The Shroud of Turin - Did Jesus Resurrect?

originally posted by: Ericthedoubter
a reply to: ghostrager

Jesus never existed but the church needs evidence showing he did.Why wouldn't they spend vast amounts of money to obtain a superb fake?It's all win for them.

Pretty much every historian, religion, even scientist agree that Jesus existed. The question isn't whether he lived, the question is whether he was in fact the son of God.

originally posted by: bronco73
Pretty much every historian, religion, even scientist agree that Jesus existed. The question isn't whether he lived, the question is whether he was in fact the son of God.

This historian used to think so too, but his ideas changed on further investigation:

Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind


However the rest of your point is valid with regard to the shroud. For people who believe Jesus was the son of God, the shroud should have nothing to do with supporting that belief. So even if Jesus did exist and even if he was wrapped in that shroud, it still doesn't prove whether he was the son of God.

Shroud of Turin

Even if it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the shroud originated in Jerusalem and was used to wrap up the body of Jesus, so what? Would that prove Jesus rose from the dead? I don't think so. To believe anyone rose from the dead can't be based on physical evidence, because resurrection is a physical impossibility. Only religious faith can sustain such a belief. To believe that someone floated up to the sky and disappeared (i.e., rose into heaven) is also not going to be proved one way or the other by these shroud arguments. Finally, no amount of physical evidence could ever demonstrate that a man was a god, was also his own Father and conceived without his mother ever having had sex. Thus, no matter how many brilliant scientists marshal forth their brilliant papers with evidence for images of Biblical ropes, sponges, thorns, spears, flowers, tumbleweeds, blood, etc., none of it has the slightest relevance for proving these matters of faith.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

"I am ma wizard who can cast magic spells"

"I call shenanigans unless reputably, independently verifiable evidence is presented"

"Then you just keep right on believing it is a 16th cen. fake with no evidence."

"See how that works? "

Yeah. It's dumb logic.

"The Shroud of Turin", most likley, has nothing to do with Jesus. That said? Yes, Jesus resurrected. .. Keep searching, for excuses though. ..

a reply to: GetHyped

You know exactly what I meant by "real".

What if I did? And my logic for what it''s worth, trumps your denial

Ok no jumping down my throat, as I am not too religious, but this video regarding the shroud is very interesting. It aired on the History Channel in 2010, I believe. They used computers and technology to pull the 3D image out of the shroud. Its quite amazing.
Not sure if the vid is working, as im on my mobile, so heres a link as well... youtu.be...

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: Ericthedoubter
a reply to: ghostrager

Jesus never existed but the church needs evidence showing he did.Why wouldn't they spend vast amounts of money to obtain a superb fake?It's all win for them.

Pretty much every historian, religion, even scientist agree that Jesus existed. The question isn't whether he lived, the question is whether he was in fact the son of God.

Not really, there is a sizeable movement called the Mythicist position that considers Jesus to be a collection of older myths re-vamped around 150AD.

www.truthbeknown.com...
www.truthbeknown.com...
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

a reply to: joelr

To the rest of us they are Called Revisionist Historians a little like Holocaust deniers and those that deny the south had slaves?.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: Ericthedoubter
a reply to: ghostrager

Jesus never existed but the church needs evidence showing he did.Why wouldn't they spend vast amounts of money to obtain a superb fake?It's all win for them.

Pretty much every historian, religion, even scientist agree that Jesus existed. The question isn't whether he lived, the question is whether he was in fact the son of God.

Not really, there is a sizeable movement called the Mythicist position that considers Jesus to be a collection of older myths re-vamped around 150AD.

www.truthbeknown.com...
www.truthbeknown.com...
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

Yes, really. The Mythicist movement is pretty much insignificant in numbers, and comprised mostly of those that were already at the very least agnostic and most atheist. True historians and scientists that study the matter without a prejudice of any kind for the most part agree that the MAN named Jesus who was spoken about in the bible did in fact exist.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: joelr

To the rest of us they are Called Revisionist Historians a little like Holocaust deniers and those that deny the south had slaves?.

No, to Christians maybe they are called that. All of D.M. Murdock's work is sourced. She's been in trenches in Egypt working on her research. But you don't need to rely on the Mythicist writings, one of the leading biblical archeologists explains on the Nova website that the Bible is simply not a historical book.

Speaking of revisionist, it turns out the biggest revisionists were the "orthodox Catholics" back in the 2nd century.
Anyone who wants to learn the truth can read Elaine Pagels books on the Lost Gospels. Back then there were more Christians who believed that the resurrection was a metaphorical tale told to express the idea of spiritual awakening.
The bishops who were power hungry banded together and forced a literal reading on the masses so they would have absolute power over them.

The churches and many Christians ignore or try to bury much of the information learned from the lost gospels.
It's so clear that history was written to give power to bishops.

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: Ericthedoubter
a reply to: ghostrager

Jesus never existed but the church needs evidence showing he did.Why wouldn't they spend vast amounts of money to obtain a superb fake?It's all win for them.

Pretty much every historian, religion, even scientist agree that Jesus existed. The question isn't whether he lived, the question is whether he was in fact the son of God.

Not really, there is a sizeable movement called the Mythicist position that considers Jesus to be a collection of older myths re-vamped around 150AD.

www.truthbeknown.com...
www.truthbeknown.com...
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

Yes, really. The Mythicist movement is pretty much insignificant in numbers, and comprised mostly of those that were already at the very least agnostic and most atheist. True historians and scientists that study the matter without a prejudice of any kind for the most part agree that the MAN named Jesus who was spoken about in the bible did in fact exist.

Right, many agnostic to non-theist believe Jesus was around in those days and was simply a man and a teacher.
But then when they encounter the works of D.M. Murdock and other Mythicist works they realize the beliefs they had were simply assumptions. The historical facts do not support Jesus being an actual person.

The Christians themselves voted most of the sayings in the Bible attributed to Jesus were not actually said by him.
See "The Jesus Seminar"

a reply to: joelr

You can take a horse to water but you can not make it drink.

This Guy was no liar, he went to his death bed testifying it was the truth, other's have since varified it while for the skeptic's it will always just be coral and they can never be persuaded no matter what you put in front of them.


Now Saudi Arabia is going to build a bridge to Egypt and guess were it will be, guess what evidence it shall destroy?.

Also as for trusting an archeaologist whom only know's the surface of the vast well of history that she had scratched and only in the way that SHE interprets it is putting someone on a pedestal, I have no doubt she may be accomplished but what great discovery's has she made, Egypt has many just waiting, sadly a lot of them the Antiquities department of Egypt would like to just go away and be forgotten but have a look at these.

Not biblical (unless some might be the grain stores but they were probably demolished once they served there purpose), the Egyptian's themselves sometime's set out to eclipse greater pharohs and dynasty's from before there own time and sometime's they stooped to dirty trick's, stealing the monument's of they whom came before them, reusing the building materials and even simply rewriting history to suit them, also climate change has altered egypt radically over the time that the civilizations of the nile valley have existed.
www.dailymail.co.uk... rger-Giza.html

You know they have walked past these thing's and simply dismissed them as rock's and hill's and that is the so called all knowing archaeological community.

What we know of Egypt alone (let alone the rest of the world) is just a tiny, tiny, tiny drop in a vast and almost endless ocean of lost history, is it really surprising that she found nothing which SHE would interpret as being of the bible, especially when her part in that drop of knowledge (and interpretation often liberal interpretation based on guess work and supposition) is even smaller.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: joelr

You can take a horse to water but you can not make it drink.

This Guy was no liar, he went to his death bed testifying it was the truth, other's have since varified it while for the skeptic's it will always just be coral and they can never be persuaded no matter what you put in front of them.

Now Saudi Arabia is going to build a bridge to Egypt and guess were it will be, guess what evidence it shall destroy?.

Also as for trusting an archeaologist whom only know's the surface of the vast well of history that she had scratched and only in the way that SHE interprets it is putting someone on a pedestal, I have no doubt she may be accomplished but what great discovery's has she made, Egypt has many just waiting, sadly a lot of them the Antiquities department of Egypt would like to just go away and be forgotten but have a look at these.

Not biblical (unless some might be the grain stores but they were probably demolished once they served there purpose), the Egyptian's themselves sometime's set out to eclipse greater pharohs and dynasty's from before there own time and sometime's they stooped to dirty trick's, stealing the monument's of they whom came before them, reusing the building materials and even simply rewriting history to suit them, also climate change has altered egypt radically over the time that the civilizations of the nile valley have existed.
www.dailymail.co.uk... rger-Giza.html

You know they have walked past these thing's and simply dismissed them as rock's and hill's and that is the so called all knowing archaeological community.

What we know of Egypt alone (let alone the rest of the world) is just a tiny, tiny, tiny drop in a vast and almost endless ocean of lost history, is it really surprising that she found nothing which SHE would interpret as being of the bible, especially when her part in that drop of knowledge (and interpretation often liberal interpretation based on guess work and supposition) is even smaller.

It's not about guesswork and interpretations. There are many facts about the origins of Christianity that many people are unaware of that show it's simply mythology like any other human created mythology. Her work and others has not been debunked, people have tried, there are debates with her right on her own website/forum. She always uses facts to win debates.
www.truthbeknown.com...
www.truthbeknown.com...
lwww.truthbeknown.com...


But forget the Mythicist position, go to one of the leading biblical archeologists
www.pbs.org...

"William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject. In the following interview, Dever describes some of the most significant archeological finds related to the Hebrew Bible, including his own hot-button discovery that the Israelites' God was linked to a female goddess called Asherah."




Proving the Bible

NOVA: Have biblical archeologists traditionally tried to find evidence that events in the Bible really happened?

William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

But perhaps we were asking the wrong questions. I have always thought that if we resurrected someone from the past, one of the biblical writers, they would be amused, because for them it would have made no difference. I think they would have said, faith is faith is faith—take your proofs and go with them.

The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try.
Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.

We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.



Your response is Ron Wyatt?? Really? That's your argument??
For sure you can lead a horse to a con-man and can't force him to drink.

scienceblogs.com...

Knowledge is power. Drink some sometime.

a reply to: joelr

Ha, you would really be surprised to know what I do know son, I suggest you drink it yourself, as the good book say's great wisdom is great sorrow, even more so when it is wrong or the interpretation is in error.

Let me ask you, have you heard of Har Karkoum, a small platau like flat topped mountain, it was a site of ceremonial importance to ancient people in the sinai which has a great many petroglyph's of all kind's but also from a possibly later date it has some that could be Isrealite in origin, some interpret the one's in question as engraving's of the ten commandment's tablets as they bare a striking resemblance, other's as sandal feet markers indicating a claim on territory.

The oldest mention in FRANTERNITY 'Accepted' archeaology of the god Yahweh is of him being the god of the northern desert nomad's found in ancient egypt, of course later find's such as the site's of the Ashera alters and even a small house that was a kind of idol for the God's to live in with one side bearing the inscription of the goddess Ashera and the other Yahwey but the bible itself talk's of this and how it was regarded as heretical, a breach of the first commandment and how the Ashera was a god of the other tribe's which had become popular among the tribe's and how the Lord was wroth about it.

Even king's of Juda took to worshiping it and the old testament talk's of his angered the lord though the king's of Isreal fell first to the worship of these idol's and both dynasty's were guilty of building there asher poles and alters on the high place's which meant they had stopped venerating the Tabernacle and the Ark of the covenant at those time's and become Pantheist breaking the first commandment.

Now just take your blinkers off for a moment and look at it the other way, find's that match the bible story's or support them are not given nearly as much coverage as those that can be used to argue against it's validity, many more professional's also then set out to discredit, brush them under the rug or reinterpret any evidence that may support the bible, why?, is there a motive at work there.

www.biblearchaeology.org...

The Secularist movement are misguided and idiotic, many very highly skilled and intelligent as well as eminently qualified archaeologists have had there carreer choice's curtailed or even ruined by positing there belief in the bible, they tend to be then catagorised as the fringe by the secularists whom have hijacked this profession for there own purposes.

A good example is how Christian archeaological sites are viewed, in part as secular indoctrination has become widespread in the education system kid's whom have been brainwashed out of there family's traditional religious belief actually tend to think they are more intelligent than there parent's when in fact they are simply not and to believe against rather than for (believe), education is about teaching and shaping mind's so to shape them in a secular way is a form of brainwashing especially when it is used to remove a cultural and religious identity from them.

It is also and can be argued perfectly reasonable to be turning them into perfect drones for the corporate economy by removing any religious belief that may prevent certain type's of exploitation of them as a workforce and human resource.

So without getting too deeply into it, making anti religious sentiment hip and making the religious look like hill billy hick's is a tactic of disinformation used by the secular corporate economy, it therefore is actually the secularist's whom are the real mindless do as they are told puppet's dancing on a string, think about that.

In recent years we have seen increasing attempt's to link the Christian faith to the Cult of Mythras, in fact there are many ancient text's which refute this, mostly in the keeping of the vatican, sadly those in the keeping of the Byzantine church were almost all lost when Constantinople fell to the turkish invaders so they will never now see the light of day but that may not be the case for the Vatican archives.

Certainly the early church fathers battled in debate against the cult's of Rome even after christianity was adopted as the state religion under Constantine and the cult of Mythras was certainly well known to them, today revisionists are trying to use the Cult of the Essene's as the site of the Jewish Messianic sect and attempting to destroy the validity of the true jewish church.

This is the church founded by the OTHER Apostles, not Peter and Paul, it is the one that traces it's origin back to the Jew's of Roman occupied Judea and guess what it is not the Essene Sect?.
www.syrianorthodoxchurch.net...
en.wikipedia.org...

Of course some fact's are just not convenient to armchair revisionist's.

Think about that, they were not Essenes so the Son's of light and Darkness has nothing to do with Christianity in so far as the Essenes have nothing to do with Jesus and the many thread's on this site trying to interpret them as being christian's against Paul are actually a load of baloney and misrepresentation of the fact's, the essenes were merely one of many ascetic jewish sects that probably arose under both Greek and Roman occupation but the Syriac Orthodoxy whose history is the oldest independent church (they were not a part of the conclave of Nicea and not under Constantine or his state clergy's control so what they believed was untainted by state propaganda or mythracism and guess what they were christian's recognizable as such in every way).

But hey revisionism is popular right, hip and in fashion so yeah, let's go reinterpret and wipe out the truth with a new and fashionable truth rewritten two thousand or more years after the fact's and based on pieces of a broken jigsaw that don't even fit together properly because we know better than the people whom lived through it right?.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: joelr

There is no need for odd excuses for archeologists who don't end up finding thing to show the Bible is accurate.
It simply isn't history. It's a mythology put together from older mythologies.

In recent years we have seen increasing attempt's to link the Christian faith to the Cult of Mythras, in fact there are many ancient text's which refute this, mostly in the keeping of the vatican, sadly those in the keeping of the Byzantine church were almost all lost when Constantinople fell to the turkish invaders so they will never now see the light of day but that may not be the case for the Vatican archives.

People were comparing Mithrism to Christianity as soon as Christianity was formed! Because the Christ myth had stolen everything from the much older Mithras mythology, the Church had to deal with this problem. People knew Christ = Mihhras.

Some of the parallels are:

Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.
The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or "disciples."
He performed miracles.
As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
He ascended to heaven.
Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.
Mithra is omniscient, as he "hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
Mithra "sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers."
Mithraism emphasized baptism.

The church fathers knew Christianity was using Mithrian mythology and had to deal with the problem:

Early Church Fathers on Mithraism

Mithraism was so popular in the Roman Empire and so similar in important aspects to Christianity that several Church fathers were compelled to address it, disparagingly of course. These fathers included Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Julius Firmicus Maternus and Augustine, all of whom attributed these striking correspondences to the prescient devil. In other words, anticipating Christ, the devil set about to fool the Pagans by imitating the coming messiah. In reality, the testimony of these Church fathers confirms that these various motifs, characteristics, traditions and myths predated Christianity.

Concerning this "devil did it" argument, in The Worship of Nature Sir James G. Frazer remarks:

If the Mithraic mysteries were indeed a Satanic copy of a divine original, we are driven to conclude that Christianity took a leaf out of the devil's book when it fixed the birth of the Saviour on the twenty-fifth of December; for there can be no doubt that the day in question was celebrated as the birthday of the Sun by the heathen before the Church, by an afterthought, arbitrarily transferred the Nativity of its Founder from the sixth of January to the twenty-fifth of December.

Regarding the various similarities between Mithra and Christ, as well as the defenses of the Church fathers, the author of The Existence of Christ Disproved remarks:

Augustine, Firmicus, Justin, Tertullian, and others, having perceived the exact resemblance between the religion of Christ and the religion of Mithra, did, with an impertinence only to be equalled by its outrageous absurdity, insist that the devil, jealous and malignant, induced the Persians to establish a religion the exact image of Christianity that was to be—for these worthy saints and sinners of the church could not deny that the worship of Mithra preceded that of Christ—so that, to get out of the ditch, they summoned the devil to their aid, and with the most astonishing assurance, thus accounted for the striking similarity between the Persian and the Christian religion, the worship of Mithra and the worship of Christ; a mode of getting rid of a difficulty that is at once so stupid and absurd, that it would be almost equally stupid and absurd seriously to refute it.

Certainly the early church fathers battled in debate against the cult's of Rome even after christianity was adopted as the state religion under Constantine and the cult of Mythras was certainly well known to them, today revisionists are trying to use the Cult of the Essene's as the site of the Jewish Messianic sect and attempting to destroy the validity of the true jewish church.

In response to a question about Tertullian's discussion of the purported Mithraic forehead mark, Dr. Richard Gordon says:

In general, in studying Mithras, and the other Greco-oriental mystery cults, it is good practice to steer clear of all information provided by Christian writers: they are not "sources," they are violent apologists, and one does best not to believe a word they say, however tempting it is to supplement our ignorance with such stuff. (Gordon, "FAQ")

He also cautions about speculation concerning Mithraism and states that "there is practically no limit to the fantasies of scholars," an interesting admission about the hallowed halls of academia.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: joelr

This is the church founded by the OTHER Apostles, not Peter and Paul, it is the one that traces it's origin back to the Jew's of Roman occupied Judea and guess what it is not the Essene Sect?.
www.syrianorthodoxchurch.net...
en.wikipedia.org...

Of course some fact's are just not convenient to armchair revisionist's.

Think about that, they were not Essenes so the Son's of light and Darkness has nothing to do with Christianity in so far as the Essenes have nothing to do with Jesus and the many thread's on this site trying to interpret them as being christian's against Paul are actually a load of baloney and misrepresentation of the fact's, the essenes were merely one of many ascetic jewish sects that probably arose under both Greek and Roman occupation but the Syriac Orthodoxy whose history is the oldest independent church (they were not a part of the conclave of Nicea and not under Constantine or his state clergy's control so what they believed was untainted by state propaganda or mythracism and guess what they were christian's recognizable as such in every way).

But hey revisionism is popular right, hip and in fashion so yeah, let's go reinterpret and wipe out the truth with a new and fashionable truth rewritten two thousand or more years after the fact's and based on pieces of a broken jigsaw that don't even fit together properly because we know better than the people whom lived through it right?.

Forget Nicea, by then much of the modern version of Christianity had been formed. From what was found in the lost Gospels we know that around 190 A.D. there were vastly different groups, many were versions of gnostic Christianity and many of those groups considered the Bishops who were spreading their version of events to be pulling for power over the masses. The Bishops decided that the only people who could preach the word and lead the church were those who saw Jesus after he was resurrected, or their immediate family. Keeping power close to a certain group of people.

Of cource there were many gnostic groups who were trying to tell others that the resurrection was not an actual event but a metaphor for spiritual awakening. Other lost gospels show Jesus was trying to teach that we all have the same power and ability to experience God. The teachings are much closer to Eastern philosophy.

The bishops had there way and put together a literalist system where you pray to your savior and bishops and popes could speak for God and it's just a big mess of churches controlling the masses with lies. Then the Church outlawed, burned, destroyed any text, churches, temples or people still associated with anything outside of what became mainstream Christianity. And there were many many other groups of worshipers who had gospels spreading great messages that were to liberal or too spiritual for the church to want people to find out about.

Ripped off from Mithras, used to control the masses. Meanwhile real spirituality gets pushed back into Asia.

Read Elaine Pagels work on the Lost Gospels for more information.

a reply to: joelr

I am already aware of the lost Gospel's, most were Gnostic text's and probably fake or interpreted in origin.

The most gnostic church was probably the Egyptian Coptic though at it's core it is orthodox christian, I had a think about this a while ago and as you know there was a period of militan christianity in Egypt in which the pagan temples were sacked, probably fearing for there beloved knowledge scholars whom had already suffered the catastrophe that was he burning of the library at alexandria and whom had probably saught sanctuary in the ten safe and peaceful temple precinct's with there beloved few saved scroll's and text's were then faced with a choice, were better then to hide there secret's by moving into the new religious precinct's of the Christian faith or even masquerading as christian monk's, of course there secret's were not in line with mainstream christian teaching and so they had to encode them somehow so that they with the correct key could unlock them again.

Still though Egypt was one of the earliest church's, another also founded by Jew's was the Ethiopian Orthodox church which also had no link to Nicea and would have been seen as Heretical for believing they have the Ark of the Covenant (Which by faith they do), the Island of Elephantine in lake Taana which is home to the oldest monatery in the Ethiopian Church was shown to have alters which date back to the time it was a monastery not of Christian monastery but a Jewish site, ceremonial sacrifice alters for the sprinkling of lamb's blood with hissop in the Jewish cleansing ritual and of course the though the bulk of the Ethiopian Jewry became christian as early as the FIRST century some remained steadfast in there Jewish faith.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: joelr

I am already aware of the lost Gospel's, most were Gnostic text's and probably fake or interpreted in origin.

The most gnostic church was probably the Egyptian Coptic though at it's core it is orthodox christian, I had a think about this a while ago and as you know there was a period of militan christianity in Egypt in which the pagan temples were sacked, probably fearing for there beloved knowledge scholars whom had already suffered the catastrophe that was he burning of the library at alexandria and whom had probably saught sanctuary in the ten safe and peaceful temple precinct's with there beloved few saved scroll's and text's were then faced with a choice, were better then to hide there secret's by moving into the new religious precinct's of the Christian faith or even masquerading as christian monk's, of course there secret's were not in line with mainstream christian teaching and so they had to encode them somehow so that they with the correct key could unlock them again.

Still though Egypt was one of the earliest church's, another also founded by Jew's was the Ethiopian Orthodox church which also had no link to Nicea and would have been seen as Heretical for believing they have the Ark of the Covenant (Which by faith they do), the Island of Elephantine in lake Taana which is home to the oldest monatery in the Ethiopian Church was shown to have alters which date back to the time it was a monastery not of Christian monastery but a Jewish site, ceremonial sacrifice alters for the sprinkling of lamb's blood with hissop in the Jewish cleansing ritual and of course the though the bulk of the Ethiopian Jewry became christian as early as the FIRST century some remained steadfast in there Jewish faith.
en.wikipedia.org...

There was no such thing as "mainstream Christian teaching" back in the first 2 centuries. The gnostics believed some of the literalists to be heretics and fools for thinking obvious metaphors were actual events. Christianity was split into countless factions. I have no idea what you mean by "probably fake or interpreted in origin" Those gospels are no different than any gospels written around 150 a.d. Including the canonized versions. There are bits of history and lots of parables, stolen mythologies, stories, whatever. Like any written myths the supernatural happenings are metaphorical teachings or simply superstitious fiction.
For example demigods of a sky father and Earth mother are super common as is the idea of savior deities who were carpenters.
Although many sects did not believe things like the resurrection to be at all actual events. Groups who were seeking power were pushing the supernatural aspects and claiming that only bishops who were related to those who witnessed the risen Christ could teach and rule over other Christians. Bishop Irenaeus was one of those who wanted power over the Christians by denying the groups who were preaching we could all reach our highest self through prayer, meditation, good living, community.... He wanted people to have to go to a church and be taught by bishops in order to become worthy of God. The gospels where Jesus teaches we all have the same power inside us (Thomas) were considered heretical to those who wanted a church hierarchy. Because church would also be the law. And have all the power.
Because the more laid back sects were not pushing for power the church was able to get rid of them.

a reply to: joelr

There really is not much left of it but there is some evidence that the Gospel of John is a first century account, within the life time of the Apostle himself and probably written by him.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.challies.com...
and it is not alone, how about the gospel of Mark
www.livescience.com...

The similarity between the Syriac Orthodoxy,
(they hold there services in Aramaic which as you know was the spoken language of the time of Jesus while Hebrew was the written language so Jew's were at least bilingual and probably trilingual using Aramaic in there day to day lives along with Greek and also knowing Hebrew for there readings of the Scripture and the Synagogue, the Roman's though Latin was the official languare ruled that part of the world using mainly Greek language)
, Ethiopian Orthodoxy (Both non nicea and both independant and jealous of there independance), Coptic Orthodoxy, Armenian, Greek and Latin Orthodoxy (Catholic) are too great for them to have based there religion on disparate text's, they were working to original text's that were the same or almost totally the same, all three included tradition based on the early church and venerate the Virgin mary (unlike the later chuch's which had far less information than they did at there conception and are founded over a thousand years later, even more in the case of the mainstream protestant church), they also shared the Resurrection in common (the main principle of christ) the unspotted lamb of god, so Christ was a virgin not married to anyone as that would then not be the unspotted LAMB but a goat or a ram.

In Gnostic texts Christ is often said to be married to Sophis or Sophia which is Greem for Wisdom Sophis and the Church is often referred to as Sophia at later date's, now there was a later saind Sophia but even the great Orthodox Cathedral of Constantinople which was Stolen by the Turkish invaders was called St Sophia's.

The Cathars may or may not be regarded as Gnostic's as an example of one church that did have a seperate set of belief's but it did not trace it's origin back to the early church and seem's to have formed later independantly with it's own interpretations.
The Coptic church adopted it's old Egyptian god's as Saint's and used justification such as the Bowing of the idol's of the Egyptian before the child christ in egypt, similar in some ways to the story of the idol falling on it's face before the Ark of the Covenant in the old testament.
There are varient account's on the crucifixion, one spoke of doves landing on the cross and leaving when christ died, one flying into the west and the other into heaven, the earth quaked at this death, the rock of Golgotha was split and the temple veil at the temple itself was rent in twain exposing the empty holy of holy's, it then rained, a ceremonial fullfillment of the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb.
There were varient account's of the miracle at the tomb as well, in one account only mary goes to tend his body but in another she is accompanied also by martha, in one account there is only one angel and in another two angels robed as in lightning (shining or in very white robes), both have the angel say "why do you seek the living among the dead he that you seek is not here he is risen".
The bible also records what today would be called paranormal activity and apparitions of people whom had died some time ago, in the bible during the three day's many whom had died and were just people were seen by the living in the city.

You see part of the argument is that Christ was just a man, he was more than that, indeed think how many time's you have read about soldiers or other people whom died in battle or an accident but at almost the same time someone see's them as solid and real as anyone else walking past, they even sometimes speak to them but they seldom answer, later they find out that person had been killed at about the same time, they are just normal people.

Christ said "God is a spirit" he also said "God is the god of the living not of the dead" so being a spirit is being alive not dead.

If god is a spirit then Christ's body was a manifestation of Spiritual energy and not just common matter like our organic entity's are, he seemed fully solid organic and of course ate, drank slept and suffered as he was human but his true nature was in his spirit, god is a spirit, so his death was indeed death but since his body was made of spirit it was bound to the will of the spirit and he rose it by his own power, of course God made the universe by his will so even matter is subject to his will as when he called Lazarus back to life and the little girl whom he said was just sleeping.

You could regard his life on earth as a 33 year manifestation of a solid apparition of God as a man and you would not be wrong, it would probably be a crass and coarse interpretation of an experience beyond our understanding but it would still be mostly right and this is also why even today many whom see the lord see his wound's because he took them to his soul, his spirit on our behalf.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: joelr

There really is not much left of it but there is some evidence that the Gospel of John is a first century account, within the life time of the Apostle himself and probably written by him.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.challies.com...
and it is not alone, how about the gospel of Mark
www.livescience.com...

The similarity between the Syriac Orthodoxy,
(they hold there services in Aramaic which as you know was the spoken language of the time of Jesus while Hebrew was the written language so Jew's were at least bilingual and probably trilingual using Aramaic in there day to day lives along with Greek and also knowing Hebrew for there readings of the Scripture and the Synagogue, the Roman's though Latin was the official languare ruled that part of the world using mainly Greek language)
, Ethiopian Orthodoxy (Both non nicea and both independant and jealous of there independance), Coptic Orthodoxy, Armenian, Greek and Latin Orthodoxy (Catholic) are too great for them to have based there religion on disparate text's, they were working to original text's that were the same or almost totally the same, all three included tradition based on the early church and venerate the Virgin mary (unlike the later chuch's which had far less information than they did at there conception and are founded over a thousand years later, even more in the case of the mainstream protestant church), they also shared the Resurrection in common (the main principle of christ) the unspotted lamb of god, so Christ was a virgin not married to anyone as that would then not be the unspotted LAMB but a goat or a ram.

The Biblical texts that all of these groups use is the Bible, that's it. Put together in the 3rd century in Rome by Constantine and his Bishops. Everything left over, left out, of which there were many many other gospels and writings was made illegal. The new Roman Christianity burned all temples and libraries that contained conflicting ideas and made it illegal to own or speak of such things.
The Gospels are now dated to be around the beginning of the 2nd century.
The sourced material to show this is here:www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

We also know Bishop Iraneous (one of the 1st Bishops) was fiercely debating many of the Gnostic groups who did not believe the resurrection to be fact or even more intensly debated was the fact that some Gnostics did not want a church with a power structure. It doesn't call for it in the remaining gospels? Power hungry Bishops wanted a church with strict leadership. They wanted only family members of those who saw the risen Jesus to be able to teach gospel. Except for Mary. While many Gnostics were open to everyone being equal and having anyone allowed to join and hold prayer sessions at different locations, and actually focusing on positive ideas coming from the mythology.

If you read the Elaine Pagels book on the Gnostic Gospels you can see the church was set up as an institution to hold supreme power over the masses. Only they could interpret scripture and make law and infiltrate the belief systems of the masses.

The Coptic church adopted it's old Egyptian god's as Saint's and used justification such as the Bowing of the idol's of the Egyptian before the child christ in egypt, similar in some ways to the story of the idol falling on it's face before the Ark of the Covenant in the old testament.

There wasn't one Coptic church, there were dozens of variations and hundreds of different ideas about who Jesus was and what to study and what spiritual ideas to practice and where. Most did not want a church hierarchy, that was popular with those who strove for power.

There are varient account's on the crucifixion, one spoke of doves landing on the cross and leaving when christ died, one flying into the west and the other into heaven, the earth quaked at this death, the rock of Golgotha was split and the temple veil at the temple itself was rent in twain exposing the empty holy of holy's, it then rained, a ceremonial fullfillment of the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb.
There were varient account's of the miracle at the tomb as well, in one account only mary goes to tend his body but in another she is accompanied also by martha, in one account there is only one angel and in another two angels robed as in lightning (shining or in very white robes), both have the angel say "why do you seek the living among the dead he that you seek is not here he is risen".
The bible also records what today would be called paranormal activity and apparitions of people whom had died some time ago, in the bible during the three day's many whom had died and were just people were seen by the living in the city.

Yes the Bible has different accounts but the Gnostic groups had many other different ideas also. Many thought that the "literalists" were foolish to take the obvious metaphorical resurrection (a theme in most mythologies going back to early man) as an actual event in the world. It's a metaphor for a spiritual transformation. Carpenter Earth-Gods were a popular theme back then. So was demi-gods dying to save the masses from sins.

You see part of the argument is that Christ was just a man, he was more than that, indeed think how many time's you have read about soldiers or other people whom died in battle or an accident but at almost the same time someone see's them as solid and real as anyone else walking past, they even sometimes speak to them but they seldom answer, later they find out that person had been killed at about the same time, they are just normal people.

Christ said "God is a spirit" he also said "God is the god of the living not of the dead" so being a spirit is being alive not dead.

If god is a spirit then Christ's body was a manifestation of Spiritual energy and not just common matter like our organic entity's are, he seemed fully solid organic and of course ate, drank slept and suffered as he was human but his true nature was in his spirit, god is a spirit, so his death was indeed death but since his body was made of spirit it was bound to the will of the spirit and he rose it by his own power, of course God made the universe by his will so even matter is subject to his will as when he called Lazarus back to life and the little girl whom he said was just sleeping.

You could regard his life on earth as a 33 year manifestation of a solid apparition of God as a man and you would not be wrong, it would probably be a crass and coarse interpretation of an experience beyond our understanding but it would still be mostly right and this is also why even today many whom see the lord see his wound's because he took them to his soul, his spirit on our behalf.

You can do whatever you like. Others could say the same about Herculees, Horus or Thor with their Sky Father God and virgin born Earth mother. But they are all mythologies and teach through stories and metaphors.