Paul,

You amaze me; I thought that the Greens gave great credence to the accuracy of oral traditions.
Certainly, I, and others, have that impression from their staunch support for the accuracy of Aboriginal oral traditions over thousands of years.

"Oral histories help connect Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with their ancestors, and with the past.

Today, these oral traditions are helping to shed light on how the Australian continent changed throughout major geological events.

Dr Karl explains how science and indigenous knowledge are coming together to better understand Australia's history."
from the ABC.

"Western discourse has come to prioritize the written word as the dominant form of record keeping and until recently, Westerners have generally considered oral societies to be peoples without history. This could not be further from the truth. Oral societies record and document their histories in complex and sophisticated ways, including performative practices such as dancing and drumming. Although most oral societies, Aboriginal or otherwise, have now adopted the written word as a tool for documentation, expression and communication, many still depend on oral traditions and greatly value the oral transmission of knowledge as an intrinsic aspect of their cultures and societies."

http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/oral_traditions/

So, could not Christian oral traditions, spanning a few hundred years be just as accurate or are we to believe that Australian Aboriginal history is unreliable?

Christians have written records closer to the event of the first century than any other events of that time.
Paul,
here is one account, though it must be questioned.

Historic Letter written by Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar
www.theancientbridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/his_letter.pdf

Issy, you thought wrong, as far as I am aware The Greens do not necessarily give great credence to the accuracy of oral traditions, but then you would know. Possibly you are confused with The Gunnies whose oral tradition proclaims Ned Kelly as the Messiah. Do you want us to believe the world is carried around on the back of a giant elephant? Nope I can't believe that.

Jose', your long winded "letter" reportedly from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius seems to be in the style of modern English and may not be authentic.

My original hypothesis was that Paul, and not Jesus was the true founder of Christianity. I assert that the early church was made up of two distinct sects, the Jerusalem Church led by James, brother of Jesus, a traditionalist group which embraced the teachings of Jesus whilst remaining within the confines of orthodox Judaism. The other group was the Roman Church led by Paul the Apostle. The evidence for this claim is the fact half, if not more, of the New Testament can be attributed directly or indirectly to Paul. It is accepted that Paul seen himself as the greater apostle, believing the chosen 12 only knew Christ in the physical sense, when as he through a series of revelations had come to know Christ in the spiritual sense, and Christ spoke through him.

cont

cont

There were many points of contention between the James traditionalist, and the Paul radicals, not the least Paul's inclusion of gentiles and their practices and beliefs within the church. On his visits to Jerusalem there was open hostility between James and Paul over this inclusion of gentiles, although Paul tried to appease James through financial offerings to the Jerusalem Church, which were not successful. The hostility reached such a level that Paul declared himself a Roman citizen. In the context of today that would be like an Irish Catholic declaring himself a protestant.

In no way was James able to expand Christianity through the orthodox Jewish religion, and events of 70AD and after spelt the end of the Jerusalem Church. Where as the Roman Church, despite some setbacks, was able to grow in prominence and stature throughout the Roman Empire, eventually becoming the pre-eminent religion of the Roman world, out surviving the empire itself.

Paul,
I do not believe the conflict between the Roman Church and the Jerusalem Church was to the extent as you claim. That seems to be a Islamic view as they rejected the teachings of Paul. Paul supported the Jerusalem Church as he encourages the Gentiles Christians to support the Jerusalem Church. In Paul's view there was no difference between Jew and Gentile, though he was raised an orthodox Pharisee who originally was responsible for putting to death heretics of the Jewish faith. Peter who was a Jewish patriot [zealot] expected Jesus to reestablish Israel, but in a vision realized Gentiles were not the unwashed as he had been taught. The gospels also talk of Christ eating with unwashed hands.
Read the Acts.

Paul,

Do you mean to tell me that the Greens and others do not believe Aboriginal claims about the accuracy of their traditional oral history?

Gees!! Wonders will never cease.