Did early christian believe in a spiritual concept rather than a historical figure?

Question

G. A. Wells has put forward this idea, that the early christians believed not in a historical person, but a spiritual being whom they saw as the personification of wisdom.

Because of the lack of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and the knowledge that the writings in the gospels describe a life that reflects that of many non-christian figures from much earlier times, is this suggestion more feasible than the idea of Jesus as described in the New Testament?

Augustine.........The accounts of Josephus are secondhand written in 92 ce

Nieter references he made are considered as reliable evidence............except by those who want to believe

belladonna...........Tacitus got Pilate's title wrong, and made NO reference to the name Jesus, just a "Christus"

Answer 1

What?

I have ADD ... can you break that down for me?

Answer 2

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there was a person who provided the germ around which the legend grew. But the Gospels don't have much to do with the Judaism he allegedly practiced.

There were certainly people at that time who were focused on the spiritual concept. But too many of the Gospel writers are heavily invested in proving that he was a tangible fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Enough that they read their desires into Hebrew texts that have nothing to do with the Messiah.

What I keep seeing is that many Christians wear Jesus-coloured glasses for their reading. They accept Josephus because they see him as validating their beliefs and ignore the fact that he was a propagandist for the Romans. They get creative with their reading of Hebrew scriptures. They hear persecution in disagreement because Paul said they would.

And they refuse to see the over-whelming commonality that the Jesus story has with other Greek myths.

Answer 3

in case you learn historic previous, you are able to't arrive on the tip that Peter became into the pinnacle of the early church. a million. while the apostles held the council in Jerusalem, defined in Acts 15, it became into no longer Peter who made the final judgements. It became into JAMES. The apostles then sent out letters to the outlying church homes according to what JAMES had desperate. Peter became into no extra advantageous than one voice of many on the council. 2. There are too many verses to submit right here wherein Jesus publicizes no person yet himself to be head of the church. 3. As has been spoke of many times right here,in a million Peter 2:4-8 it is crystal clean that Jesus is conversing of himself because of the fact the beginning up.this is a real stretch to think of that merely this one time he reported, "After heavily coaching you all that i'm the beginning up, i'm now going to abdicate and make Peter head of the church." Utter rubbish. 4. you will no longer discover historians or scholars - exterior of the Catholic church - who help that declare. Even Justin Martyr refuted it. So, Peter never claimed it or behaved as though it have been genuine, the different apostles never claimed it or behaved as though it have been genuine, and Jesus never claimed it. all the proofs are against it, yet a student of historic previous wonders why Protestants disagree with it? it is unusual. a extra suitable question could be exterior of one sentence that could have been (study honestly became into) misconstrued, what data helps Peter as head of the early church? answer - none. For longer proofs, 2 links are linked, assuming which you easily need to comprehend why.

Answer 4

Josephus was a 1st Century historian who wrote about Jesus and His followers, from a secular non-religious stance. Strictly a historian. Josephus was also present in AD 70 and witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Army. He also wrote about and recorded that event.

There was knowledge and understanding even in the 1st Century and at the very beginning of the Church, of the historical man, Jesus. So, both, the historical material man and the spiritual were known and believed.

P.S. Sorry no....Josephus' work was published in the 70's

Answer 5

Writing about Jesus was not exactly very wise after His crucifixion. I think that if He really did not show up to many people after His resurrection, people would have been too sacred to spread the gospels.

Read what historian Tacitus said.

Answer 6

No, I doubt that theory. Most of the apostles were Jews who had actually known Jesus in Palestine. They knew of him as an actual person, and they knew who his relatives were as well. In fact, some of the early New Testament figures were actually related to Jesus.

Answer 7

Like I said in the personal email to you.. Get a life.. Why don't you put all your energy into being a parent instead of attacking others?

Yea.. I know.. YOu stlll need that hug.. Whats wrong.. your children think your a fool tooo??????

Answer 8

Yes it’s more feasible and those earliest christians were gnostics.

Answer 9

Don't believe it! Jesus lives

God Bless

Answer 10

N o. No.no.no.no.no.no.