• In the Spotlight:
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Historical evidence that proves “Jesus Christ” never existed and was created by Constantine (Romans)

Posted by on Jun. 29, 2014 at 2:34 AM
  • 6 Replies

The Council of Nicea – The Council that created Jesus Christ

The origin of the “Savior” – Later becoming the person worshipped today as Jesus Christ

Ptolemy 1 Meryamun Setepenre (c.a. 367-283 B.C.E- Before Common Era) (aka Soter) (“Soter” means savior) became the first European pharaoh of Egypt through military force led by Alexander the Greek (a.k.a Alexander the Great). When Ptolemy became pharaoh of Egypt, he wanted the Egyptians to consecrate him as a god. He wanted to be called a god because that was the title all of the pharaohs of Egypt were called prior to him. However, the people of Egypt refused to call him a god because they knew the only reason he became a pharaoh was through force, so in “305 BC -Ptolemy took the title of Pharaoh, taking the Egyptian name Meryamun Setepenre, which means “Beloved of Amun (Amun means God) Chosen of Ra(Ra means God)”, and because of the Egyptians refusal to acknowledge him as a God, he began killing the people of Egypt, which caused the Egyptian priests at Memphis to give into his request by agreeing to consecrate him to priesthood, in order to save their own lives.

The key words in the above passage to keep in mind during your reading: Meryamun, Setepenre, Soter, which are words that were used to create the fictitious character of JESUS CHRIST in AD by Roman Emperor Constantine (Meryamun, Setepenre, Soter were used in B.C). The images of Ptolemy below, which are similar to the images that are depicted as “Jesus” today, were forced upon the Africans and were ordered to be worshipped by the people of Rome. Let us continue to A.D.

serapis 2jesus

Serapis Christus Greco Roman c.a 135 B.C.E. The marble image in the London museum is the image they use of Christ (Jesus) today. Christus was also the nickname for Serapis.

What is Serapis? (Origin of JESUS CHRIST)

Ptolemy’s rule was to create a deity that would be worshipped by both the Egyptians and the Greeks. He created “Serapis “, the made up Graeco-Egyptian god that was invented in the 3rd century B.C., portrayed as Greek in appearance, but with Egyptian accessories, representing both wealth and resurrection.

“Egypt, which you commended to me my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshippers of Serapis here are called Christians and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find) call themselves Bishops of Christ. Hadrian to Servianus 134 AD.”

Constantine and Arius

Constantine the Greek (a.k.a Constantine the Great) Roman Emperor from 306 to 337, is known for being the first Roman emperor to be converted to Christianity which strangely enough, Arius of Libya (256-356 AD) born of African descent centuries after Ptolemy 1, had a problem with the Roman empire teaching the Africans and the people of Rome to worship a statue and celebrating death. He was considered a heretic, a professed believer (of God), who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church (what the religious authorities usually controlled by government deem as the truth). Because he started attracting so many followers due to his teachings that were contrary to the Romans, Constantine called the council by summoning all the bishops to discredit Arius, The Council of Nicaea. During the time when this meeting was called upon, there was no mention of Jesus Christ at all; no man had ever existed by the name JESUS Christ, and an important fact is that this all took place Anno Domino (AD) (which Christians claim means after the death of Christ) but in Latin means ‘in the year of the lord’. The name Jesus Christ didn’t exist before the meeting was called (read the statements made during that timeframe). It was only after this that they presented to the people the name JESUS CHRIST.

What Lord are they referring to? Kings have always been referred to as Lords or gods.

If Jesus Christ didn’t exist during the time this meeting took place nor ever heard of whom are people worshipping today? Serapis Christus?

Nicean Creed – Jesus Christ is born

Nicean creed which became the statement of the Christian faith was written decreed and sanctified by 318 Roman Catholic bishops at the council in 325 AD (some believe this transformation took place “Council of Chalcedon” 451AD).

“We believe in one God the Father all-powerful of all things both seen and unseen one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God the only begotten from the father, that is from the substance of the father, god from god, light from light, true god from true god, begotten not made, consubstantial with the father, through whom all things came to be both those in heaven and those in earth for us humans and for out salvation he came down and became incarnate became human suffered and rose up on the third day went up into the heavens is coming to judge the living and the dead and in the holy spirit”  (The origin of the Trinity)

The authorities shut Arius down and threatened him with death to keep his mouth shut. They positioned the creed during the time when people started becoming aware of the lies and deception, and ordered all books to be burned; destroying all ancient writings, “no evidence no argument”, and the outcome was the transformation from Serapis Christus, which means Christ the Savior, to Jesus Christ by edict of Emperor Constantine in 325 AD.

Authors comment

Christians, do your research. There may have been a man that walked the earth in the land known as Nazareth that attempted to guide the people back to righteousness, but, this man was not JESUS CHRIST. You see no mention of any man in Nazareth named JESUS mentioned during the meetings in Rome, or of a woman named Mary (the virgin) giving birth to a child named Jesus.

This would explain why there is so much emphasis put on JESUS CHRIST in the bible, which further explains why God all of a sudden had to have a “son” (sun of God was turned to the son of God by Europeans, which is why every picture of Jesus has the sun behind his head. (Sun Ra, Sun of Ra (God)). The man you acknowledge as Jesus Christ of Nazareth was born in 4 BC; all of the above took place before that date.

by on Jun. 29, 2014 at 2:34 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-6):
by Platinum Member on Jun. 29, 2014 at 2:35 AM

Other information about the council is available from the church historians, which also detail action taken by the Emperor Constantine to enforce uniformity after the council.  (The works of many of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are available online at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2)  I have these references for accounts of the council, all of which I have read (see Note C):

  • Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13.  This mentions that the definitions of Nicaea were drawn up with reference to Scripture; and the argument about whether phrase x or y was or was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument.
  • Socrates, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.8.  This mentions that Constantine exiled Arius and some of his supporters for refusing to submit to the decisions of the council.  It also quotes an letter by Constantine ordering the destruction of all works composed by Arius on pain of death to any found holding them, and referring to a similar past order regarding the works of Porphyry.
  • Sozomen, Historia Ecclesia, Book 1,  ch.21.  This describes the results of the council.  (Chapter 17 onwards describes the council).  Constantine writes to all the cities ordering the destruction of the works of Arius and his followers, and the penalty of death for any who refused to destroy them.  The letter is not quoted.  There is also an anecdote where a Novatianist bishop is interviewed by the emperor.  The bishop agrees to sign the creed but not to resume communion with the Catholics.  Constantine tells him to get a ladder and ascend into heaven alone, then; but there is no mention of action against the Novatianists.
  • Eusebius, Vita Constantini, Book III, ch.6ff.  This describes the council without mentioning Arius and concentrates on the harmonisation of the date of Easter.  Later it gives the text of an edict by Constantine against heretics and schismatics, 'Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, you who are called Cataphrygians', banning their meetings and confiscating their buildings.  Eusebius goes on to say without quoting that a search was also decreed for their books in order to identify the heretics (although no details are given of what happened to the books).
  • Eusebius, On the Feast of Easter/De solemnitate paschalis/Peri\ th~j tou~ pa&sxa e(orth~j, 8 (PG. 24.701) Checked.  According to Quasten 3 p.339 the work is not extant but a substantial fragment exists in the Catena on Luke by Nicetas of Heraclea.  The text of this appears in Migne, 24, cols. 693-706, and so, in Latin translation, which I have.  It does not seem to exist in English, but a kind gentleman has made us a translation from the Greek, which is now online.  As can be seen, chapter 8 does mention the decision of the synod about Easter, but says nothing of interest to us.  The text contains no other references.
  • Athanasius, De decretis synodis, A general discussion of some of the issues, rather than the acts of the council, and the arguments about whether the council exceeded what scripture says.
  • Athanasius, Ep. ad episcopos Africae, 5.ff.  More about Arius at Nicaea and against the Council of Sirmium.
  • Epiphanius, Haereses or Panarion, 69, on Arius.  Nothing more than we have from other sources.  Since this text has only just been translated into English, it isn't in the online collection of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, so I've placed all the material online myself.
  • Philostorgius, HE I.7, 7a.  Checked.  This writer is only extant in fragments in Photius and the Suida.  Apparently he was an Arian, born in 368.  There is an English version; E. Walford, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen ... also the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius as epitomized by Photius,[ONLINE] London (1855).  However it contains nothing new about the council.  I have a copy of this and hope to place it online sometime.  It would seem to derive from a single MS.  The Nicaea portions are now online.
  • Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica 10,1-6 Checked.  Only recently put into English: The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia by Rufinus, Philip R., S.J. Amidon (Translator), September 1997, Oxford Univ Press; ISBN: 0195110315.  Reviewed in Journal of Early Christian Studies 7.1 (1999) by C.H.Gowans.  I have now seen this, and this also has no discussion of the canon of scripture.  (It does contain the fascinating description of the destruction of the Temple of Serapis at Alexandria).  I just wish the volume was cheaper.  There is a useful bibliography.  The Nicaea portion is now online.
  • Gelasius of Cyzicus, Historia Concilii Nicaeni.  This does not seem to exist in English, but is in J.P.Migne, Patrologia Graeco-Latina, vol. 85, cols. 1185-1360, in Greek and Latin.  There are three books; book I deals with the historical events leading to the accession of Constantine, book II with the council and its canons, and book III with letters issued by Constantine to various persons.  The work seems to date from about 480-500, so is rather late, and some of it appears to be fictionalised.  The debates are given verbatim, and, as the introduction notes, issues that contemporary writers explicitly deny are an issue (e.g. the Holy Spirit, as seen by the pneumatomachoi in the 5th century) are given as part of the heresies of the Arians.  However it still makes no reference to decisions about books of the bible.  The work is said to use the now lost text of Gelasius of Caesaria, which continued the HE of Eusbius. 
  • NEW: Jerome, Biblical Preface to Judith.  No English translation of this has been published, but it reads as follows: 
            "Among the Jews, the book of Judith is counted/considered [legitur] among the apocrypha; the basis for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean [he means Old Aramaic] language, it is counted among the historical books. But the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your [pl.] request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was vehemently restrained, I have given a single night's work (lucubratiuncula), translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have cut back the most error-ridden of many codices: I was able to discover only one with coherent expression in Chaldean words, to be expressed in Latin. ..."  
            However, this only indicates that people at the Council had an idea that books might be considered scripture, or not.  This is not different from the use of works in the fathers, discussing individual works rather than canon as a whole.  It does not state that lists were drawn up, or necessarily that any debate on canon went on.  But it does suggest some action by the council in discussing whether the Old Testament apocrypha were canonical.  Or is Jerome merely confused here with the Council of Laodicea?  If the Council did discuss books in general, why do none of the councils like Laodicea which include canon lists mention it?  It is possible that the wide circulation of this preface is responsible for the idea, though.

[The following authors do not mention the council at all, although I checked them in case they might: Zosimus, The New History(Byzantina Australensia 2, tr. Ronald T. Ridley, 1982); Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus (ed. H.W.Bird, 1994, Liverpool University Press); Eutropius, Breviarum (ed. H.W.Bird, 1993, Liverpool University Press)]

From all of which we learn that the council made a ruling on the date of Easter and condemned the views of Arius.  After the council, Constantine ordered the burning of the works of Arius and his sympathisers, and the exile of himself and his supporters, and followed this later in his reign by action against Christian schismatics and gnostic heretics.

From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation.   However it did condemn Arius and his teachings, and the Emperor Constantine did take the usual Late Roman steps to ensure conformity afterwards.  However these were not put into effect; and Arianism made an almost immediate comeback.  Even Arius was recalled by Constantine.


1.  Those who wish to check further may wish to consult the standard reference collection (in Latin) of all the known documentation of councils of every kind:

Mansi, J.D., Sacrorum Concilium Nova et Amplissima Collectio, 31 volumes, 1759-98.  Reprinted and continued 1899-1927.  Not checked.

This includes not merely general councils but local ones also.

2.  Hefele, C. and Leclerq, H., Histoire des conciles, I, Paris 1907. Not checked

3.  Barnes, T.D., Constantine and Eusebius, Harvard 1981.  This does discuss the council of Nicaea.  Checked.

4.  Tanner, Norman P., SJ, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London: Sheed and Ward; Washington. D.C: Georgetown University Press. 1990).  2 vols.  v. 1. Nicaea I to Lateran V -- v. 2. Trent to Vatican II. -includes the documents in the original Greek and/or Latin text, a reproduction of Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, and English translations. Checked.

Here is a short bibliography of useful material assembled by the author of the Medieval Source book:

Denzinger, Heinrich, ed., Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionem et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum. Editio 37. (Friburgi Brisgoviae :
Herder, 1991) -often cited as just "Denzinger" this includes both conciliar and papal pronouncements. The new edition is easier to use than older

For conciliar decrees in particular see:-

Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, ed. Josepho Alberigo et al, 3rd edition, (Bologna: Istituto per le scienze religiose, 1973) -this covers all Ecumenical councils including Vatican II. The older 1962 edition is useful for the councils before this.

Some libraries may not have [Tanner] yet, in which case the much older Schroeder edition may be used:-

Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation, and Commentary, by Rev. H. J. Schroeder, O.P., (St. Louis, Mo.: London: B. Herder, 1937) -this gives the Greek and Latin texts and should be available in any Catholic university library, but may be a little hard to find elsewhere.

An easily available, and trustworthy, English translation of the various canons and decrees of the first seven councils usually called "ecumenical",
along with the full texts of a number of other important early councils is available in:-

Henry R. Percival, ed., The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, their canons and dogmatic decrees, together with the canons of all the local synods which have received ecumenical acceptance, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2nd Series, Vol. XIV, general editor Philip Schaff, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, repr. 1988) -despite its long title and citation this book is easily available at a very reasonable $24.95, sometimes less.  (And is online at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2).

The following councils' documents are included:-

1. Nicea I 325AD
    Ancyra 314AD
    Neocaesarea c. 315AD
    Gangra c.325-381AD
    Antioch in Encaenis 341AD
    Laodicea c.343-383AD
2. Constantinople I 381AD
3. Ephesus 431AD
-- these three only accepted by the "monophysite" churches
4. Chalcedon 451AD
-- these four accepted by Anglicans [?]
5. Constantinople II 553AD
6. Constantinople III 680-681AD
*Council in Trullo/Quinisext 692AD
-This supplies canons missing from the 5th and 6th councils. Its decrees were accepted at the 7th, and form the basis of Orthodox canon law. Not strictly an "ecumenical" or "local" council.
     Sardica 343 or 344AD
     Code of African Church/Carthage 419AD
     Constantinople 394AD
     Carthage 257AD
     [Canons received by Quinsext and Ratified by Nicea II] Canon 2 of the Quinsext also accepted disciplinary rulings of a number of fathers - these also are printed.
7. Nicea II 787AD

by on Jun. 29, 2014 at 4:24 AM

Bull crap. There is enough documented history and evidence of Jesus being real a real man who did really exist and was born of the virgin Mariam , preformed many miracles, taught the message God had sent him to teach.

According to our teachings and my beliefs the trinity is made up, Jesus is not son of God nor was he a divine.  We believe he was an ordinary man, a human and a prophet and messenger of God and the miracles he prformed  was God who does have divine power and him alone to allow Jesus to preform the miracles.

Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism. Over time it changed and different sects developed. I wanted to know where the idea of the trinity came from and I read up on it from a few different books and learned that Constantine not only invented the new sect of Christianity but also invented the idea of the trinity

This is not made to offend my Christian friends and I will not be arguing with anyone about their beliefs I am just sharing what I came up with when researching and had saved.  Sorry it's long but to have a full understanding of what I am saying I needed to include the history

Constantine The New Religion, And The Council Of Nicaea

Constantine the ruler of the Western half of Rome was always at odds with Lucinius the ruler of the western half. It was in 306 AD. Constantine was preparing for battle with his Italian rival when he said he had a super natural encounter that changed his life. It is said that while Constantine a solar polytheisist at one point claimed to have made close contact with the sun god, Sol. He said he had a vision in which this vision was different on the night before the battle.  In his vision he was ordered to by Jesus Christ to inscribe the first two letters of the Greek word "Christos" on his mens shields which would bring him to a victory. Then he thought he saw a cross over the san (the sun god) the next day he was on his way to battle and on this cross he believed he saw a message. His victory over his rival Luciniius inspired him to give credit to this vision of the cross and the word of Christ inscribed on his men's shields.

Conatastine converted to Christianity in 312 AD which made him the first Christian Emperor. He then issued an end to all persecution of Christians in the emipre  a year later. Now with Constantine on their side the church gained more rights and financial support from Constantine.

The other Christian communities though lost their powers and was now employed by Constatinesempire. This however worked in favor for the many Roman Christians.

 For 300 years the doctrine of the church had been questioned and debated.The church government was able to solve most local disagreements with threats of persecution. Major disagreements of what was once minor disagreements emerged through political powers causing a big divide between the  groups of Christians. It wasn't long before big controversies that lead to fights and some times violence as Christians and their leaders started spreading the message of Jesus Christ and what they claimed was Christianity through out Europe and the near east (what most call middle east). Due to the violent disagreements Christians became against Christians which each group accused the other group of heresy.

Constantine victoriously became the ruler of both sides, the east and the west of the empire in 324 AD. It wasn't long before Constantine was able to unite both sides through his his new found religion of Christianity. He made government changes and conformed his military forces as he was  making plans for a Roman revival.

In 325 AD Constantine put together and organized a council, the Council of Nicea which is known today as Iznic Turkey.. where he was to address and solve the  questionable belief of Jesus Christ. He had to come up with a solution dealing with one side ,Arius of Antioch who embraced the idea that that Jesus was not God and the other side, Athanasious of Alexander who believed that Jesus was God. 318 bishops who were leaders of the church determined that Jesus was divine referring to him as the "father". Arious disagreed with this decision and was exiled to Illyria which today is known as Albania and he and his follower's were considered blasphemers and heretics.

The council also decided on other issues and their official dates such as Easter which was decided would be the Sunday after the Jewish Passover. After this final decisions was made Constantine went to Bethlehem and Jerusalem and commanded the building of churches be built over the said sites of the "crucifixion" and birth site of Jesus Christ. He had taken his mother , Helena who had just recently became a convert of Christianity. Helena was even said to have found parts of the cross in which Jesus was "crucified" according to some rumors.

A small Greek city called Byzantium a year later which Constantine put into plans to build the construction of new churches to be built. The construction was finally completed four years later  and Constantine declares the new city in 330 AD as the capital of the new Rome and called it Constantinople (known today as Istanbul Turkey).

Due to what had become of a miraculous and very prosperous city people from the near east ( what many call the middle east) flocked to the new capital and even those who didn't go to the new city converted to Christianity in large numbers and the follower's who adopted the belifesof Christianity called themselves Christians.

Politics of Christianity and the beginning of The Trinity

In Constantinople with politics and the belief in the religion of Christianity set in place Christians were in control inside the city but the outside state was not able to keep them under control. With the sudden support of the emperor, Constantine the church leaders were finally being heard. Christian ideology became as much of a part of politics as it was a religion but the church still had the outside state to contend with.

After Constatines death the Christian Byzantine Empire was still growing in power. By this time the once divided east and west Christians has settled their disputes and Rome was united but this unite was not set in set in stone with the knowledge that religion and a government based on the religion of Christianity it could turn out to be an advantage or a disadvantage with small disagreements starting to emerge which lead to political and religious deputes in the empire in which Theodosius the first was now in control.

After ridding the land of polytheism some made an effort to untify under Christianity. A church council was called by Theodosius. In 381, the Council of Constantine. The council was formed of 150 bishops. The bishops ended up making the decisions of the Council of Nicaea in which they determined many of the acts of freedom to be heretical and blasphemous. They voted on and embraced the doctrine of the trinity determining  that the holy spirit was the same as the father and son... 3 as 1, the trinity. The bishops also decided that the bishop of Constantinople would become the second in command to the bishop of Rome

They did not settle or put an end to power pulls and disagreements even though before the death of Constantine his decisions put in place Christian Orthodoxy and the empire was again divided.

Valemtinian the third was in rule over the Latin west while Theodosius in rule over the Greek east in which politics and difference in religious doctrine caused disagreements. In 431 AD these disagreements called for another church council to be held in Ephesus (known today as Selchuk Turkey) in which the purpose was to discuss these disagreements. The argument this time was that Nestorius refused to call Mariam the mother of God or Jesus mother. They argued that while Jesus was a divine human and a mortal person in which both acted as one with one purpose.

Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria decided that Nestorius was guilty of heresy and while Jesus was divine Mariam was the mother of God. The end result was that Nestorius and his followers were exiled from the empire which lead to Nestorius establishing a strong church through out his travels to India,Mongolia, Persia, and China by bringing many people of these lands to convert to his version of Christianity through his message of his version of Christianity.

by Platinum Member on Jun. 29, 2014 at 5:00 AM

Quoting 1stmuslimah:

Bull crap. There is enough documented history and evidence of Jesus being real a real man who did really exist and was born of the virgin Mariam , preformed many miracles, taught the message God had sent him to teach.

Not really.

There's evidence that a man named Jesus existed in those times.  

The evidence that he was any more than a man, or performed supernatural miracles, is much less reliable - effectively just a single source.

by Platinum Member on Jun. 29, 2014 at 5:03 AM

We actually have fewer independant sources of evidence about the life of Jesus that are generally supposed.   To start with, the 4 gospels are not four independant eyewitness accounts:

There are a number of theories of precisely in what order things happened, but there's general agreement that the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John all show clear evidence of being written after Mark and of copying material from Mark.

Those four were not the only gospels, but the others are now considered to be non-cannonical.  However this agreement on which should be counted as the 'inspired' body of literature to make up The New Testament didn't happen until over 500 years after the death of Christ.   Even today there are still books that appear in Catholic bibles that don't appear in Protestant ones.

What about non-gospel sources?    Here's one speaker (David Fitzgerald) making the case that we have no more reliable evidence that Jesus existed than we do for King Arthur or Robin Hood, if we restricted ourselves to non-gospel sources.   (He also talks about the reliability of the gospels themselves, but I'll come onto to that in a moment.)

My point here is that I say "likely" because there is serious academic doubt about the historicity of many of the details (eg money changers being driven out of the temple, part of the nativity story, events surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus such as darkness falling and mass raising of the dead near Jerusalem).  The question of what we can work out about the life of Jesus if we can't rely upon the gospels being word-perfect accurate is an active field of academic interest (see Historical Jesus).

But what about the key event?   If Jesus was not bodily resurrected 3 days after being crucified, what's the atheist alternative explanation for how such a belief might have come about?   Let's look at the accounts of the resurrection from each gospel, in the order that the gospels were written:

  • Paul - no hint of bodily resurrection.  Jesus appears to witnesses after the crucifiction only in heavenly visions.
  • Mark - empty tomb and a messanger promising a future meeting, but no witness of bodily resurrection
  • Matthew - first account of someone actually seeing a bodily resurrected Jesus
  • Luke - much more dramatic telling of the story, with details added to fill in plot holes (eg the ascension) and forestall objections

Each gospel writer has a particular agenda and intended audience (see these pieces on the personality of Jesus and the ethics preached by Jesus, and why they vary from gospel to gospel).  Each is addressing ten years or more of questions raised by the previous account, and is writing long after any eyewitnesses who might contradict their words are dead.   This isn't precisely a dishonest process.  The gospel writer isn't an eyewitness either - they are working from the previous tellings of the story, perhaps with the aid of a Q document (a collections of sayings attributed to Jesus), and are trying to cobble together a pleasing coherent narrative "this is how it must have been", given their limited information.

For a much more detailed analysis, here's an excellent piece written by a Christian Bishop: the resurrection.

by Platinum Member on Jun. 29, 2014 at 5:04 AM

  36 - Paul converts to Christianity, having never met or seen Jesus
  37 - Birth of Josephus, the Jewish Roman historian
  47 - Doubting Thomas (Saint Thomas, the Apostle) founds the Nestorian Church, in Asia
  50 - The first Apostolic council, with Paul, Peter and James (the brother of Jesus)
  64 - Paul dies, Nero persecutes Christians after the Great Fire of Rome.
  65 - Sayings of Jesus written down in the Q document
  70 - Destruction of the second Temple by Romans, in response to a Jewish revolt
  70 - Gospel of Mark, written by someone who met Saint Peter in Rome
  80 - Gospel of Mathew, written based on Mark and the Q document
  90 - Gospel of Luke, written based on Mark and the Q document
 100 - Gospel of John, written by the community founded by John
 125 - Rylands Papyrus 52 (earliest survivng fragment of any part of the New Testament)
 200 - Tertullianus formalises the concept of the Trinity
 200 - Jewish scholars start writing down the Oral Torah (the Mishnah and Gemara)
 215 - Origen wrote On First Principles: the immortality of the soul
 325 - Emperor Constantine calls the first ecumenical council at Nicea

by on Jun. 29, 2014 at 5:40 AM


Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting 1stmuslimah:

Bull crap. There is enough documented history and evidence of Jesus being real a real man who did really exist and was born of the virgin Mariam , preformed many miracles, taught the message God had sent him to teach.

Not really.

There's evidence that a man named Jesus existed in those times.  

The evidence that he was any more than a man, or performed supernatural miracles, is much less reliable - effectively just a single source.

 That it what I meant as far as secular or scientific, history. I was not trying to say non religious sources do not prove any more than he existed and preached. I fell asleep sitting here a few times in the middle of posting that reply so I didn't specify that very well but that is exactly what I meant.

Now to us, Muslims which others who are non Muslim are not expected to believe or take it as proof but for us we believe the jurisprudence's of Islam so literally the Quran, Sunnah, and Hadith for us that is proof of the other stuff such as the virgin birth, the miracles, prophecy of his 2nd coming.

For most Christians who are more traditional  and not this new day reformed they take the Bible as literally as we take our holy text so for them they consider the Bible to be proof of in what they believe, the virgin birth,Crucifixion, son of God, trinity. To us Muslims and to you it is notproof. We believe in the Bible but only in entirety onle in it's untouched original form which does not exist today.Muslims believe the crucifixion, trinity, Jesus being a divine son of God to be part of what has been added man.

I hope I make myself more clear now. I have not been to bed and took allot of medicine and I keep nodding out and waking up to catch myself from falling over lol It's also not easy to type when you see 2 keyboared  instead of 1

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)