National Geographic missed an opportunity to talk about what happened 1,700 years ago. They focus on the dating, but leave it up to you to fill in what the world was like at the time. There was still debate about Jesus being real. That is exactly why Constantine called the council, religions fighting in your kingdom is bad for commerce. Having voted that the worst form of Christianity was the right one, they then set off to get some evidence to confirm their preconception.
I can just imagine the people in Jerusalem upon arrival of this troop from Constantinople. “Yeah, ah, yeah sure, the ah, tomb, right, the tomb of Jesus, it’s ah, right down the road. For a few denari I’ll take you there. and a a cross, sure, um, here (picks up a piece of wood laying on the ground and carves from letters in it). No problem, I’ll sell that to you too.”
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/jesus-tomb-archaeology-jerusalem-christianity-rome/
Very good point. Everyone assumes there’s something reverential and sacred about religion, religious history, etc. But some human nature hasn’t changed - gotta eat, gotta have money to buy stuff to eat.
Evolution in religion happens when political, technological or military changes take place. And the area was ready for some evolution in religion. What seems to be happening is people are rejecting the faith based Jesus and that’s the only Jesus they understand. If it is not in the bible, then “it did not happen" way of thinking. Then yes, it is possible Jesus did not exist. On the political side, outside of the bible it can get muddy. You have Jesus who was killed by his bother John in the temple that was talked about by the people a lot.
Then you have the high priest who didn’t like to be confused with the other Jesus’s, so he changed his name to Jason. You have Jesus, the son of Phabet. And Jesus, son of Sie. Jesus, son of Damneus. Jesus, son of Gamaliel. Jesus, son of Josadek. Jesus, son of Fabus. Jesus, son of Danmetas. Jesus, son of Sapphias. Jesus, son of Shaphat. Jesus, son of Gamalas. Jesus, son of Ananus. These Jesus’s seemed to get recorded in the history of the time for various religion reasons.
Of course, we want the data about Jesus of Nazareth. And why would they or anybody at that time want to change what he did in history or get rid of the pathway Jesus was building? That is a really simple question. Jesus was an atheist, as was many of the Gnostic teachings. He believed in religion, but not deities. God to Jesus was “knowledge" as in religions out of India. But Jesus could not step directly Gnostic teaching, the people were not ready. It had to be a well thought out approach. And being in the top political office of religion in the area was maybe the only way it could happen. So, did Jesus run for political office. I bet you will be reading more in this area in the following years. Only a few of the Gnostic teaching survived. And those Gnostic books are new to the religious world.
Jesus son of WTF?
Jesus was just a name. That there were other people with that name doesn’t mean anything.
The point was that there was a lot of stories about a religious “Jesus" at that time. And don’t tell me that the name doesn’t mean anything. Go to church. Mostly what you will hear is – Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.
The point was that there was a lot of stories about a religious “Jesus" at that time. And don’t tell me that the name doesn’t mean anything. Go to church. Mostly what you will hear is – Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.Of course the name means something now, but at the time, it was just a name. "The Christ" part is the part that proclaims that person a messiah. Go to church and ask anyone. Also, go to Mexico, they still use the name Jesus for regular people. It's just a name.
I’ve been looking at the book of Mark lately, the earliest known gospel. It has a rather angry Jesus and ends abruptly (before harmonization). Looked at as originally intended, I see a story about a savior who comes and most people don’t recognize him. It’s a universal hero story.