Jesus, the shape shifter

http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/ancient-text-describes-jesus-shape-shifter-001361

Thanks for the link, Maxx. The article mentions that the text was older than the canonical gospels and attributed to a figure of the fourth century. Jesus being a shapeshifter fits in with this period of gnostic literature with docetic beliefs of Jesus. Doceticism is the belief that Jesus was not fully human. I had just read I believe The Gospel of Peter I believe, that was similar to the four common gospels except for a mention that Jesus looked to not be in pain on the cross, another example of doceticism.

I cannot get beyond the supposed account of all of this not being mentioned at all by the local historians of that exact period. The small amount that shows up is very little and it can be found to be fraudulent.  If this guy Jesus turned the countryside upside down and had thousands following him and upsetting the Romans, why was nothing written about it at that time?  Therein lies my major problem with this Jesus character and before I would go father, myself, I would have to find actual accounts of him.  That is my starting point.  The Romans had very accurate accounts and descriptions of everything that took place as that is really how the rulers covered their butt with the leaders in Rome, so a lack of finding anything about this guy is very strong in my opinion.  You have to go forward 40 years to find someone that would come close to this description in the historical writings and then he can be found....under another name...

I agree that there is next to nothing in Roman historical records on Jesus. Take for example the supposed Roman census mentioned in the Gospels. There is no record of it and if there was one they would not have had to go to their place of birth. That would hurt the economy. The same can be said of the Exodus, and the Egyptians were meticulous record keepers. My doubt's were affirmed, in all places, in a study bible I was reading once. In the study notes it basically said that the gospels are not grounded in history, or truth, but are intended to convey a religious idea. The few Roman sources only mention a title, Christus, and little details. And Josephus is proven forgery. There is little to base a belief in Christ except blind faith. There could have been a historical person, but not of that magnitude. The Deity and powers of Christ also increase as you go from earliest canonical gospel to latest, suggesting a building religious mythology. Compare Mark, the earliest, to John, for example.

the fraud even goes so far as to create false books to try and prove a point. Research the Archko Volume on Wiki as an example.

Wow! I had never heard of the Archko Volume before today. I can understand forgeries in the first few centuries AD, but I see the tradition continued even till the 1800s. It was proven under an ecclesiastical court to be a forgery and plagiarism.

I first heard of it in the 1980s when a pastor told me about it. At the time he completely believed it and had just bought a hardbound copy of it. A side not on he and his wife, hehe. I had to do an exorcism on both he and his wife. During that session, the wife levitated, which was the first time I had ever seen that. She was worse than he was... When it happened he tried to run over me getting out the door of the room but I blocked him. It was a circus.