Reply #70: Not quite right [View All]

The lens is through the filter of Christian editors. There may or may not have been some contemporary evidence of Jesus existance (for the record I do not necissarily believe he did exist). But for the past 2000 years all evidence about him has been put through the blender with the aim of supporting only what the church approves. Copies and translations tend to favor the dominant view. Particularly when contrary views can lead to death. Speak out agains the official church position and you can find yourself in a very warm place and I don't mean the afterlife variety.

The rise to Christian power was not a singular event. It was a series of interfactional wars. Different sects battles for control of defining Jesus and the religion. When one sect was struck down the other sects would purge all information regarding that sect. Any stories or evidence they may have had were destroyed.

It was the council of Nicea in 376AD that finally set down the official canon that the world now accepts (to some degree) as the official story. With the completion of their meetings all other versions were defined as heresy and punishible by death.

Researching the truth behind Jesus is unlike researching any other individual in history. No one else has ever been forced through such a filter. Simultaneously trying to prove his existance but denying any existance that does not agree with the official version.

It is for this reason that relics such as the Shroud of Turin (a fake) are of such import to believers. Because there simply is no hard evidence that the man Jesus existed.