They still be guilty. Not about the fact of prostitution but hypocrisy. Back in the time Church and clergy were so powerful controlling the minds of the citizens: if you do this or that God will punish you. It is inmoral
But... In the shadows they were the more sinners of all. It is interesting how you shared with us how the Roman Empire even created a law about "Christian prostitution". Well this reflects how powerful the clergy was always been. If I am enough powerful to join in the State institution I can act whatever I want and I force the jurists to make laws in my favor/ambitious.
Meanwhile the population was there thinking or feeling guilty for stealing an Orange or Chicken to just eat...

Well this text proves why in Europe slowly started a fight between protestantism/calvinists and the Curch in the coming centuries.

They still be guilty. Not about the fact of prostitution but hypocrisy. Back in the time Church and clergy were so powerful controlling the minds of the citizens: if you do this or that God will punish you. It is inmoral
But... In the shadows they were the more sinners of all. It is interesting how you shared with us how the Roman Empire even created a law about "Christian prostitution". Well this reflects how powerful the clergy was always been. If I am enough powerful to join in the State institution I can act whatever I want and I force the jurists to make laws in my favor/ambitious.
Meanwhile the population was there thinking or feeling guilty for stealing an Orange or Chicken to just eat... — javi2541997

Fact. Christianity had only become the official religion of the Roman State thanks to its own Roman policies between the 5th and 6th centuries, which initially sought the homogeneity, stability, and union of the Empire. Constatine the Great was the first to realize the benefits that Christianity would bring to its political structure. As the historian Jacob Burckhardt, in his work, The Age of Constantine the Great, would state:

"Constantine is a scheming secularist, a politician who manipulates all parties in a quest to secure his own power. Constantine developed an interest in Christianity only after witnessing its political usefulness."

And, in a pragmatic analysis, during his long rule, Constantine, however "rotten" he was, in a "realpolitik" scenario in which he found himself, became the most successful personality, because his attachment did not allow himself to be carried away for nothing but the power he wielded.

However, that same pragmatic policy that would establish him in power, would make his dynasty end up conceiving a degenerate vision of government, which the Emperor would be "One above all" - Dominus - not for pragmatism, but for sheer legitimacy and power - as for example, Constantius II, son of Constatine -. Vision that would eventually lead the Empire itself to collapse in the next 100 years.

Christianity, thanks to Constantine, would be intertwined with the power of the imperial purple, and would decay along with the values ​​and principles of the government.

Well this text proves why in Europe slowly started a fight between protestantism/calvinists and the Curch in the coming centuries. — javi2541997

Well, mainstream Christianity - Catholicism and Orthodoxism - monopolized Europe from the fifth century to the fifteenth. That's a thousand years of absolute power. Protestantism only emerged when Christianity itself became to be secularized.

The point that I cannot understand:

"How did people accept that kind of policy, and how would the Emperor himself, in full conscience, go to promulgate something like that?"

In my mind, there are only two answers to this:

- Perversity - he consciously had some type of "want" about that kind of thing -;
- Zeal - he really thought that he was doing the will of God -.

Protestantism only emerged when Christianity itself became to be secularized. — Gus Lamarch

Yes. Probably because it emerged another political power that could face government one. Remember the fact that Vatican is literally a State. Pope is like a governor of the world/his world. So, since the day Pope randomly said to Henry VIII, “hey you cannot divorce from your woman because the Bible forbids it” completely blown up his mind.
It was a fight about governance. I respect the people who believe in God or religion. But it is clear that is just another power itself. They played a very important role in some countries and education. When this kind power somehow conflict themselves something can happen. Who should control the education of masses? Education or religion? Well this is one of the biggest debates about governance.
Some countries preferred the education other the religion. In those countries whose system/education is religion, the secular power increased a lot.

Yes. Probably because it emerged another political power that could face government one. Remember the fact that Vatican is literally a State. Pope is like a governor of the world/his world. So, since the day Pope randomly said to Henry VIII, “hey you cannot divorce from your woman because the Bible forbids it” completely blown up his mind.
It was a fight about governance. I respect the people who believe in God or religion. But it is clear that is just another power itself. They played a very important role in some countries and education. When this kind power somehow conflict themselves something can happen. Who should control the education of masses? Education or religion? Well this is one of the biggest debates about governance.
Some countries preferred the education other the religion. In those countries whose system/education is religion, the secular power increased a lot. — javi2541997

Fact, public opinion completely forgets that the papacy is still, even if absolutely geographically insignificant, a sovereign state. One of the questions that most intrigues me about the papacy is how is it still independent, as its legitimacy to be a secular power, supposedly prescribed by Constantine - the Emperor himself - in his "Donation of Constantine", has been proved false by Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest and Renaissance humanist, in 1439–1440:

"In his gratitude for God and his servants on Earth, "Dominus Noster Pious Felix Augustus" - Our Lord with His Piety, Emperor - Constantine determined to bestow on the seat of Peter power, and dignity of glory, vigor, and imperial honor, and supremacy as well over the four main sees: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth. For the upkeep of the church of Saint Peter and that of Saint Paul, he gives landed estates in Judea , Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, Italy and the various islands.To Sylvester and his successors he also grants imperial insignia, the tiara, and the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places and cities of Italy and the western regions."

Yes, I know, it is ridiculous, but that really was the justification for the secular powers of the Pope throughout the Middle Ages. However, its illegitimacy had been proven over 600 years ago, and even so we continue to allow such a contradiction to exist.

Such a contradiction that goes completely against the dogmas of the Catholic Church, and yet, here we are discussing its legitimacy while the Pope constantly rules over his "States".

"Religio" - Religion - is the purest proof that humanity, being unable to accept its egoistic nature, turns its longing for power into its own justification for the struggle for power. It is a completely empty concept that has been given substance by our wants.

We created the religion and its dogma - by revelation -;
People should follow it;
We use the religion for our own gains;
That goes against the dogma;
We accept it;
If God was real - the Christian one - it should act in some capacity against the breaking of its dogma;
He doesn't;
Therefore, he doesn't exist.

If you haven't read "The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World" I believe it's called, HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend.

If you haven't read "The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World" I believe it's called, HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend. — Dharmi

The best historical source is the study of Roman civilization itself.

What happened to them is happening today:

Immigrant Crisis; Germanic Invasions
Environmental crises; 5th century "Little Ice Age"
Doublethink; Theodosius I bias towards the barbarians
Polarization; Christians and Pagans
Authoritarianism; Dominate period
Decadence; Christian Gnosticism
Hedonism; Christian Gnosticism - Phibionites -Carpocratians -
World Tensions; Roman - Sassanian Wars
Low Birth Rates; Cicero's writings
Secularization; Pax Romana
Economic crisis; Diocletian Inflation Crisis
etc...

It is ridiculous how forgetful we - humanity - are!

Um, agree with all of that except that pagans weren't intolerant towards Christians. The intolerance was all one direction. Pagans are inherently tolerant of religious, philosophical views. The proof that the intolerance was all one direction is the book I mentioned, and the term 'pagan' itself, which is an insult which means a country hick, an uneducated yokel. A fool.

Religio" - Religion - is the purest proof that humanity, being unable to accept its egoistic nature, turns its longing for power into its own justification for the struggle for power. — Gus Lamarch

It is literally another branch of powers. Very powerful when you have a lot catholics around the world. Vatican is a State where can go every human does not matter his nationality and feels connected to it.
For me, it is no impressive his selfishness. They were been like this for centuries. But... why the keep secret all the governance inside Vatican? It is so interesting. Are they sacred of something? I can not trust in something that acts in the shades. But somehow the remain there and it looks like everybody respects it. Probably because the people is so ignorant? Am I the ignorant in this case?

We created the religion and its dogma - by revelation -;
People should follow it;
We use the religion for our own gains;
That goes against the dogma;
We accept it;
If God was real - the Christian one - it should act in some capacity against the breaking of its dogma;
He doesn't;
Therefore, he doesn't exist. — Gus Lamarch

Yes. As you perfectly said here. Christian one. I believe Jesus Christ existed. He was just a prophet who wanted to change the reality in Roman Empire. But somehow exactly these are the ones who lantern on make Christianity/Catholicism as a dogma to improve their own benefits. They saw it as a clearly opportunity to increase the power. Why? Because religion took education for centuries until the secularism criteria.

The intolerance was all one direction. — Dharmi

No.

Christianity adopted this more "militant" view thanks to Roman persecutions:

Neronian Persecutions - 64 AD -;
Domitian Persecutions - 89 to 96 AD -;
Trajanian Persecutions - 98 to 117 A -;
Marcanian Persecutions - 142 AD -;
Persecution of Lyon - 177 AD -;
Septimian Persecutions - 197 to 205 AD -;
Maximian Persecutions - 235 to 238 AD-;
Decian Persecution - 250 AD -;
Diocletian Persecutions - 284 to 305 AD -;
Galerian Persecution - 306 to 307 AD -.

Obviously, after becoming the governmental majority - thanks to Constantine -, Christians would use their power to act in the same way that the pagans had acted before them. The problem is that the Christians would, eventually, win.

the term 'pagan' itself, which is an insult which means a country hick, an uneducated yokel. A fool. — Dharmi

Fact. The "religion" that we currently refer to in Rome, was not a religion in the terms currently applied, but rather, was a set of traditions inherited from the republican and monarchical periods of Rome. Values ​​and principles that were probably inherited from the Greeks, but here we have already entered the scenario of hypotheses.

Roman traditions functioned in the same way as Christian traditions already in the 19th century, where they were functional until they - the people - became aware of such traditions, which then, when perceived, could be questioned, and once questioned, their structuring of society ends fragmenting.

Julian - known today as the "Apostate" - is a good example of how, once established the weaknesses and ambiguities of the Roman tradition, they could no longer be re-established in such a way that they behave as before:

"After gaining the purple, Julian started a religious reformation of the empire, which was intended to restore the lost strength of the Roman state. He supported the restoration of Hellenistic polytheism as the state religion. His laws tended to target wealthy and educated Christians, and his aim was not to destroy Christianity but to drive the religion out of "the governing classes of the empire.

Even so, Julian's short reign did not stem the tide of Christianity. The emperor's ultimate failure can arguably be attributed to the manifold religious traditions and deities that paganism promulgated. Most pagans sought religious affiliations that were unique to their culture and people, and they had internal divisions that prevented them from creating any one "pagan religion". In truth, there was no Roman religion, as modern observers would recognize it. Instead, paganism came from a system of observances that one historian has characterized as “no more than a spongy mass of tolerance and tradition.” - Jonathan Kirsch, God against the Gods

The same thing is happening today.

That's also incorrect. There's a book called "the myth of persecution" that dispels this idea. As well as the book I recommended also deals with it.

Christians forged, fabricated and falsified most of the stories of their alleged persecutions because they, and their religion, glorified persecution and martyrdom. But the stories were lies, and frauds. There was no pagan persecution of Christianity. On the other hand, there was not only persecution of pagans by Christians but actual cultural genocide, if not OMNICIDE against not just Greco-Roman paganism, but Germanic, Indian, Aztec, Mayan whatever that Christians have been committing for eons against us.

I believe Jesus Christ existed. He was just a prophet who wanted to change the reality in Roman Empire. — javi2541997

I also believed faithfully that Jesus Christ could have existed, and that he was just an apocalyptic prophet from the province of Judea. However, after a more in-depth and detailed study of the very figure of Jesus Christ, I do not believe it is possible to affirm any characteristics about his life.

The figure of Jesus Christ had been so distorted, so changed, so adapted, that it is impossible to distinguish the false from the real.

We have paintings from the 3rd century - less than 200 years after his death - that put him as a philosopher among his apostles:



And - from the same period - we have images of him as a jewish shepherd:



And also, we have him as a young, beardless, greek man:



We even have what appears to be an anti-Christian "graffito" where Jesus has a donkey head:



- In greek, its written: "Alexamenos worships [his] god." in mockery.

A historical fact is that Jesus was seen physically, only by his followers, and by some minor Roman officials, who were not important, and very insignificant for the political world of the Mediterranean - the province of Judea was considered the periphery of the Roman world -.

What many people forget is that Christianity was not created and invented by Jesus Christ. The Christian message that reached the roman "gentiles" - elites -, had been the one rewritten by Paul of Tarsus, and therefore, it was not the exact message of Jesus, as he wrote only what would appeal to them.

It reminds me of Islam. While muslims may claim that a good portion of what is currently found in the Quran has been said by Muhammad, since he has acted politically and extensively to preach his word, Christians cannot. Christians, at the very best, can only struggle between what Bible's message is closest to that of Jesus.

Among all these statements, I personally still believe that there is a way to discover the true history and physiognomy of Jesus, but this must be looked for in the sources that criticize the Christian movement of the time.

I believe Jesus Christ existed. He was just a prophet who wanted to change the reality in Roman Empire. — javi2541997

Oh, I don't believe that. The book "Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed" is the best book on New Testament Studies I've ever read.

If Jesus existed, all of the sources about him are fabricated and not historical.

I also believed faithfully that Jesus Christ could have existed, and that he was just an apocalyptic prophet from the province of Judea. However, after a more in-depth and detailed study of the very figure of Jesus Christ, I do not believe it is possible to affirm any characteristics about his life. — Gus Lamarch

What many people forget is that Christianity was not created and invented by Jesus Christ. The Christian message that reached the roman "gentiles" - elites -, had been the one rewritten by Paul of Tarsus, and therefore, it was not the exact message of Jesus, as he wrote only what would appeal to them. — Gus Lamarch

^

On the other hand, there was not only persecution of pagans by Christians but actual cultural genocide, if not OMNICIDE against not just Greco-Roman paganism, but Germanic, Indian, Aztec, Mayan whatever that Christians have been committing for eons against us. — Dharmi

Well, this can also be said of Islam, however, my point with this discussion is to show that Christianity did indeed destroy the classical world, however, it did build the contemporary world.

My dyactomy is to see Christianity as "the flame that burnt down the Classical Age" but that was "the fire that lightened up the Modern Age".

If Jesus existed, all of the sources about him are fabricated and not historical. — Dharmi

Indeed. We can affirm that "some guy, called Yeshua, at Judea, at that time, probably lived", But more than that, no.

^ — Dharmi

At last, he started to quote me!

I have reason to believe otherwise, but believe otherwise is different than know otherwise. But my hypothesis is that Jesus was a literary fabrication, used to sell the Gnostic-Hellenistic Judaism of the Pauline sect. It was sort of a clever metaphor to hide their secret mystery teachings, theological, metaphysical, cosmological and otherwise, from the eyes of the unlearned and unsophisticated.

2nd Peter, an epistle forged by a Christian sect responding to a different Christian sect, has the opposing sect claiming Jesus was just a "cleverly devised myth" in 1:16. Which seems to fit the story. Aside from that, Clement, Origen and other Christian Church Fathers were saying there were secret teachings that were only passed on orally. And we unfortunately can never know what those were.

Well, this can also be said of Islam, however, my point with this discussion is to show that Christianity did indeed destroy the classical world, however, it did build the contemporary world. — Gus Lamarch

Yes it can.

No, Christianity did not build the contemporary world. The contemporary world was created by the Renaissance Humanists, that is to say, the movement which returned to Greek Pagan philosophy, pagan art, pagan history, pagan literature.

Then, the Enlightenment philosophers disagreed with those pagan philosophers recovered after millennium of the Dark Ages where Christians were in a total state of savagery, ignorance and barbarism, and created new philosophies.

Some of those new philosophies, such as those of Descartes and Francis Bacon, became the backbone of modern science and technology.

Paganism created the modern world. Christianity killed the ancient world, and didn't create anything. If Christianity created anything, it only created nominalist pseudo-philosophy during the late Medieval Scholastic period which has caused society to devolve into a world which is free from the notion of the numinous, of meaning, purpose, the sacred, inherent value, nature, etc. to the world, to our own lives and to the universe at large. That's had massive negative consequences, the destruction of the environment, the totalitarian coup d'etat of the money-power over all of society and politics, the existentialist and nihilist angst that results from that philosophy. You can lay that at the foot of Christianity.

My understanding is that there is so much uncertainty about the person known as Jesus because the Gospels were written a long time after Jesus's death. There is also so much lack of clarity about the authors themselves.

In addition, we have to consider the whole process of what was selected to be put into the Bible and what was excluded. There was so much tension surrounding the Gnostics and, we now know of the Gnostic gospels after they were discovered. One figure who I believe was of central importance was Origen. I haven't read that much about him, but I did come across the idea that even though he was part of the mainstream Church, he may have had some affiliation with Gnostic thinking.

I have reason to believe otherwise, but believe otherwise is different than know otherwise. But my hypothesis is that Jesus was a literary fabrication, used to sell the Gnostic-Hellenistic Judaism of the Pauline sect. It was sort of a clever metaphor to hide their secret mystery teachings, theological, metaphysical, cosmological and otherwise, from the eyes of the unlearned and unsophisticated. — Dharmi

Right. I have always had some intuition that some of the books written by the Christian Gnostic sects of the second century were original records of some of the sayings of Jesus Christ, but that, as they were not seen as being politically favorable by the Church and the Roman State, they were taxed as being "heresy" and banned, being lost.

I do not believe that Jesus was a myth created by the sects of the time, because Bruno Bauer - German philosopher of the 19th century - had written more than 2 works trying to prove the inexistence of Jesus as a historical figure - Christ and the Caesars: The Origin of Christianity from Romanized Greek Culture -. However, much of his argument is supported by the historical and archaeological ignorance of the time. Currently, we have historical evidence - from sources contrary to Christianity - and archaeological that yes, probably someone named Yeshua - Jesus in Aramaic - would have lived in the province of Judea within the span of time in which the biblical Jesus would also have existed.

These are two perspectives that were strongly affected by homogeneity and Christian dominance during the Middle Ages.

2nd Peter, an epistle forged by a Christian sect responding to a different Christian sect, has the opposing sect claiming Jesus was just a "cleverly devised myth" in 1:16. Which seems to fit the story. Aside from that, Clement, Origen and other Christian Church Fathers were saying there were secret teachings that were only passed on orally. And we unfortunately can never know what those were. — Dharmi

This is a point that I never heard. Could you give me your sources so I can go a little deeper? I'll be grateful.

This is a point that I never heard. Could you give me your sources so I can go a little deeper? I'll be grateful. — Gus Lamarch

There's a lot of interesting stuff on this that I haven't read. Much of this is my own theorizing. But there's Pagels' the Gnostic Paul, Robert Price's books, Richard Carrier's books, the Dutch Radical critics. I read the Greek New Testament, and I study this stuff for fun, also for academic reasons. Even though I'm not a Christian.

Currently, we have historical evidence - from sources contrary to Christianity - and archaeological that yes, probably someone named Yeshua - Jesus in Aramaic - would have lived in the province of Judea within the span of time in which the biblical Jesus would also have existed.

We actually don't have any sources outside of the Gospels. This very common, but false, statement has been debunked pretty thoroughly in David Fitzgerald's book "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All" where he deconstructs Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius etc etc. and Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" does this also.

In addition, we have to consider the whole process of what was selected to be put into the Bible and what was excluded. There was so much tension surrounding the Gnostics and, we now know of the Gnostic gospels after they were discovered. One figure who I believe was of central importance was Origen. I haven't read that much about him, but I did come across the idea that even though he was part of the mainstream Church, he may have had some affiliation with Gnostic thinking. — Jack Cummins

This is another interesting point to be discussed:

"How much of the esotericism and Gnostic mysticism ended up being assimilated by the Christian Church - Catholic and Orthodox -?"

Because at the beginning of what would become the official Church of the Roman State, many Gnostics infiltrated the organization with the intuition to transform it so that it followed their dogmas.

A beautiful example of this phenomenon is the mystical teacher "Valentinus", who almost became Bishop of Rome - Pope -, and he just didn't end up sitting on Peter's throne because he denied the offer. Valentinus had a very specific vision and belief; so specific, that his followers would later be called "Valentinians" by the Church. Valentinus's dogma - the pieces that remain to this day -:

"Valentinus believed in an androgynous Primal Being, its male aspect called Depth, and its female aspect Silence, from which pairs of other beings emanated. Fifteen pairs were eventually formed, totaling 30 — the Aeons described by Marcus, who was a disciple of Valentinus The last Aeon, Sophia, fell into ignorance and was separated from her consort, and this resulted in the material creation and all its evils. She was divided into two: Her higher part returned to her consort, while her lower part became trapped in. this physical world.

The whole Valentinian concept of salvation lay in the rescue of Sophia by the Son, or Savior, in whom all the Aeons are integrated. Sophia had brought forth spiritual seeds in her image of her, but they too, were in ignorance. To awaken and mature the seeds, the lower Sophia and the Savior influenced the Demiurge (Craftsman, or Creator), a lower deity, to create the material world and human beings. This Demiurge is no other than the Biblical God of the Jews."

As he had great influence in the Church, and as he even for a short time, was one of the most influential Christians of his time, it is not to be doubted that some influence, his dogma, like so many others, ended up being assimilated to the which is currently known as "The Canon" of the Catholic Church.

We actually don't have any sources outside of the Gospels. This very common, but false, statement has been debunked pretty thoroughly in David Fitzgerald's book "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All" where he deconstructs Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius etc etc. and Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" does this also. — Dharmi

Well, my hypothesis is that Jesus was a bastard son of a Roman soldier named "Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera" with Mary, who had been labeled an "adulteress" during his - Jesus's - lifetime. Jesus, during his activity was a "Prophet of Social Change - Apocalyptic Prophet", or as Gerd Theissen puts it:

"There are three main elements to the activities of Jesus as he effected social change, his positioning as the Son of man, the core group of disciples that followed him, and his localized supporters as he journeyed through Galillee and Judea. He was preparing his fellow Jews for the "End times", but one that would only affect negatively, the Romans - his enemies -. Jesus was the "Marginal Jew", who knowingly marginalized himself in a number of ways, first by abandoning his profession as a carpenter and becoming a preacher with no means of support, then arguing against the teachings and traditions of the time while he had no formal rabbinic training."

The Pagan-Roman writer, Celsus, in his Logos Alēthēs - On The True Doctrine - affirms:

"Jesus, their "Son of God", was the result of an affair between his mother Mary and a Roman soldier called Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera. How convenient of them - the Christians - to forget that his "holy" mother was convicted of adultery. Even so, they glorify her name in songs in those rotten and desecrated "temples of God". They are the worse of the hypocrites."

Yes. But the critique of Celsus, who is one of my favorite philosophers of the ancient world because he didn't buy Christianity, is way late. That's like middle of the 2nd century.

I don't deny the possibility, there's just no sources to actually check it out.

I don't deny the possibility, there's just no sources to actually check it out. — Dharmi

I answer the same to your hypothesis.

That's right. We only can speculate. There's no proof.

I just read your interesting points of view about Jesus Christ existence or his speculation.

As Gus Lamarch perfectly said: The figure of Jesus Christ had been so distorted, so changed, so adapted, that it is impossible to distinguish the false from the real

This is one of the biggest problems inside Christianity. How they always distorted the image of Jesus. According to scientific research it is supposed that Jesus Christ was born in Nazareth/an Nasira which it is today Israel/Palestine. But it was always been a dessert zone in the Middle East. Probably somehow influenced not only Roman Empire but Persian.
My point here is how ridiculous the symbolism and image of Jesus is a white man with blue yes and blond hair too. Excuse me? It is literally impossible due to the ethnics of the place he was born.

For example. With all the respect possible. It is just impossible of Jesus looking like he comes from Germany or Sweden.
[img]http://

Nevertheless, this representation is closer to Nazareth or Palestine geography or ethnics.

[img]http://


So when someone is so transform during the centuries it makes so difficult to believe in him. Because it makes a free interpretation about a human where he was a prophet in a dessert but ended up creating symbolism about cross/jesus representation. But it looks like there is some marketing flying around.

Nevertheless, this representation is closer to Nazareth or Palestine geography or ethnics. — javi2541997

Here's another point, Nazareth doesn't even seem to have existed during the time of Jesus. What's more, it doesn't even seem to be the case that he was from Nazareth. He wasn't called "Jesus of Nazareth" in the Bible, but "Jesus the Nazorean" and you can just look up the words in the text. Nazorean means something like a guru in modern contexts, it doesn't mean a particular place.

So this just adds to the mystery.

So this just adds to the mystery. — Dharmi

Yes. I am not against your criteria. Of course is so speculative the existence of Jesus Christ. What I want to say that, Nazareth, or wherever he was supposedly born is nearly Lebanon or Palestine. So If Jesus ever existed his skin had to be brown due to geography logic.
This is the reason why it looks like the image of Jesus is somehow used as marketing by church/Vatican to be more easy look alike.

So when someone is so transform during the centuries it makes so difficult to believe in him. Because it makes a free interpretation about a human where he was a prophet in a dessert but ended up creating symbolism about cross/jesus representation. But it looks like there is some marketing flying around. — javi2541997

Christianity has always valued the image of Jesus, for he is the incarnation of God, therefore, a projected image of the "Perfect Man", and it is obvious that with the migration of Christianity to Western Europe, and, later, northern Europe, his "nature" would be transformed to appear more appealing to new converts.

This Christian policy is visible even in the Modern Age, where the first Jesuit priests who had contact with the Japanese, promptly transformed Jesus into an Asian Man for their translation of the Bible to Japanese:



We even have "Ethiopian Jesus":



I find the ability of an entire population disgusting, to transform the suffering and death of an individual, into political justification and personal gain.

It's just, horrendous ...