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.
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