It is these kind of arguments that make the most sense to me.
My point is … a first-century Jew, faced with the crucifixion of a would-be messiah, or even of a prophet who had led a significant following, would not normally conclude that this person was the Messiah and that the kingdom had come. He or she would normally conclude that he was not and that it had not.
…
Why did Christianity even begin, let alone continue, as a messianic movement, when its Messiah so obviously not only did not do what a Messiah was supposed to do but suffered a fate which ought to have showed conclusively that he could not possibly have been Israel’s anointed? Why did this group of first-century Jews, who had cherished messianic hopes and focused them on Jesus of Nazareth, not only continue to believe that he was the Messiah despite his execution, but actively announce him as such in the pagan as well…
View original post 57 more words
There are a lot of opinions and rumors about Constantine, the Council of Nicea, and the events of the fourth century that changed Christianity to Christendom. Not only will you get the incredible story, with all its twists, plots, and intrigues, but you will find out how history is done and never wonder what is true again.
The Rest of the Old, Old Story 