[QUOTE=Omni;1158665]Very little is actually known about the man Jesus, there are some public documents written at the time that record his existence, i.e. births, deaths & marriages, other than that with regards to his preaching the oldest doc available was written about 100years after his death and then there was a whole bunch dated to around 300AD.
Jesus was a wandering preacher, he spoke in parables and anecdotes, he never wrote anything down as far as we are aware of, so all the information regarding what he said was paraphrased by others and likely carried on through oral history before it was written down.
I do think there is some glorification going on in the bible, this is not to say that Jesus himself was not a great man, but I do believe to some degree he was appropriated as a figurehead by christianity to drive a bigger agenda, even though those documenting the writings may not have been aware of the inherent biases.
[B]Take Paul for example, firstly he never was an apostle, all the others were long dead before he was even born, he spent the first half of his life hunting down and killing christians, then on the road to Damascus he had an epiphany and did a complete 180, becoming probably the most famous "Born Again" Christian, now it's likely that he bypassed that middle ground and suddenly he was pushing the christion cause with the same zealotry that he was supressing it in the past.[/B]
It is only after this time that the movement really made ground and I think it was around 400AD that the first bible was ratified and a board of directors effectively selected what teachings and scriptures were representative of christianity, we all know of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John cause their writings took centre stage, what about the other 8 guys (gals?). Another interesting point, after the death of Judas, which is still one of the unsolved mysteries, the other 11 disciples needed to elect a 12th, Matthias was chosen, obviously he had been in the outer group for a while and was well versed enough to take on the promotion, but when the bible was ratified, the above board also decided that the others had made a mistake in choosing Matthias and decided that Paul should be placed in the 12th position forever more.
Now that brings into question, what else did they think wasn't right and did they also take the opportunity to correct these things before going to print?
So with regard to this statement, you first need to question who actually wrote this, in what context and were they driving their own agenda, did they have investments in the industry, own a chain of mills, involved in grain production, was it the prototype for Big Pharma health marketing, ahh another conspiracy?[/QUOTE]
Paul was alive during the time of the apostles and actually met with Peter and some others at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter might have met Paul earlier too maybe when he was first there? James was the head of the church in Jerusalem and he was Jesus' brother.
My mistake, appologies, been a while since I read this stuff, got my wires and timelines crossed.
Still doesn't change the fact that he wasn't chosen as an apostle by those at the time, but was written in to the bible as an apostle by the authors some 300 years later.
James was a common name at the time. The James who was the head of the church in Jerusalem was not the blood brother of Jesus. They were all brothers together in their faith.
Paul attributed all he knew about Jesus to visions he had had.
The number and quality of contemporary citations referring to Jesus (2) does not reach the level of "verification" that he may have existed. This is in direct contrast to John the Baptist, for whom many citations exist.
[QUOTE=Omni;1162700]My mistake, appologies, been a while since I read this stuff, got my wires and timelines crossed.
Still doesn't change the fact that he wasn't chosen as an apostle by those at the time, but was written in to the bible as an apostle by the authors some 300 years later.[/QUOTE]
As a person raised in a strict christian "faith" who has grown up :-) it I must interject that the only thing that qualifies an apostle is the fact that they are a first level connection to Jesus. (think Linked-IN) by that definiton Paul was either an apostle OR completely wacko ( since he convinced himself to be blind for over a week) OR was the greatest con artist know to those times ( kinda like Charlemagne) as he talked complete strangers into taking him inand then accepting that he had actually seen "the lord" and totally started to do everything he said.
Given that he didnt alter the course of "christianity" all that much it was a lot of effort for no return ( even if it is only allegory, only Harry Dresden got beat down more often and more visciouly)
Nah either Paul was convinced of his own "apostleship" or he was one of the most stupid humans ever to walk the earth.... and as almost no one disputes that he is christian, what does that say about anyone who chooses to participate in that masochistic form of worship?