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:
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