19

The 'Christ myth theory' Wikipedia page actually provides quite an in-depth exposition on the development of the concept Jesus wasn't a historical person: The beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th century France, and the works of Constantin François Chassebœuf de Volney (1757–1820) and Charles-François Dupuis ...


8

Lactantius, in his Divine Institutes, refers to a god named Hesus: The Gauls used to appease Hesus and Teutas with human blood. (Chapter XXI) In addition, Wikipedia has an article on a god named Esus or Hesus which appears to fit the bill. But the name does not appear anywhere in Eusebius; neither do Krishna, Mithra, Zeus, or Horus. Thus, the quote ...


5

There is not as much disagreement over Jesus' appearance as your question indicates. In fact there is near unanimity amongst Christians on the matter of his appearance - specifically virtually all Christians agree that we do not know what he looked like. The scriptures record nothing of his physical appearance, and there are no other authoritative ...


5

There is so much stupidity in this article I don't know where to even start (I would just trash the whole thing). Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects. That alone should be enough to ignore this entire article. Nicea was set up in order ...


1

No, there is no historical basis. "Jesus" comes from the Hebrew, and "Christ" come from the Greek.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible