Likely, like his brother James (the Righteous), he was vegetarian, too. He had little in common with the mythical Jesus of Christianity.

And even as He spoke of replacing the old law with the new, he never renounced the old. He was also obviously not a blond European as he was commonly depicted by blond European artists.

He is also called the Messiah by Christians.

little known fact.

One time, many years ago, (but not in a galaxy far away), my wife and I, and many other fellow campers, were awakened at 3am by a group of Hare Krishna people chanting and ringing small bells as they greeted the day.

He was hooked on Scientology

As an Italian friend of mine once pointed out to me: "He lived and died and never heard the word 'Catholic.'" I added to that, "he lived and died and never heard the word "Christian." He spoke to the Children of Israel.

and stated that He came to replace the old law with a new law. And that did not endear Him to the authorities. And the group that He gathered went on to form a Church.

One could just as legitimately claim Jesus identified as irreligious and unaffiliated.

You misused the word legitimate.

The last supper was a Passover meal. Christianity did not exist. Catholicism was founded at least two centuries later.

Silliness!

But I understand that you prefer your own thoughts and opinions.

And not inconsistent with what you said, but I understand you have your own opinion on the matter.

It is YOUR "thought/opinion" that "Christianity existed in the person and message of Jesus Christ."

And you'll never, ever be able to demonstrate that.

I don't think that the Jesus described in the gospels existed as such. That doesn't mean that there wasn't some very good, charismatic person who was communicating a message, just that it wasn't the Jesus as portrayed. It would be difficult to find any part of the gospels that aren't symbolic; it's such a shame that Christians don't understand their own writings. I think the writers put the man's/group's teachings into a life story. It's the teachings that are important, not the biography, which is why it's irrelevant that the gospel writers didn't feel compelled to insure that the biographical details all matched up. Where the details differ, there's probably a good reason, a desire to stress a certain message.

Example: In the Prodigal Son parable, the "son" (soul) passes through many levels until arriving on Earth where it must exist among pigs. To a Jewish audience, pigs would be unclean flesh. So, the soul must exist with unclean flesh, bodies, and a lot of them. That's reincarnation. Elsewhere, as part of his biography, Jesus passes over water, climbs a mountain and deals with a crazy person filled with "demons" which he casts into a neighbor's swineherd and they drown. Pigs again. Here we can see the purpose of reincarnation, to have opportunities to eliminate ungodliness so that, as in the Prodigal Son, the soul can return to its Source. The mountain would symbolize the ascent into the spiritual realm; water would represent the dividing line between the physical world and the spiritual. The legion-of-demons "biographical" event clearly is attached to the parable and should be taken as metaphorical, like the parable. I read once that Paul never says that Jesus will come again; he says Jesus will come. I haven't checked it out, but if true it certainly appears that the Jesus story is actually spiritual enlightenment/information to help soul progress. I was especially struck by the image of lots of pigs in water. That was the beginning stage of the Eleuthrian Mysteries (sp?), which would have struck a familiar cord to just about everyone in antiquity since it was the most known Mystery. Was someone trying to reach out to the Mystery followers as well as the Jews?

The widespread nature of the movement doesn't seem realistic as stemming from one person; it's just too large in too short a time. Paul doesn't use the gospels' words and teachings. Where gospel events bolster Paul's events, like the Last Supper, it's likely that the gospel writers took that "event" from Paul, not from Jesus' life. I always remember that Paul was from Tarsus, the center of the Mithras cult. If you read the Mithras "supper," it reads almost identical to Jesus' supper as described by Paul.

Josephus describes his taking down a Jesus, not our Jesus, from a crucifix; the man hadn't died. I suspect that Jesus' biographical events have many sources. Josephus also describes a shipwreck very similar to the one Paul said he endured. The point of ancient history wasn't to accurately record events; it was propaganda for a purpose.

I think the gospels indicate where their spiritual truths came from. The Persian Magi visited baby Jesus; toddler Jesus went to Egypt. I've always suspected that "Christianity" began in Alexandria and its missionaries spread out from there. There were also many Buddhist monks in ancient Alexandria.

The humanization of the group's messages reminds me of the Essene's Teacher of Righteousness, which is usually thought to be a person. I wonder. Since Jesus, as written, is a metaphor, why not the Teacher of Righteousness? The Essenes believed in reincarnation. Also, the Therapeutae were in Egypt


I think we need for some Egyptians to dig up a few more scrolls!!!

But charismatic leaders such as Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha have always existed. And all three that I named had a tremendous influence far beyond their geographic areas, as well as influence that persists thousands of years later.

Christianity really is, to me, interesting. For one thing, it never was a monolithic movement. As Somebody Bauer wrote in his book, using paleography to trace the different strands of the religion from its beginning, there never was one Christianity. At least two, initially pretty much divided East-West, Jerusalem-Rome centered. Paul considered the Jerusalem leaders as the go-to authorities, although he apparently disagreed with them often. But Paul mentions fellow missionaries and acquaintances who differed from him, as well. I get the impression it was very informal and different interpretations were allowed as long as they held to the same goal. There were definitely different levels of progress, the children and the mature, the elect and the hoi polloi (?). The Christ-centered movement, mimicking pagan savior gods, would not, I think, have been the heart of the Jerusalem movement; that would have appealed to the western, Rome-based followers. Remember, the movement didn't start out being called Christianity, highlighting a salvific Christ. Its followers called it the Way. They eschewed materialism, earthly power and glory. I doubt they would have attracted many Roman followers with that philosophy! The movement sold its soul in no time, ignoring the spiritual truths known by the Jerusalem leaders. But, those truths are still there in the parables which teach karma, reincarnation, a spirit world of many levels, soul growth. Not faith. Not forgiveness by deity. You get there on your own. A far cry from today's Christian dogma.

As does Islam.

And each division centers on different aspects of the Bible, and the message of Jesus.

Often Christianity absorbed aspects of the local religions, probably to make adoption of Christianity more acceptable in those areas.

As to these words of yours: