Against the Argument for 'Influences' in Early Christianity

[Secret Alias]

By speaking about 'influences' the assumption is that the core understanding remained constant (i.e. the search for a messiah, the promise of Abraham as simply reducible to 'God's favor' etc). The truth is that both Judaism and Christianity were re-formed by the late second century. Only Samaritanism resisted and survived in close to the pre-second century form. Acts is conscious of rabbinic Judaism (Saul, Gamaliel). The gospel refers to Jesus as rabboni. These are all second century developments. First century Christianity is preserved only among the heresies. The closest thing is Clement's use of Philo.

[davidmartin]

But as I asked David - is the rejection of the temple something new or something arch-conservative? The Pentateuch does not proscribe a permanent building. Then we learn the Dositheans objected to just this on conservative principles AND a connection is made between the Dositheans and the early Christian sects. The tenth commandment interpretation is arch-conservative. Whenever you see the Samaritans and Philo agree it goes back through the Oniads to the foundations of Judaism.

SA i'm not sure analysing temple rejection is very useful
Because so many varied groups might or did do so for various reasons, and there's more than one way to 'oppose the temple'
Sorry if this sounds vague
I still maintain Matthew is influenced by a particular Christan sect and is limited to exploring the views of that one sect
My guess is that originally Christianity was founded more on Genesis, the reclamation of the lost paradisical state

[Secret Alias]

No. We know about the Dositheans. We know they influenced normative Samaritanism to the point modern Samaritans deny they ever had a temple! The Pentateuch had God proscribe only a flimsy tabernacle. This was taken to be the limits of acceptability. Stephen has been identified as a Samaritan or Dosithean. John the Baptist. Tertullian and Hippolytus begin/began with the Dositheans. The original position was temple = blasphemy.

[davidmartin]

i did not know that stuff about the Samaritans SA i thought they always turned away from the temple to their own one/mountain
But what of the Qumranites/Essenes - did they reject it? i was under the impression they did to an extent but never really found out how much
Then you have to add those opposed not so much to the temple but to the political class running it... things get complicated
And then maybe some were opposed to sacrificing not so much the temple itself i've wondered if Christianity falls into this bracket whats the extra canonical saying "if you don't stop sacrificing something bad will happen", weren't the Clementines anti-sacrifice?
maybe i'm being too random here just hoping something might stick

[mlinssen]

It's impossible to argue that anything templish is even a minor theme in Mark, nor Matthew or Luke for that matter

About the topic though: I've been an IT consultant for 25 years, and basically a one-trick pony.
I write a lot of documentation, from architecture to user manuals, operator manuals, templates, guidelines, anything

I write - an awful lot really

Now, what do I write, what is in it? Well, that answer is very, very easy. And it applies extremely to what the gospel writers did: I write what I think is needed, and I aim at short term future, say next 3-6 months and then 3-5 years, with an horizon in mind of 10 years from now

I decide what I write, basically, as I'm the expert: I determine what needs to be said, and that depends completely on what I think that needs to be heard.
If there's someone who wants to chime in and has either something useful to say or is in charge, I carefully knead it into my message.
If there are some "bad habits" that need to be cured (and there always are some, there's never a greenfield anymore these days) then I address those as well: next to a future to work towards, there's always a past to work from

The difference between me and the Gospel writers is that I'm an expert with decades of experience: they were newbies, ephemera, with some exceptions like Paul

But in essence, I think they did the same. And they didn't have a greenfield either

[Secret Alias]

i did not know that stuff about the Samaritans

The beauty of the Samaritans as my friend Benny would say is that everything comes from the Torah. With the Jews its garbage on top of garbage. Just read the Torah. God tells Moses to make a flimsy tent. How do you go from that to a permanent temple? It's like going from acoustic instruments to whatever the fuck my son listens to. You don't hear rap church music.