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
I’ve read variations of these themes, over my short time on this planet. Maybe. Hard to say. I’m thinking of a millenia old game of “telephone/secret” however it’s called wherever people are.
Anyway, the point is don’t take things so literally, religious and non-religious alike. And, like a bumper sticker I saw once, several decades ago: God has one son and we are all him.The best, worst and average among everyone on the planet, regardless of my personal opinion, I gather. And I think that’s probably what Joni Mitchell’s Woodstock and the whole hippie generation was about, despite politicians and media making it about sex, drugs, rock-n-roll. That’s probably also why recording studios and awards organizations make sure freedom music will never be mainstream, again.
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:
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
I’ve read variations of these themes, over my short time on this planet. Maybe. Hard to say. I’m thinking of a millenia old game of “telephone/secret” however it’s called wherever people are.
Anyway, the point is don’t take things so literally, religious and non-religious alike. And, like a bumper sticker I saw once, several decades ago: God has one son and we are all him.The best, worst and average among everyone on the planet, regardless of my personal opinion, I gather. And I think that’s probably what Joni Mitchell’s Woodstock and the whole hippie generation was about, despite politicians and media making it about sex, drugs, rock-n-roll. That’s probably also why recording studios and awards organizations make sure freedom music will never be mainstream, again.
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
You’re welcome. Thanks for the exchange.