My research into the Council of Nicaea called by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine, shows they Council of Nicaea voted to change the name to iesus kristus by a vote of 161 for & 157 against. Again, why did they vote to change the Name of The Messiah?

I also first published this question in BHSE, but it’s relevant to historical investigations into Christianity, can anyone help me to understand this below? Mark’s Gospel is often considered the earliest gospel written by scholars. We read: > “Immediately the king[*Herod*] sent a soldier of the guard with orders > to bring John's head. He went and beheaded him in the prison,” ‭‭Mark‬ > ‭6‬:‭27‬ ‭NRSV‬‬ But British scholar F.F. Bruce records this information: (A Baraitha from the period of 70A.D.-200A.D. named "TJ Sanhedrin 1.1" says:) > "forty years before the destruction of the temple the right to inflict > the death penalty was taken away from Israel." > -Source: "Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament" by F.F. Bruce (page 56, footnote 5). **Question:** How is Mark 6:27 historically reliable given that Herod killed John the Baptist in Prison but likely didn’t have authority to execute capital punishment given the information in the Baraitha?

According to Julian the Apostate's *Against the Galileans*, no apostle claimed that Jesus was God until John, and they probably only did so to clarify an important dispute within a disunited church, stating: > "At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God. But the worthy John, since he perceived that a great number of people in many of the towns of Greece and Italy had already been infected by this disease and because he heard, I suppose, that even the tombs of Peter and Paul were being worshipped ----secretly, it is true, but still he did hear this,----he, I say, was the first to venture to call Jesus God." Given that the writings of Julian the Apostate on this matter survive only because he was quoted by the early Christian church fathers in their works so that they can refute him, how did the early Christian church fathers refute this particular argument of John the Apostate?

Trinitarian Christianity and other major denominations contend that Jesus was fully man and fully God at the same time. ***Did Jesus in his human nature, know that he had another nature (as "God the son") inside of him or that he had two "natures"?*** If so, why was it that when the fully man Jesus prayed, he didn't pray to his divine nature but prayed to "the father"? ***Did Jesus (the man) take advantage of his "God side/nature" in order to have power to perform the miracles that he performed?*** This being my first question, forgive if I make mistakes.

I was reading a National Geographic article about the recent restoration work done at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Israel in which the stone slab that covered the supposed resting place of Jesus was removed. According to the article, it went on to say: > ...it was first identified by Helena, mother of the Roman emperor Constantine, in A.D. 326. I researched a bit more about Helena's visit to Jerusalem and came upon another article that had this to say about her visit: > The site was identified in the year 326, when the Emperor Constantine’s mother Helena went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in search of relics from the time of Christ. She asked the residents of Jerusalem where the site of Jesus’ tomb was, and they directed her to a spot where a pagan temple now stood. We might be justifiably sceptical that the people in Jerusalem at that time would have known where Jesus’ tomb once was and suspect that out of deference to the Emperor’s mother they pointed to some site. Read more: [#500 Excavating the Tomb of Jesus](http://www.reasonablefaith.org/excavating-the-tomb-of-jesus#ixzz4QDzpfrWk) **Does anyone know the source for this claim? Specifically want to research more on Helena asking residents of Jerusalem where the site of the tomb was.**

What were the beliefs of the Syriac Christians in Arabia at the time of the Islamic prophet? I have heard that these [Nazarene Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)) (Christians of the city of [Najran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najran)) did not believe that Jesus was crucified similar to the Muslims. That claim was made by a Christian apologist, but I do not get the angle as the Qur'an clearly mentions that there are Christians who believe that Jesus was crucified as it says about the crucifixion: "it was made to appear to them"

I've been reading a lot from Messianic Jewish sources. I'm really interested in the [Siddur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddur) , but I can't find any sources which can tell me if the prayers and rituals in the Siddur were practiced in Jesus' time? Basically, I'm trying to figure out if the prayers in the Siddur are prayers with which Jesus would be familiar.

This is an honest question and I would just like to know why "Jesus". "God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life." (CCC-1) Weren't we always his children and heirs? It does not make sense that He had to send Jesus. This is what I found in the Gospel: Matthew 5:17 >Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. But why, it does not seem like a good enough reason to be crucified for. Luke 12:51 >Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. Between good and evil, God knew already who is good and who is evil. Why did he need to send Jesus to divide? Matthew 10:34 >Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Okay, this I get to come and punish the people physically on earth, but God can do that from anywhere and have done it before. Why send Jesus to do it? Mark 2:17 >Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Luke 5:32 >I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Mark 10:45 >For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. To give His life in exchange for ours, so we might be saved. This doesn't make sense because just believing in Jesus and repenting is the same as believing in God and repenting why introduce an extra step? Why make it more complicated and divide even people more? Luke 4:18-19 >The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. This made the most sense to me, people at that time did not understand what God wanted. God sent Jesus to explain to the people that it's not just about following rules but cultivating a relationship and that everything that you do matters. You cannot say that you are a Christian but you value money or other things more than Me. You cannot say you are Christian but there are more important things in your life than God. He sends Jesus to make the people understand what is it to believe and to be Christian. He sent Him as an example. That is what I think, and I think this scripture relates to my own thoughts. Many of the previous prophets did the same, what I don't get is why sent Jesus to do this task if John or some of the other prophets could have done it also. Luke 19:10 >For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 3:17 >For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 6:38-40 >For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. I don't understand this. John 9:39 >Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 10:10 >The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 12:46 >I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 18:37 >Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” I don't understand.

It is my opinion that the demand or challenge to point to explicit deity claims by Jesus in the Bible began in very recent times—possibly not until the 20th century, by groups that denied his deity. If this challenge didn't begin in the last century, then it definitely must have gained popularity recently because it seems to have become a focal point among recent Christian apologists. Is there any evidence for such a trend at any particular time or place, such as in the United States in the 20th century?

I've been watching lectures from [Centre Place](https://www.youtube.com/@centre-place) with interest. While they hold services and claim to be Christians, they seem to hold a minimalist view of the historicity of Scripture. They admit that the authors of the Gospels, for example, are anonymous and were not eyewitnesses, and that most of what they write is Theology rather than History. In [a recent lecture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozPG-iVKHCE) , John Hamer says: > 10:26 Today we are talking about history, and we want to separate history from religion. So the Jesus christs of scripture are part of the religious experience of Christians that point Christians to the Risen Christ. The historical Jesus though that we're looking for today can be accessed only through the academic disciplines of History, literary criticism and other supporting disciplines like Archeology to some extent. (...) > 11:47 if you're coming to it religiously as a Christian, it shouldn't necessarily change any part of the religious authority of any part of the scripture because the scripture is not history anyway. I've said a bunch of times that if Christians are even worried about this, they should just take as a default assumption that it's not history (...) Here's a slide from the lecture to illustrate: Christianity has always made fundamental truth claims about History, in my understanding. That a man lived 2000 years ago, that he was God, that he died for our sins, saving us from death; that he was resurrected, that he still lives with us. What do those Christians who adopt a minimalist historical understanding of Scripture believe in? Would they maintain these truth claims as such?

What was the size of the crowd outside the Praetorium when Jesus and Barabbas were offered to be released at the Passover feast? Are there any historical accounts as to the size of the crowd?

I've always heard, over in over, in Church and elsewhere that Jesus's ministry on Earth was only three years. However, it doesn't seem that there is much supporting Biblical evidence for this, or at least direct evidence. Nowhere does it say an exact period of time the events in the gospel where taking place over. Is there evidence in the New Testament that we can reconstruct how long Jesus ministered for? If not then where does the three year figure come from?

>The teachings of the Unification Church are based on the Bible but with new interpretations, and Moon saw his role as completing the unfulfilled mission of Jesus **to restore humanity to a state of “sinless” purity.** Unification Church - Reported by 'The Independent' 17 Feb 2013 And what is the biblical basis for explaining how this was to be done ?

Christians see Jesus as the only Son of God who incarnated as a human being to redeem mankind from sin in fulfilment of the prophesies made in the Old Testament. The Qur'an refers to Jesus as one of the greatest prophets and accepts his Virgin Birth and Second Coming. Jews on the other hand, question the divinity of Jesus and consider his as the 'prophet of disaster'. They do not accept that Jesus fulfilled numerous prophecies of the OT. Although Christianity from its side treats Judaism as its source (Jesus himself having been a Jew in human form), and reveres the forefathers such as Abraham and David, it is doubtful if the Jews reciprocate the respect and the regard Christianity pays to Judaism. Of course, the political alignment has its own course in so far as Christian, Jewish and Muslim believers are concerned. One is however inclined to believe that in so far as religious belief is concerned, followers of Islam have more affinity to Christianity than the Jews have. **My question therefore is**: Has any comparative study been made on the perception of Christianity held by Judaism *vis-a-vis* that held by Islam?

In a debate about the historicity of Jesus, what/whom can I reference to show that Jesus was an historical figure? It seems the “Jesus as a Myth” crowd is still with us. Note: (1) I already am familiar with Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus so I am hoping for more sources that support the historical Jesus. (2) I am a believer but I want to be able to defend my faith more vigorously.

*"What kinds of things did the pagan authors of Jesus time have to say about him?"* asks Dr. Bart Ehrman in his book Jesus: *Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenum (Oxford University Press)*. *"Nothing,"* he answers. *"Strange as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus by any of his pagan contemporaries."*, Ehrman asserts in his book. *"There are no birth records, no transcripts of his trial, no death certificates; no expressions of interest, no slander, no passing references. Nothing. In fact, if we extend our field of study to the years after his death - including the entire first century of our era - there is not a single reference to Jesus in any source either Christian or Jewish of any kind. I should point out that we have a large number of documents from the period: writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, government officials... Not to mention the large collection of stone inscriptions, private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of these documents does the name of Jesus even appear".* Why is the first pagan historical evidence that Jesus existed years after his crucifixion (Flavius Josephus)?

In his book *History and Christianity: A Vigorous, Convincing Presentation of the Evidence for a Historical Jesus* (1965, IVP Press), John Warwick Montgomery says on [page 34](https://archive.org/details/historychristian00mont/page/34/mode/2up) : >Irenaeus had often heard from Polycarp the eyewitness accounts of Jesus received from John and others who had been personally acquainted with Jesus.13 > > --------- > 13See Eusebius, [*H.E.*, V. 20](https://archive.org/details/eusebiusecclesia0000euse_v9k8/page/178/mode/2up?view=theater) . At face value, I found this, combined with Irenaeus' reference to the Gospels, to be the most powerful point in Montgomery's book. However, Polycarp himself does not claim to have known John or others who new Jesus, and his biographer does not mention this either. So we could say that Irenaeus claims a connection to Jesus, but Polycarp does not. Unfortunately, the only other example Montgomery provides is Paul. Are there others who claim a connection to Jesus? (Such as Irenaeus, who studied under Polycarp, who met John, who was a disciple of Jesus)

Within Jesus's lifetime: - I expect that Jesus would have written or dictated thousands of documents, and insured their preservation. - I expect that Jesus's disciples would have written or dictated tens of thousands of documents. - I expect to find detailed eyewitness testimony of Jesus's ministry, miracles, death, and resurrection. - I expect to find independent attestation of the events in the gospels, such as the blackening of the Earth for 3 hours, from all over the world. - I expect thousands of depictions of Jesus: drawings, stone etchings, and busts. Instead today we find none of these things. There is not a single piece of contemporary evidence for Jesus: - There is no archaeological evidence of Jesus. - There are no surviving writings about Jesus that date to his lifetime. - There are no drawings of Jesus from his lifetime. Why is there no contemporary evidence for Jesus? I can think of possible explanations, but none are satisfactory: - This evidence at one point existed, but was destroyed or damaged. - There were no available raw materials. - Jesus wasn't noteworthy enough to merit documenting. - People believed the world would end soon and so there would be no point of documentation. Update: this question was closed for being off-topic. Why?

Are there any historical events that cannot be explained without a historical Jesus? If you cite the Bible, please indicate why you think the passage is part of history. Update: this question is closed for being "opinion-based". I am looking for historical accounts.

From the [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_Celsum) : > Origen responds to Celsus's accusation that Jesus had performed his miracles using magic rather than divine powers by asserting that, unlike magicians, Jesus had not performed his miracles for show, but rather to reform his audiences. This seems like a rather bizarre explanation as intent doesn't necessarily have correlation to the method of the act. It doesn't logically follow. This leads me to think that the source that the Wikipedia is citing (Trigg 1983, p. 229 and Olson 1999, p. 103) might've butchered Origen's argument and Origen's intent. As such, my question is: What did Origen mean in this explanation? Is there more to this argument (to be more clear, Origen's argument against Celsus' accusation of Chrisst using black magic)?