Christ's History ~ Why the Delay In Recording It?

reply to post by GiodanoBruno


Scroll down to "hostile sources".

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Healthlaws

 

Do you realize the daily minutes are availible from the Nicaean Council? They didn't vote to make Jesus God at Nicaea. The voted on how to DEFINE His deity.

Where does this crap come from?

You nor I know what they voted on exactly. You Blindly believe on human gossip.

Ante-Nicaean fathers who were there wrote about the goings on there. Pretty much how we know what happened there to begin with. Nicaea was conveined to address the Arian heresy and to nail down a date for Easter.

Jesus life was short comparatively speaking. His ministry was even shorter (three years?). He was put to death by the state for hi crimes of treason, blah, blah. Not everyone who knew him knew him much. They may have listened to one or other story or seen him on occasion. It was only after his death and the following death of his disciples that rumors began to spread about stuff like miracles and teachings, etc. When it became apparent that a lot of these stories were circulating , some wise soul began to jot them down, comparing notes with other witnesses and adding to the overall time line and events.

As people who saw him or saw his miracles and heard his teachings grew older, they began to find favor around them in people who showed more interest. It was no longer a Christian witch hunt like in Jesus day, and as more and more witnesses died off, more and more people came forward and told their tale. A lot of these stories matched other peoples recounting and that started to become more of a permanent record. Probably of fear that the stories would be lost if nobody set them down.

If 70 to a hundred years passed then that would make sense because that is a generation or two removed (back then). Of course, the tales grew (as many do) and lost to posterity are the original texts and authors. But like any good story better elements of the most widely reported parts remain to this day. Even though muddled and watered down, it is still a good reference example of how seekers of truth and wisdom should live their lives and respect others. Not many can argue with that (the example).

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by GiodanoBruno

 

Scroll down to "hostile sources".

Did you check the supposed-dates?


*and thumb"

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Healthlaws

 

Do you realize the daily minutes are availible from the Nicaean Council? They didn't vote to make Jesus God at Nicaea. The voted on how to DEFINE His deity.

Where does this crap come from?

You nor I know what they voted on exactly. You Blindly believe on human gossip.

Ante-Nicaean fathers who were there wrote about the goings on there. Pretty much how we know what happened there to begin with. Nicaea was conveined to address the Arian heresy and to nail down a date for Easter.

edit on 23-6-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Then you take there word for it.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by GiodanoBruno

 

Scroll down to "hostile sources".

Did you check the supposed-dates?


*and thumb"

Historians usually write history. Journalists write about the present.

Herp

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Healthlaws

 

Do you realize the daily minutes are availible from the Nicaean Council? They didn't vote to make Jesus God at Nicaea. The voted on how to DEFINE His deity.

Where does this crap come from?

You nor I know what they voted on exactly. You Blindly believe on human gossip.

Ante-Nicaean fathers who were there wrote about the goings on there. Pretty much how we know what happened there to begin with. Nicaea was conveined to address the Arian heresy and to nail down a date for Easter.

edit on 23-6-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Then you take there word for it.

Well yeah.. they were the ones there.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by GiodanoBruno

 

Scroll down to "hostile sources".

Did you check the supposed-dates?


*and thumb"

Historians usually write history. Journalists write about the present.

Herp

Exactly. So why is this accurate?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Healthlaws

 

Do you realize the daily minutes are availible from the Nicaean Council? They didn't vote to make Jesus God at Nicaea. The voted on how to DEFINE His deity.

Where does this crap come from?

You nor I know what they voted on exactly. You Blindly believe on human gossip.

Ante-Nicaean fathers who were there wrote about the goings on there. Pretty much how we know what happened there to begin with. Nicaea was conveined to address the Arian heresy and to nail down a date for Easter.

edit on 23-6-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Then you take there word for it.

Well yeah.. they were the ones there.

You Blindly assume. Huge difference.

reply to post by GiodanoBruno


How do historians scrutinize any written works from antiquity? They apply the same standards to the gospel accounts they would to any other eye-witness accounts.

It is not unlikely that politicians existed when Christ walked the world. We can expect a certain amount of manipulation. If the uneducated person cannot see that - then why try to change their view?

They are already corrupted. Not worth the chance of self-corruption. I don't feel responsibility for anyone beyond the scope of my reach. Why would I? I am not God.

~ Serra

reply to post by GiodanoBruno


It's not a "blind" assumption when going by what council attendees wrote in regards to the goings on at the council. That's actually right from the horse's mouth.

Originally posted by fixer1967
Sorry but this is what I think of the whole thing

Shouldn't it be taken literally as a work of fiction?

What is the alternative really? The pot calling the kettle black a bit.

That is why he had to come back and visit James E. Padgett in the early 1900's because the bible didn't get it right and Jesus is upset about it. So he told him some very important facts that needed to be straightened out !

reply to post by aaaiii


A lot of lies have been added to the bible, for some reason. "Heaven" actually meant 'sky' in the old days.

I'm discouraged that this thread took a turning from the OP's original question and has gone back to claiming that Jesus didn't exist.

This is, of course, foolishness on par with saying that the Towers collapsed because the aliens living just on the other side of the Sun fired a force beam at the buildings while projecting holographic images of the planes. You can say that, but you shouldn't expect anyone to listen patiently to you.

There is more than enough historical evidence of Jesus' existence to satisfy the overwhelming majority of scholars. There are eyewitnesses to the events writing down their stories. We don't have that for Mohammed, his first biography was written two hundred years after his death.

We have Roman officials writing to Rome about 111 A.D. about how the Christians had grown and spread through the countryside. The Emperor Trajan sent pliny the Younger to deal with it.He was using torture to wring confessions suspected of Chritianity, and that term "Christian" was being used then, by the Romans. www.tyrannus.com...

Please, stop the silliness. Present evidence that historians accept, as they do for Christ.

Maybe Jesus's message wasn't supposed to get out in a broad sense.

And later after it did spread, the newly created masses returned and tried to defeat that which gave rise to them in the first place.

Originally posted by aaaiii
This thread isn't about whether or not Christ existed.

It's about why there was a delay in recording his existence as an historical figure.

it is indeed,evangelistic atheists and bible thumpers make it all but impossible to have an intelligent conversation on the subject of life of jesus which is why i usually avoid such threads.in response to thread, perhaps these accounts were not written while jesus lived or immediately after his death because there would have been too many witness's to critique certain aspects or call bs on entire account. great thread

jesus' claim to fame (among many other things) was that he was the last (and first) pharaoh of egypt. the alpha and omega (a title jesus gives himself in the book of revelation), represent the pharaoh's rod and staff, also called the crook and flail. what he was telling the jews of his time was he was the prophesied messiah, of david's blood line and heir to the throne of egypt, rome and israel. they didn't believe him.

there were texts written during his life. the councils of rome only compiled works that had already been written, such as the epistles of paul, the gospels and the book of revelation written by john. .

reply to post by eNaR

You are obviously not familiar with textual criticism which is a linguistic science focused on determining the authenticity and origin of manuscripts.