RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 11:08 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 11:09 am by TheMessiah.)
(June 9, 2015 at 9:07 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(June 9, 2015 at 8:56 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: Sorry, but I didn't read the 27 pages, but from the article in the OP it seems the basic summary is that JC, as people commonly understand from the bible, is primarily a myth, based on a probable actual person? or am I misunderstanding it?
I believe the conclusion is that there most likely existed some rabbi known as Jesus who claimed to be the messiah, and was crucified. Literally anything other than that is unconfirmable.
Correct.
On the topic of ''anything other'' --- that's where historians really get into heated debates, but generally they agree some dude who claimed to be a messiah got fucked over by the Romans.