Yes, I think as a pure theological question, historical thought has been a bit complicated. So I linked to the Wikipedia article that hopefully goes into it a bit. I admit to not having read the Wikipedia article carefully. This isn’t my area at all.
Wikipedia takes the politicized view. Probably because Israel was occupied by Rome, and Constantine liked it. There are some views that say Christianity was invented by Jews for Rome, and there’s certainly no evidence for a singular, historical Jesus, to the best of my knowledge. Nonetheless, the Nicean council left out plenty, but left in some the lore that would be explained by and expounded on the books excluded. Probably again d/t Roman political purview.
Most historians agree Jesus very likely was a real person. Possibly even an algamation of multiple people.
However, doesn’t make him the son of God or even a holy entity.
Most likely he was a highly charismatic person who had a LOT of grievances with both the church and government, and his message turned into a political movement the Romans tried to quench ala Paul and the re-writings of the text at the time.
We actually have a good chunk of knowledge on Pontius Pilate, who was a real person. A real person who would NEVER wash his hands of executing someone. He was a big fan of it.
Part of the revision was to eject the Romans from the death of Jesus, and blame the Jewish people, in order to make the movement more palatable to the Roman people. Thus, the story of Pilate “washing his hands” of the matter because he thought Jesus was in fact, a righteous man.
Jews didn’t crucify people. They stoned them to death.
Jesus had a lot of criticism of the Roman occupation and was killed by the Romans.
Decades later when mythology started to surround this human, we see the revisions really kick into high gear
Interesting, thanks. I do have the impression that there is evidence of a historical Jesus, though maybe not conclusive. Wikipedia again (maybe not objectively) discusses this:
“covenant” here, to my understanding, means marriage. Abram choose to be spiritually wedded to the Caanite desert/warrior/storm god. El was a peaceful god. 72 recognized names of God, afaict, but I be confusing that with hermetic kabbalah (Christian mysticism). Each name recognizes different aspects. And gnosticism is something entirely different.
Maybe the Jewish faith has kept to that but Christians have a long tradition of practicing syncretism and priests were happy just to get a Danish king to say “Hail Odin the all father and Freyr’s might and uh… also the Christian God I guess.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_have_no_other_gods_before_me
Jewish law doesn’t apply to gentiles, for good or ill.,
“Before.”
Now the mystic branches of these religions have a different interpretation, to lesser and greater degrees. The fanatics in each would kill them all.
Yes, I think as a pure theological question, historical thought has been a bit complicated. So I linked to the Wikipedia article that hopefully goes into it a bit. I admit to not having read the Wikipedia article carefully. This isn’t my area at all.
Wikipedia takes the politicized view. Probably because Israel was occupied by Rome, and Constantine liked it. There are some views that say Christianity was invented by Jews for Rome, and there’s certainly no evidence for a singular, historical Jesus, to the best of my knowledge. Nonetheless, the Nicean council left out plenty, but left in some the lore that would be explained by and expounded on the books excluded. Probably again d/t Roman political purview.
Most historians agree Jesus very likely was a real person. Possibly even an algamation of multiple people.
However, doesn’t make him the son of God or even a holy entity.
Most likely he was a highly charismatic person who had a LOT of grievances with both the church and government, and his message turned into a political movement the Romans tried to quench ala Paul and the re-writings of the text at the time.
We actually have a good chunk of knowledge on Pontius Pilate, who was a real person. A real person who would NEVER wash his hands of executing someone. He was a big fan of it.
Part of the revision was to eject the Romans from the death of Jesus, and blame the Jewish people, in order to make the movement more palatable to the Roman people. Thus, the story of Pilate “washing his hands” of the matter because he thought Jesus was in fact, a righteous man.
Jews didn’t crucify people. They stoned them to death.
Jesus had a lot of criticism of the Roman occupation and was killed by the Romans.
Decades later when mythology started to surround this human, we see the revisions really kick into high gear
Interesting, thanks. I do have the impression that there is evidence of a historical Jesus, though maybe not conclusive. Wikipedia again (maybe not objectively) discusses this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
I love how that part admits that there are other gods.
“covenant” here, to my understanding, means marriage. Abram choose to be spiritually wedded to the Caanite desert/warrior/storm god. El was a peaceful god. 72 recognized names of God, afaict, but I be confusing that with hermetic kabbalah (Christian mysticism). Each name recognizes different aspects. And gnosticism is something entirely different.
Maybe the Jewish faith has kept to that but Christians have a long tradition of practicing syncretism and priests were happy just to get a Danish king to say “Hail Odin the all father and Freyr’s might and uh… also the Christian God I guess.”
There’s plenty of references in the OT to Jews doing the same thing.
And European Christianity chased out worship of anyone save the God of Abraham rather violently after a generation or two.