My opinion: It's a nice story. And with stories the most important thing is what it teaches us or makes us feel. Not that it's true. Maybe they took inspiration from several preaching hippies who lived back then and made one story out of that. Exaggerated everything and made stuff up. Probably all of it because the bible was't even written close to his supposed lifetime. It'd be like you now writing a story about a dude who died in 1870. Without any previous records to get information from. [Edit: The first things have probably been written down like 40-50 years after his death.]
And I mean if Jesus existed, he would certainly disapprove of what people do (and did) in his name.
I don't know that the History Channel is a good representation of academic consensus. It should basically never be relied upon.
Agree. But that specific article seems pretty alright. Also talks about the relics and history records for example by Tacitus.
There also is a Wikipedia article which I think is not written that well. And a lot of education material by churches or religious organizations which I did not cite for obvious reasons.
There also is a Wikipedia article which I think is not written that well. And a lot of education material by churches or religious organizations which I did not cite for obvious reasons.
That's because Christian apologists constantly brigade those articles.
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
Tl;dr: No.
My opinion: It's a nice story. And with stories the most important thing is what it teaches us or makes us feel. Not that it's true. Maybe they took inspiration from several preaching hippies who lived back then and made one story out of that. Exaggerated everything and made stuff up. Probably all of it because the bible was't even written close to his supposed lifetime. It'd be like you now writing a story about a dude who died in
1870. Without any previous records to get information from. [Edit: The first things have probably been written down like 40-50 years after his death.]And I mean if Jesus existed, he would certainly disapprove of what people do (and did) in his name.
I don't know that the History Channel is a good representation of academic consensus. It should basically never be relied upon.
Agree. But that specific article seems pretty alright. Also talks about the relics and history records for example by Tacitus.
There also is a Wikipedia article which I think is not written that well. And a lot of education material by churches or religious organizations which I did not cite for obvious reasons.
(And the German Wikipedia article about sources for the historicity of Jesus seems very good. But it's not exactly OP's question and I don't know if it helps: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au%C3%9Ferchristliche_antike_Quellen_zu_Jesus_von_Nazaret )
That's because Christian apologists constantly brigade those articles.
Edit: lol, and downvote lemmy comments I guess