jules?

sorry, but there is no unifying theory here as it is about questions rather than any answers.

Theories on Jesus and the birth of the religion abound but quite clearly no theory is so water tight, or covers every angle. They all work in there own way to greater or lesser degrees but I ask what areas need to be tied up to generate a complete theory. It is not so much what is in a particular theory but rather what is missing.

I am rather drawn to the possibility to 'Mark' being a satire/play/tragedy but that only accounts for gospels and not the movement that caused 'Mark' to write her/his work.

I rather like the neo-Platonist Sub-Lunar Jesus but again it does not account for everything. The possiblities are extensive and what convinces people is not necessary the best; - Holy Blood Holy Grail and DaVinci Code are big on popularity but a historical gnostic Jesus!

So what are the question marks? Where do theories fail? and what would you look for in the complete unifying [lets be done with discussion of a myth] theory?

Toto

Given that the evidence is somewhat lacking and has been obviously tampered with, a number of grand unified theories are possible, as long as you assume that the documentary evidence might have been forged.

mountainman

* On the evidence, (and as a result of conjecture ...)
* On the chronology.

* An integrated explanation of the apocrypha alongside the canon.
* Some archaeological evidence.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Baalazel

I have begun to think of the origins of Christianity in terms of the cat paw prints I find on my car every morning. I don't own a cat and I'm tired of washing the damned things evidence off my car.

Baal

Clivedurdle

Is this an example of hell, purgatory, that you have offended the gods, the bloke who had his liver torn out or the one pushing the rock up the hill?

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=240239

Maybe xianity is an early attempt at a GUT so the question should be why do we look for holy grails, 42s, GUTs and similar?