There’s really no historical proof, outside biblical accounts.
But that doesn’t really mean there’s a need to dismiss it out of hand. There probably was a Jewish mystic faith healer named Jesus (or whatever,); who was executed by the Roman’s for stirring the shit.
There were in fact, a lot of them. (John the Baptist comes to mind,)
Further, his name (and his father’s,) were. Both extremely common. it’s reasonable to assume at least a few were in fact named Jesus, son of Joseph, and apparently from Nazareth.
Together it’s actually not that unlikely. Though he would have had more in common with the sleaziest televangelist faithhealer you can imagine. Joel Osteen, perhaps.
One historical interpretation of the character known as Jesus is the same as the character known as Robin Hood: a collection of folk tales and exaggerations about a handful of people who lived over the course of a century, later attributed all to one person.
I mean, I just assume he was a grifter whose disciples kept on grifting after he died. It should be noted that the earliest anything was written about him specifically was about fifty years after he supposedly died. Which is why there’s a lot of retconning going on between the various accounts.
Either way, we know there were a lot of mystics in the area and time in question, and leading up to that, it was the jewish leadership’s MO to just knife them and leave their bodies in a ditch somewhere. Which. Romans kinda took issue to that. They don’t like incidental and unofficial killings. (and the leaving the bodies in the ditch… untidy!)
So, the jewish leadership had to get “creative” and convince the roman goverment he was a really bad dude. Which. He then started on about being “king of the jews” and that… well… Rome takes issue with rebellion. Totally reasonable to imagine that all happened. What happened next… not so much. but then, he was a grifter and his disciples learned the grift,
There’s really no historical proof, outside biblical accounts.
But that doesn’t really mean there’s a need to dismiss it out of hand. There probably was a Jewish mystic faith healer named Jesus (or whatever,); who was executed by the Roman’s for stirring the shit.
There were in fact, a lot of them. (John the Baptist comes to mind,)
Further, his name (and his father’s,) were. Both extremely common. it’s reasonable to assume at least a few were in fact named Jesus, son of Joseph, and apparently from Nazareth.
Together it’s actually not that unlikely. Though he would have had more in common with the sleaziest televangelist faithhealer you can imagine. Joel Osteen, perhaps.
This hasn’t been updated since before the 2020 election, but it’s a hell of a ride…
https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/
One historical interpretation of the character known as Jesus is the same as the character known as Robin Hood: a collection of folk tales and exaggerations about a handful of people who lived over the course of a century, later attributed all to one person.
I mean, I just assume he was a grifter whose disciples kept on grifting after he died. It should be noted that the earliest anything was written about him specifically was about fifty years after he supposedly died. Which is why there’s a lot of retconning going on between the various accounts.
Either way, we know there were a lot of mystics in the area and time in question, and leading up to that, it was the jewish leadership’s MO to just knife them and leave their bodies in a ditch somewhere. Which. Romans kinda took issue to that. They don’t like incidental and unofficial killings. (and the leaving the bodies in the ditch… untidy!)
So, the jewish leadership had to get “creative” and convince the roman goverment he was a really bad dude. Which. He then started on about being “king of the jews” and that… well… Rome takes issue with rebellion. Totally reasonable to imagine that all happened. What happened next… not so much. but then, he was a grifter and his disciples learned the grift,