there are records from the first century. Paul's letters and the synoptic Gospels are but a few. Again...Paul's letters include creeds which pre-date his writings. here are two I posted earlier in this thread: For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once . . . (1 Cor. 15:3-6a). And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Tim. 3:16). The letter to the Corinthians was believed to be written around 56-60AD The letter to Timothy was believed to be written around 64AD Again..keep in mind that Paul was a contemporary to Jesus. He was a prominent Jew, and was a member of the Sanhedrin. Peter, a contemporary and disciple of Jesus, writes letters in the late 60's AD, talking about harm done to Christ's physical body. I'm thinking the writings of these men are likely of more value as to whether or not Christ actually lived here "in the flesh" than a man 300 years after the fact.
Max, you are not listening to me! I said no signs in the 1st century of organization, so when I talk about "church" I am talking 3rd. I know fully well what Paul's letters say and what the rest of the NT says. My only point was that by the 3rd century there was some debate about Jesus being human...which I brought up only to counter that I had not heard any real discussion about Jesus not being the son of God (by "church" leaders). I feel as if you think I am challenging you, but I am not. I also don't see why such a debate in the 3rd century would be a big deal. To this day people interpret the Bible often vastly different. I, personally, love the late antiquity/early Christian era for all of its complexity. Even though it is not my area, I have spent a good deal of time in it - writing, learning, etc..
i don't think you're challenging me...hope i'm not coming off defensive. i'm just disagreeing with you. i think Acts as well as the letters to believers in various locations shows organization. the meeting of the church elders (disciples) to discuss the effect of the Spirit on Gentiles...the decision to go away from strict adherence to Jewish law...even how charity was to be distributed to widows among the ministers set apart under Stephen. there's clear organization among those closest to Christ in the days after the resurrection. minimizing that literally changes the story. because their response to whatever they saw was utterly remarkable. the growth the church had in the 1st century among Jews and Gentiles is phenomenal. enough to get you to a point where 300 years later you would have a church on the scale of the organization which put together the council at nicea...with Constantine leading the way. but that's the product...not the origin. we started talking about the "early church"...i'm not calling 300 AD the "early church."
Just confirming this as absolute fact. Walmart got their @ss recently kicked in the media for not making this clear. I have to say, however, that the title of the source book for the forgery, Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu would be a conversation that I'd pay to watch (assuming someone would translate French & Itallian for me, but I'm sure there are plenty of translators in hell.)
Those wanting to learn more about early Christianity can go here (in order of heresy): http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/ http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ As an aside, there were many variations in early Christianity, which were normalized to one belief by the time of the Nicene Creed (an amazing thing to be necessary at that point). That they had to *vote* on whether Jesus was or was not divine is stunning. One might have expected Christianity to start with the one belief and for the variations to creep in over time.
