Theories about Jesus?

[smax]

I do consider there to be a small possibility that a real historical figure named Jesus actually existed. However, such a person would have only been loosely based on the person that has now been built up and glorified. However, I find it much more likely that he never actually existed.

In fact, there is compelling evidence that even the earliest Christians did not believe in an actual living person called Jesus, but rather they believed in a spirit force of some sort. However, when Rome took over Christianity, all of that changed. Rome had no interest is something they couldn't put a face on, so they declared the earliest Christian views to be a heresy and then took measures to destroy everything about them.

[Bad Writer]

Council at Nicea, anyone?

[FallentoReason]

I do consider there to be a small possibility that a real historical figure named Jesus actually existed. However, such a person would have only been loosely based on the person that has now been built up and glorified. However, I find it much more likely that he never actually existed.

In fact, there is compelling evidence that even the earliest Christians did not believe in an actual living person called Jesus, but rather they believed in a spirit force of some sort. However, when Rome took over Christianity, all of that changed. Rome had no interest is something they couldn't put a face on, so they declared the earliest Christian views to be a heresy and then took measures to destroy everything about them.

Are you talking about Constantine and what followed from his time? I'd have to disagree, as the earliest fragments of NT are dated to be from the 2nd century, but Christianity was embraced by Rome in the *4th* century. Therefore evidence of some vague guy by the name of Jesus would be an original idea by the early Christians.

[smax]

Are you talking about Constantine and what followed from his time? I'd have to disagree, as the earliest fragments of NT are dated to be from the 2nd century, but Christianity was embraced by Rome in the *4th* century. Therefore evidence of some vague guy by the name of Jesus would be an original idea by the early Christians.

By the time Rome took over Christianity, there were literally dozens upon dozens of interpretations of the religion, so I'm certainly NOT suggesting that Rome invented anything about it.

The truth is, prior to Rome's involvement, Christianity was widely viewed as a religion open to interpretation, and there were hundreds of documents supporting all different types of views.

That said, the views that I am drawing attention to right now are most likely at the very core of the religion, even pre-dating the alleged events of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ by several centuries. Those are the views of the Gnostics.

Now, of course much of the Gnostic influence on Christianity has been utterly destroyed, but what we know of the Gnostic views explains a lot about the progression of Christianity.

For example: why does Jesus have no face to speak of during the early centuries?

[Bad Writer]

The Gnostics didnt even think that god himself had a face.

[Minimalist]

Actually no the first letters written by Saint Paul were written around 50 AD and there was already a Jewish/Christian community established there. Non-Christian sources don't try to deny that Jesus ever existed either they just claim that he was a charlatan and black magic user. You can say he existed but deny him as a fool if you like you have that option certainly.

Once again, parroting the story that the church puts out wins you no points in my book. "Paul" seems to be no more real than any of your other jesus shit. Justin Martyr, writing in the mid 2d century, never heard of him. Nor did he hear of mark, luke, john, and matty.

I know you oh-so-desperately want to believe in bullshit but there are enough holes in the paul tale to drive a truck through.

Don't be like Drippy. He's a hopeless fool.

[Angrboda]

@Dirich the vatican library is not open to anyone. Only the Archivists have true access everyone else has to know the name of the book and the specific page they want to view. This is then run past the Head Archivist who approves or disapproves of the viewing. It is then presented opened for the person to study under the watchful eye of Vatican Security Staff.

No one has public access to the Secret Archives only the parts that the vatican wants people knowing are available which nullifies the idea of them being secret!

Holy crap!

And you guys consider yourselves to be independant 'thinkers.' Ever heard of google sport? Maybe try checking your facts before you post.

http://www.vatican.va/library_archives/

just follow the links

That's good advice, as if you had followed the links yourself you'd have found that one leads to a broken link and the other leads back to the Vatican home page.

No "secret documents" to be found.


It's pathetic bungling like this why few here consider you to be a credible biblical scholar and most consider you a moronic dumbfuck.

[smax]

The Gnostics didnt even think that god himself had a face.

Precisely.

[Mister Agenda]

Obviously I'm a Christian... but as an observer?

How could Jesus have so much pump after 2000 years, unless He indeed rose from the dead. I don't believe anyone has pulled that stunt yet!

I like the turn of phrase. And I put the odds of there having been an 'historical Jesus' as commonly defined as at least 50%. But it's like asking how Siddhartha Guatama could have so much pump after 2,500 years unless he indeed reincarnated numerous times to continue fostering Buddhism?

Not-to-mention the many followers that saw Jesus afterwards, and were willing to die horrible deaths themselves fearlessly witnessing for Him.

Were said to have seen Jesus afterwards. The Heaven's Gate people were willing to die pretty horrible deaths, that doesn't mean their beliefs were true.

As far as the historic mentions of Jesus. There are some... but Christianity was persecuted. And why wouldn't they try to wipe out any mention of Him.

Maybe they did. You make more sense than the bunch who keep claiming there's less evidence for Julius Caesar than for Jesus.

The followers went underground for 300 years! Who would be openly writing about Jesus?

This is the first I've heard of a prolonged period of being underground, but I'm not a scholar of ancient Judea. Anyone who wanted to preserve the story of Jesus and could write could choose to take the risk of writing it down and hiding the manuscript. You can't invoke people willing to die horrible deaths on the one hand and claim they were too scared to write anything down on the other.

Unless of course he wanted to be fed to Lions or crucified!

Or thought he could hide a bundle of papers from the Romans.

[ronedee]

I do consider there to be a small possibility that a real historical figure named Jesus actually existed. However, such a person would have only been loosely based on the person that has now been built up and glorified. However, I find it much more likely that he never actually existed.

In fact, there is compelling evidence that even the earliest Christians did not believe in an actual living person called Jesus, but rather they believed in a spirit force of some sort. However, when Rome took over Christianity, all of that changed. Rome had no interest is something they couldn't put a face on, so they declared the earliest Christian views to be a heresy and then took measures to destroy everything about them.

There are at least 3 different credible sources, and compelling evidence outside the NT that proves Jesus existed! (see link)

Why is it that atheists always want proof, but won't look for any?

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/...ources.htm