The Historicity of Jesus is such an interesting topic. There almost certainly was a man from Nazareth named Jesus (we have pretty good unbiased sources there). However, unless you are a follower of his (or potentially some related religions), there are obviously mystical things associated with him that you likely do not believe to actually have happened. Even followers disagree about the veracity of certain stories.…
Look at this from the perspective of a believer: historians agree Jesus existed, and was a prophet type figure who was executed. But they don’t know much more. They’re constantly trying add to that bare outline, but the additions are no more than speculation. This speculation changes frequently. The changes are based in trends in historical methodology unrelated to the Christian faith. Was Jesus a Buddhist? Did he tr…
What archaeology is telling us about the real Jesus
101–102 of 102 posts
Notovitch and Kersten have nothing to do with 1960s.
Re: What archaeology is telling us about the real Jesus
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
> i.e. by disagreeing with a person who says that Jesus being a "good guy" is an important aspect of the Christian faith To be fair - and without offering an opinion either way on the thread itself - they never disagreed it was important . What they said was "If you think Jesus being a 'good guy' is the most important part of Jesus, that's absolutely missing the point of Christianity".
God does miracles, whoop-de-doo. God avoids temptation, whatevs. God suffers as the sacrificial goat to expiate our sins? Yeah, right . A good guy doing those? That is the essential point of Christianity, that God became man in order to walk in our shoes but still show us how to walk better.
I assume you're replying to me in error as my post says nothing about any of your points. In fact 50% of my entire comment was specifically saying I had no opinion either way.