Whilst the scientific outlook seems to be the key to this discussion, I am obliged to ask:
Yes, there was an actual historical personage, Jesus of Nazareth, living from about 105BC to at least 72BC, if not longer (there are good indications that he survived until the age of 80, but these are most popular where there is no priesthood or church agenda to maintain the status quo).
Your evidence for this?
Further, I think there is ample evidence to indicate that Jesus of Nazareth and "the Christ" were in fact two distinct beings ("separate" is a poor word choice here, since for all intents & purposes, Jesus after age 30 was "the Christ"). So between them, which was the Son of God? One, both, neither? Hmmm ...
Then please present your ample evidence.
Let me highlight a problem:
Irenaeus was writing in the 2nd century, and Irenaeus knew and was instructed by Polycarp, who knew and was instructed by the Apostle John.
if your dates are correct, then John never knew Jesus, and we can discount John's gospel as a fabrication, if not a fantasy. In like manner we can move on to discount the synoptic gospels, and therefore Acts, and the Apocalypse.
In fact, we discount the New Testament entirely.
The question then remains - what evidence is there of the Christ of whom you talk, and why do you believe in the idea of being 'Christed' and support your argument with quotations from a document which on the strength of your 'evidence' you must know to be wildly inaccurate, if not complete fiction?
The questiuon remains, if you propose such a radical re-evaluation of Christianity, please show us your evidence.
Thomas
Yes, there was an actual historical personage, Jesus of Nazareth, living from about 105BC to at least 72BC, if not longer (there are good indications that he survived until the age of 80, but these are most popular where there is no priesthood or church agenda to maintain the status quo).
Your evidence for this?
Further, I think there is ample evidence to indicate that Jesus of Nazareth and "the Christ" were in fact two distinct beings ("separate" is a poor word choice here, since for all intents & purposes, Jesus after age 30 was "the Christ"). So between them, which was the Son of God? One, both, neither? Hmmm ...
Then please present your ample evidence.
Let me highlight a problem:
Irenaeus was writing in the 2nd century, and Irenaeus knew and was instructed by Polycarp, who knew and was instructed by the Apostle John.
if your dates are correct, then John never knew Jesus, and we can discount John's gospel as a fabrication, if not a fantasy. In like manner we can move on to discount the synoptic gospels, and therefore Acts, and the Apocalypse.
In fact, we discount the New Testament entirely.
The question then remains - what evidence is there of the Christ of whom you talk, and why do you believe in the idea of being 'Christed' and support your argument with quotations from a document which on the strength of your 'evidence' you must know to be wildly inaccurate, if not complete fiction?
The questiuon remains, if you propose such a radical re-evaluation of Christianity, please show us your evidence.
Thomas