Posted: Jan 15, 2017 12:55 pm
by DavidMcC
RealityRules wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
... I am pretty sure that Roman repression would have been resisted by many of the various politico-religious sects, and "Historical Jesus" is as good a name as any for one of the leaders of that resistance. What he [Jesus] actually said is what is lost, thanks to Constantine, because that emperor had his own agenda, which was to re-write the early Christians' rebellious religion (which can't have been like any version of the bible) so that they would not be so rebellious, but "turn the other cheek", as the real Jesus probably didn't say.

See my fuller response on p. 2106 of the Historical Jesus thread

    eg. So the Jesus of the NT is not really a "historical Jesus"? ...he's a construct of Constantine?

DavidMcC wrote:
[Constantine] converted to Christianity in order to control them, and re-write their religion.

    That's an interesting proposition.


It's an "interesting proposition" that I happened to be taught at school, in Latin and Roman history, IIRC.