Possibly. But the change remained until the Roman empire eventually dissolved and still stands today fom what occured at the Council of Nicea.
Joespheus has a disputed and undisputed referecce to Jesus - just a few years after his death. I have told this to STU dozens of times. But he never seems to get tired of his lie. form wikipedia - and thousands of other sources on the net.... ----------------------------------------- "Reference to Jesus as brother of James The other reference in the works of Josephus often cited to support the historicity of Jesus is also in the Antiquities, in the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9. It concerns the execution of a man whom traditional scholarship identifies as James the Just. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[59] The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.[60]"""
No No... I didn't thaught that it was the same day at least decades later... they didn't have network news, no IT... The all empire needed time for the real information to be gathered... then analysed... And you know the time all the resistances have to be broken in the heart and mind... then the message was ready to be understable... Finally, when the full value of it was clear and an emperor smart and sensible enough to understand it, that was the real day of the death in the heart... then the empire needed more time to collapse, you know the "suckers" and then the bagholders... Even the vultures need time to eat an elephant...
The Christ myth has always been a fragmented mythology, made up from countless sects and sub cults. Clearly the Council of Nicaea didn't resolve any of that. Neither have endless subsequent attempts of one kind or another. People who call themselves Christians have never all been able to agree on what Christianity actually is or should be. Christianity still stands today? But so do the non-religious still stand, and they have been around a great deal longer. It can be said there is more real evidence King Arthur actually existed than what is described to be a Jewish zombie from a magical single parent family called Christ did, for which there can obviously be no historical evidence.
I'm not sure that the 'non-religious' have 'been around a great deal longer'. Certainly non-Christians have been around a lot longer but, still, those people beleived in other superstitions. The existance of 'non-beleivers' (as in 'atheists') is a relatively recent phenomenum (sic). It's nice to think that the majority of mankind will eventually get to a position of atheism but, then again, most of those inclined to beleive in a creator will probably turn to a authoritarian figure rather than humanism. We might be better off with them beleiving in a myth.
I stronly agree with your point. I think that's the problem in all religions... how the "priests" will take care of the message for their own wealth and trade it for more power with political leaders... I think that the same tricks was applied to Judaism and Islam and all religion deriving form an outside teacher... One thing is sure is that the Christ wasn't a rich man. He didn't have palace or castle... He was always looking for the weakest and the poorest... And then you get a thing like St Peter church in Vatican...
Is it any wonder people can't agree on what Christianity is or should be. We can't even get academics and intellectuals to accept that at least some times the market does on act in a random manner. We do not even really know the answers to basic questions - like was the really a big bang - what caused the creation of the universe and has there been others. On the hotties thread I am sure you can see much of the time people can not agree on beauty. (note to the wife - that is pure speculation.) However, I think your point about the Vatican is a good one. But, in supporting some of the greatest artists the world has every known - wouldn't a humanist be proud of them?
Not quite... I hate to say this, but most of those Renaissance artists and scientists were discovered and sponsored by the banking families of that era. The Vatican just "borrowed" them from the banking families for projects. And every once in a while, the Vatican would get pissed off, and even a banking family like the Medici couldn't support or back up one of their clients. Galileo was one of them. I guess you could say that the Italian bankers helped the Renaissance. The Bankers today? Just vultures with little societal value. I think Lloyd Blankfein considered himself a Medici type humanist when he said to the effect that bankers do "gods work." Lloyd, you're no Medici.
Borrowed would be a interesting term considering how much work michaelangelo did for the church. Besides some of the Medici's were popes. Galileo was friends with one of the Popes involved. Most people really have no idea what happened with Galileo and the church.