Or you’d have those out all of his writings.

then on has to believe the second coming happened in the first century AD as Jesus said it would. The end times were the decline of the Roman Empire and the coming of Attila and subsequent waves of Germanic migrants out of the east.

The decline in the west occurred as Christianity was becoming accepted and thus reflected in the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament which were generally established by the 5th century. So the New Testament may well have been influenced by the barbarian migrations and chaos in the west.

Note that I am not suggesting the rise of Christianity was a factor in the fall of the Empire.

Rome was still expanding in the 1st Century. So you have like a 3-400 year gap there.

chaos of the late empire. Attila came about a century after Christianity became the established religion of the Roman state. He was known as the scourge of God and many thought he would bring the end of the world. So he fulfills the prophecy of Revelation as the anti-Christ. Of course Europeans thought the Black Death was the end of the world as well.

Yes Voltaire2 my historical argument about the canon is flawed. I should have limited my post to the interpretation of that particular gospel. My historical argument rested on the idea that the Christian Canon wasn't settled until the early 5th century but that's still before the Huns arrive.

The Roman empire ended in the 15th century with the fall of Constantinople. The Roman Empire barely noticed the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

But the Eastern Empire did carry on for a thousand more years.

The idea that he could be both certainly runs afoul of Judaism. Jews do not worship King David and do not consider him a god. Jesus claimed to be the messiah(as did many other religious hucksters), but pretty much all the requirements for that were never met, including prophecies which weren’t fulfilled. Early Christians realized these problems which is why they deified Christ.