus if not the reference of mythical Jesus? And vice versa
There must be two accounts for each if the characters are different, what are they?
What are the different accounts?
How do you segregate those accounts?

 

[none]

I'm what I would call a "weak historicist." My belief at this point (and it is subject to change if new evidence becomes available) is that there was at the heart of this movement a cult leader who gathered a fanatical group of followers. He probably fancied himself to be the messiah and his fervent disciples believed he would liberate Israel from the oppression of Roman occupation and usher in a new, wonderful age.
...

What is the basis for this belief?

 

[Atheos]

I'm what I would call a "weak historicist." My belief at this point (and it is subject to change if new evidence becomes available) is that there was at the heart of this movement a cult leader who gathered a fanatical group of followers. He probably fancied himself to be the messiah and his fervent disciples believed he would liberate Israel from the oppression of Roman occupation and usher in a new, wonderful age.
...

What is the basis for this belief?

I was trying to be as brief as possible in stating what I believe without bringing in all the rationale behind it. I have my reasons for this tentative hypothesis but it is a reflection of years of consideration of arguments made on both sides of the equation as well as my lay understanding of available evidence.

But as I indicated earlier, I am far from certain about any of it.

 

[none]

What is the basis for this belief?

I was trying to be as brief as possible in stating what I believe without bringing in all the rationale behind it. I have my reasons for this tentative hypothesis but it is a reflection of years of consideration of arguments made on both sides of the equation as well as my lay understanding of available evidence.

But as I indicated earlier, I am far from certain about any of it.

Those reasons which you don't want to reveal are pertinent

 

[couch_sloth]

What is the basis for this belief?

I was trying to be as brief as possible in stating what I believe without bringing in all the rationale behind it. I have my reasons for this tentative hypothesis but it is a reflection of years of consideration of arguments made on both sides of the equation as well as my lay understanding of available evidence.

But as I indicated earlier, I am far from certain about any of it.

It doesn't matter too much that such mundane theories as to the origin of the Jesus story could be viewed as mere conjecture. Such theories are a great way to counter the argument that Jesus (as described in the Bible) must have existed because: Why would the early Christians believe in a lie?
In other words, even though there is little direct evidence to support this type of hypothesis it's still much more likely to have happened in this way (or in a similarly mundane way) than the existence of a real god/man who performed a lot of spectacular supernatural stunts.

 

[couch_sloth]

I'm what I would call a "weak historicist." My belief at this point (and it is subject to change if new evidence becomes available) is that there was at the heart of this movement a cult leader who gathered a fanatical group of followers. He probably fancied himself to be the messiah and his fervent disciples believed he would liberate Israel from the oppression of Roman occupation and usher in a new, wonderful age.

My belief is that he spoke out against the religious leaders of his day (and possibly even went on a rampage at the temple as described in the gospels). The religious leaders had him whacked in private and had the body disposed of Jimmy Hoffa style. His followers continued to stick together for awhile, believing he would return (which is how the promise of his return began).

Somehow Paul got involved in this group as an outsider at first but managed to convince people that he was in some sort of mystical communication with Jesus. Jesus was speaking to him in visions. He convinced the group to give him money so he could go spread the word, which he did. He'd go to a town and preach about this mystical being who was speaking through him and set up a group. The group would collect money every Sunday to pay the preacher Paul would install in the town, and Paul would show up occasionally for his "cut." See I Cor 16:1-2.

As time went by Paul's efforts at selling this Jesus character were successful enough that people began to want more details about who Jesus was, what he taught, etc. The authentic Pauline epistles mention nothing about Jesus's teachings because they didn't yet exist. When Paul addressed subjects such as divorce, adultery, etc., he spoke authoritatively. He did not ever once appeal to anything Jesus had said about any of these subjects. The gospels, written decades later, place words in Jesus mouth addressing issues like this, but even then they don't always agree with what Paul had said earlier.

Since the Greek and Roman gods were already part of culture the christian movement felt a need to elevate their god above all those other gods. Bacchus was the god of wine and the harvest, but Jesus could make wine out of plain old water. Aesclepius was the god of healing and eternal life, but Jesus could heal even the most dread afflictions, including blindness and paralysis with a mere touch. Poseidon was the god of the waters, but Jesus could walk on storm tossed water as if it were dry ground. Zeus was the god of lightning and storms, but Jesus could calm even the fiercest storm with a mere command. Jesus was all that and a bag of chips.

So over time these stories developed, anecdotes about Jesus were fabricated, the result of pious fraud which continued through the centuries.

That's the problem though. Once you peel away all the fabrications and get down the the skeleton of whatever the historical Jesus was, there's very little left but speculation. There is absolutely no evidence other than fantastic myths about a miracle-working god-man.

In such a scenario, Paul's main motivation may not have been about money, it may have been about ego. e.g. If believers viewed Paul as the conduit to Jesus/God, then some must have looked at him in awe; reacting to Paul like he was almost the messiah himself.
I think that several modern con-artist religious leaders ended-up believing some of their own nonsense, because the testimonies and adoration from followers convinced them they were on to something real. (L. Ron Hubbard comes to mind)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

.

Hello at all!

I am a 'sui generis' italian scholar that for about 18 years is engaged in the study and research on the origins of Catholic Christianity (and not simply 'Christianity'). Since late 2004, date of my retirement from the work, I spend by the 12-14 hours a day at the computer, engaged in 'hectic' researches! ..

In late 2005, I started writing a book that should summarize the result of my studies and my researches. The work is not yet completed because it is not yet completed the cycle of my researches. I think that within two years the 'draft' should be ready, although I still have a 'sea' of material downloaded from the Internet yet to see.

As for the dichotomy mythical Jesus - historical Jesus, I am clearly for the second 'option': that is, I'm a 'historicist'. From the point of view of religious philosophy, I consider myself a staunch agnostic.

In the previous English-language area (a 'mythicist' group) in which I have written so far, I often I came across with people who are particularly intolerant towards the historicist thesis. The last clash prompted me to desist from continuing to post in that group. I sincerely hope that this does not happen here too ...

Best greeting at all!

Littlejohn S (Giannino in italian).

Hello and welcome.

I'm curious about your Jesus. Can you provide a brief bio of him?

 

[Giannino_S]

.

Hello at all!

I am a 'sui generis' italian scholar that for about 18 years is engaged in the study and research on the origins of Catholic Christianity (and not simply 'Christianity'). Since late 2004, date of my retirement from the work, I spend by the 12-14 hours a day at the computer, engaged in 'hectic' researches! ..

In late 2005, I started writing a book that should summarize the result of my studies and my researches. The work is not yet completed because it is not yet completed the cycle of my researches. I think that within two years the 'draft' should be ready, although I still have a 'sea' of material downloaded from the Internet yet to see.

As for the dichotomy mythical Jesus - historical Jesus, I am clearly for the second 'option': that is, I'm a 'historicist'. From the point of view of religious philosophy, I consider myself a staunch agnostic.

In the previous English-language area (a 'mythicist' group) in which I have written so far, I often I came across with people who are particularly intolerant towards the historicist thesis. The last clash prompted me to desist from continuing to post in that group. I sincerely hope that this does not happen here too ...

Best greeting at all!

Littlejohn S (Giannino in italian).

Hello and welcome.

I'm curious about your Jesus. Can you provide a brief bio of him?

.

Thanks by your welcome!

With a little patience, I will explain 'piano piano' (slowly) as you requested, and that, surely, will also interest the others. For the moment I would not put too much 'meat on the fire'! ..

.

 

[Atheos]

I was trying to be as brief as possible in stating what I believe without bringing in all the rationale behind it. I have my reasons for this tentative hypothesis but it is a reflection of years of consideration of arguments made on both sides of the equation as well as my lay understanding of available evidence.

But as I indicated earlier, I am far from certain about any of it.

Those reasons which you don't want to reveal are pertinent

Without turning this into a dissertation, I'll try to briefly summarize. It's not that I don't want to reveal anything. I'd like nothing better than for the world to sit transfixed as I endlessly pontificate about my opinions. That's about as likely as the possibility that the Jesus myths are based on actual instances of a man walking on water and levitating off into the sky never to be seen again.

There was something at the core of the Jesus movement, this much is evident from the fact that it appeared so suddenly. I've heard theories that claim some ancient writers place Jesus in the Maccabean era, but I've never seen any direct support for this. I've even read that Philo of Alexandria wrote of a "Jesus" who was an archangel but haven't seen any direct evidence of this either although that would help sway my thinking that this movement was centered around a specific individual living during the time in question.

If there wasn't a specific person like this who formed the nucleus of this movement I would expect there to have been nuggets of its inception buried in the historical record over several centuries. The sect would have evolved slowly as philosophies and beliefs were borrowed from other cultures. It is possible that christianity has its roots in the Essene sect (with baptism, communal living and asceticism being featured) but it's not a slam dunk. Either way it's still possible that the historical Jesus started off as an Essene.

We know that itinerant preachers were a dime a dozen during the time in question. John the Baptist would be an example. We know that occasionally an individual comes along with such charisma that he (or she) can become the nucleus of a cult very rapidly. In our own time we can consider such people as Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh and (maybe a bit earlier) Joseph Smith and Mohammad. These are common enough that to speculate that something like this formed the early core of this movement is a reasonable place to begin.

The presence of animosity between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders is a constant theme in the canonical gospels. The cleansing of the temple narrative occurs in all four (although John puts it at the first part of the story). It makes sense to me that if this man did actually disrupt commerce by running amok, turning over tables, spilling inventory, etc., he would have hit some powerful people in the place they don't like to get hit: their wallets. It wouldn't be the first time a troublemaker like this got lynched and his body just disappeared.

The lack of a body in GMark is (to me) the smoking gun. In the older variants of that oldest canonical gospel Jesus never shows up after his death. But since his disciples don't know what happened to him they believe he will return. They begin "remembering" him telling them that he was going to go away and that he'd be back in triumph. It's just not a big stretch to go from there to angelic confirmations that he'd be back. As the original members of the cult began to die off or lose interest their stories could be substituted with stories of how they had actually seen Jesus after his disappearance. Eventually the death and resurrection scenario took form.

By this time Paul was involved in the cult. I have a feeling he made up some bogus story about how he had once been a devout Pharisee, persecuting Christians until he was forced to stop by a vision of Jesus himself (subverting his free will, incidentally). His revelations about what Jesus was telling him in visions quickly elevated him to rock star status in that community, and the rest is (revisionist) history.

The absence of any details of the life of Jesus in the authentic Pauline epistles supports not only his lack of knowledge of the individual, but also forms the bridge that gets us from the historical Jesus to the mythical one known today. Paul would have had tremendous incentive to avoid making up stories about things Jesus did or said in his lifetime because if one of Jesus's original disciples showed up and started challenging him on these things he'd easily be outed as a fraud. Paul's Jesus only spoke to Paul in visions and never talked about the past. Even so, Paul didn't quote Jesus in his visions; he commanded in his own words under Jesus's authority. Nobody would be able to accuse that "That doesn't sound like Jesus talking."

Because of this, over a couple of decades Paul's Jesus evolved into a figurehead, a tabula rasa upon which whatever story was desired could be written.

Paul's efforts at selling Jesus franchises resulted in small pockets of Christians scattered over a large area. As time went by there grew a need for more stories to entertain these people other than the god-man who sacrificed his life for them. So anecdotes about Jesus were fabricated. Stronger anecdotes became part of the tradition that eventually formed the framework upon which the authors of GMark wrote their narrative.

But (as now) Christianity was far from a cohesive group and as factions developed there came the need for other "gospels" that did a better job of supporting the particular beliefs of core groups in various areas. A flurry of gospels appeared, some very much like GMark, others quite different. The canonical gospels won the beauty contest. Others were eventually outlawed but many survived because people hid them away.

The presence of such inane miracles as turning water into wine serve no noble purpose, but they do demonstrate power over areas that were considered the domain of other popular god-myths of the day. This makes sense when the objective is to position one's favorite god-myth over top of everyone else's. Otherwise it makes no sense at all. Once one takes that principle into consideration it's not a difficult stretch to look at the various other miracles chronicled in the "life" of this character and more often than not see the correlation to some other pre-existent god's domain.

Again, I've tried to be brief but I can already tell I haven't.

 

[funinspace]

Those reasons which you don't want to reveal are pertinent

Without turning this into a dissertation, I'll try to briefly summarize. It's not that I don't want to reveal anything. I'd like nothing better than for the world to sit transfixed as I endlessly pontificate about my opinions.

<small wall of text >

Again, I've tried to be brief but I can already tell I haven't.

But I shivered with antici... pation

A good summary that I would generally find plausible...

 

[none]

Those reasons which you don't want to reveal are pertinent

Without turning this into a dissertation, I'll try to briefly summarize. It's not that I don't want to reveal anything. I'd like nothing better than for the world to sit transfixed as I endlessly pontificate about my opinions. That's about as likely as the possibility that the Jesus myths are based on actual instances of a man walking on water and levitating off into the sky never to be seen again.

There was something at the core of the Jesus movement, this much is evident from the fact that it appeared so suddenly. I've heard theories that claim some ancient writers place Jesus in the Maccabean era, but I've never seen any direct support for this. I've even read that Philo of Alexandria wrote of a "Jesus" who was an archangel but haven't seen any direct evidence of this either although that would help sway my thinking that this movement was centered around a specific individual living during the time in question.

If there wasn't a specific person like this who formed the nucleus of this movement I would expect there to have been nuggets of its inception buried in the historical record over several centuries. The sect would have evolved slowly as philosophies and beliefs were borrowed from other cultures. It is possible that christianity has its roots in the Essene sect (with baptism, communal living and asceticism being featured) but it's not a slam dunk. Either way it's still possible that the historical Jesus started off as an Essene.

We know that itinerant preachers were a dime a dozen during the time in question. John the Baptist would be an example. We know that occasionally an individual comes along with such charisma that he (or she) can become the nucleus of a cult very rapidly. In our own time we can consider such people as Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh and (maybe a bit earlier) Joseph Smith and Mohammad. These are common enough that to speculate that something like this formed the early core of this movement is a reasonable place to begin.

The presence of animosity between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders is a constant theme in the canonical gospels. The cleansing of the temple narrative occurs in all four (although John puts it at the first part of the story). It makes sense to me that if this man did actually disrupt commerce by running amok, turning over tables, spilling inventory, etc., he would have hit some powerful people in the place they don't like to get hit: their wallets. It wouldn't be the first time a troublemaker like this got lynched and his body just disappeared.

The lack of a body in GMark is (to me) the smoking gun. In the older variants of that oldest canonical gospel Jesus never shows up after his death. But since his disciples don't know what happened to him they believe he will return. They begin "remembering" him telling them that he was going to go away and that he'd be back in triumph. It's just not a big stretch to go from there to angelic confirmations that he'd be back. As the original members of the cult began to die off or lose interest their stories could be substituted with stories of how they had actually seen Jesus after his disappearance. Eventually the death and resurrection scenario took form.

By this time Paul was involved in the cult. I have a feeling he made up some bogus story about how he had once been a devout Pharisee, persecuting Christians until he was forced to stop by a vision of Jesus himself (subverting his free will, incidentally). His revelations about what Jesus was telling him in visions quickly elevated him to rock star status in that community, and the rest is (revisionist) history.

The absence of any details of the life of Jesus in the authentic Pauline epistles supports not only his lack of knowledge of the individual, but also forms the bridge that gets us from the historical Jesus to the mythical one known today. Paul would have had tremendous incentive to avoid making up stories about things Jesus did or said in his lifetime because if one of Jesus's original disciples showed up and started challenging him on these things he'd easily be outed as a fraud. Paul's Jesus only spoke to Paul in visions and never talked about the past. Even so, Paul didn't quote Jesus in his visions; he commanded in his own words under Jesus's authority. Nobody would be able to accuse that "That doesn't sound like Jesus talking."

Because of this, over a couple of decades Paul's Jesus evolved into a figurehead, a tabula rasa upon which whatever story was desired could be written.

Paul's efforts at selling Jesus franchises resulted in small pockets of Christians scattered over a large area. As time went by there grew a need for more stories to entertain these people other than the god-man who sacrificed his life for them. So anecdotes about Jesus were fabricated. Stronger anecdotes became part of the tradition that eventually formed the framework upon which the authors of GMark wrote their narrative.

But (as now) Christianity was far from a cohesive group and as factions developed there came the need for other "gospels" that did a better job of supporting the particular beliefs of core groups in various areas. A flurry of gospels appeared, some very much like GMark, others quite different. The canonical gospels won the beauty contest. Others were eventually outlawed but many survived because people hid them away.

The presence of such inane miracles as turning water into wine serve no noble purpose, but they do demonstrate power over areas that were considered the domain of other popular god-myths of the day. This makes sense when the objective is to position one's favorite god-myth over top of everyone else's. Otherwise it makes no sense at all. Once one takes that principle into consideration it's not a difficult stretch to look at the various other miracles chronicled in the "life" of this character and more often than not see the correlation to some other pre-existent god's domain.

Again, I've tried to be brief but I can already tell I haven't.

Well thanks for espousing that, I know is not a silver bullet.
You postulate a movement prior to and influenced the material attributed to Paul, totally plausible.
Not sure I agree with that, is just as plausible there was no Jesus christ running around except on the pages attributed to Paul/Saul and the other gospel writers.
I'm content the latter given Joseph Smith and others.
If there weren't examples of people just making stuff up and others believing it sacred I wouldn't balk so much.

 

[Giannino_S]

.

"..I'm what I would call a "weak historicist." My belief at this point (and it is subject to change if new evidence becomes available) is that there was at the heart of this movement a cult leader who gathered a fanatical group of followers. He probably fancied himself to be the messiah and his fervent disciples believed he would liberate Israel from the oppression of Roman occupation and usher in a new, wonderful age..."

.
Aren't few scholars who, more or less, are incline to this hypothesis. However, things went so substantially different from these assumptions. In fact, the Catho-Christianity (or Catholic-Christianity) NOT arose on the initiative of the followers of Jesus, whom, for major historical accuracy, they should be called 'jesuans' (by Jesus) and NOT Christians, since Jesus had NOTHING to do with the 'catho-christianity', born in the first half of the second century, at the initiative of the imperial-senatorial power of the-time! .. (*)

This power, around 138-140 (during which Marcion arrived at Rome) (**) entrusted to a 'team' - called at that time Lucos (hence LUCAS, ie Luke) because formed by experts pagan theologians supported by leaked (traitors) of gnostic-jesuan world with the task of laying the foundations of the worship which will initially called 'Roman Catholic Apostolic Church'. As you can see, the 'Christian' attribute did not figure anywhere, which means that this denomination will be after the initial phase. In practice, that is, this cult originated as a 'Catholic worship' (from the greek 'katholikos', that is 'universal'), while the 'Christian' attribution will be afterwards.

In addition to the traitors of the 'gnostic-jesuan' world (Polycarpo of Smyrna?), were part of the 'team' also survivors of the 'Judeo-Christian' church of Antioch (s. Acts of the Apostles), founded between 85-90 and in any case BEFORE that at Jamnia /Jabneh there was the famous rabbinical synod (early 90s). Such a worship, (ie the one 'judeo-christian') was strictly pro-Jewish and had nothing to do with the cult 'Catho-Christian', founded in Rome between 140-150, blatantly anti-Jewish and clearly by the heathen 'flavor'. This cult ceased to exist after the final Jewish defeat in the war of Bar Kochba (132-135), when the inhabitants of Judea and many more of the rest of Palestine, they went to meet to a dramatic diaspora, whom lasted until the last century.

____________________________________________

(*) - on this, at least, Joseph Atwill has quite right, while for the rest went almost completely 'astray'! ...

(**) - Probably because he was invited to come to Rome by the Emperor Antoninus Pius, who perhaps he had known Marcion in Asia Minor, when Antoninus had the role as Consul in that area subject to Roman rule.

.