Posted: Jan 08, 2017 4:43 pm
There were probably many religious groups/sects that existed in those times and with each one vying for supremacy, the powers that be would have had a hard time maintaining control of the masses without showing favour to one or more of those groups. To do so would have been a recipe for internecine conflict which could easily get out of hand.
Since religion was the main tool by which the priests/politicians of the day maintained control, the answer would be to found/invent/'discover' a new religion. This new religion would have to have no connection to any of the current religions and where the 'prophet' could not be part of the public conscience or memory.
I suspect that there was documentation (now lost) that pointed to a few possibilities and while sifting through this lot, Jesus' name fell out of the hat. That's probably a bit simplistic - there was, I sure, a lot of learned 'argy-bargy' going on over quite a protracted period.
With the backing of the Roman state, the new religion soon became a popular tool for populace control and which was noticed by other rulers who, er, 'converted'.
What might have clinched it for Jesus (it could have been anyone) was the Sermon on the Mount to which his name became attached (someone must have written it!). A convenient document which could be interpreted in more than one way. The rest of the stories are probably made-up fantasy to promote a 'moral' substance for the rulers to impress upon the masses.
As for Christian Archaeology, well, that may be just 'Pie in the Sky'. Between the alleged birth of Jesus (if indeed he actually existed) and the founding of Christianity as a major religion, I would suspect there is no evidential archaeology to be found.
Just a thought. I could be proved wrong, of course.
Since religion was the main tool by which the priests/politicians of the day maintained control, the answer would be to found/invent/'discover' a new religion. This new religion would have to have no connection to any of the current religions and where the 'prophet' could not be part of the public conscience or memory.
I suspect that there was documentation (now lost) that pointed to a few possibilities and while sifting through this lot, Jesus' name fell out of the hat. That's probably a bit simplistic - there was, I sure, a lot of learned 'argy-bargy' going on over quite a protracted period.
With the backing of the Roman state, the new religion soon became a popular tool for populace control and which was noticed by other rulers who, er, 'converted'.
What might have clinched it for Jesus (it could have been anyone) was the Sermon on the Mount to which his name became attached (someone must have written it!). A convenient document which could be interpreted in more than one way. The rest of the stories are probably made-up fantasy to promote a 'moral' substance for the rulers to impress upon the masses.
As for Christian Archaeology, well, that may be just 'Pie in the Sky'. Between the alleged birth of Jesus (if indeed he actually existed) and the founding of Christianity as a major religion, I would suspect there is no evidential archaeology to be found.
Just a thought. I could be proved wrong, of course.