What was the historical Jesus like, behind the obviously altered

>>1388424
The Scriptures are teachings more than historical landmarking, though the placement of Christ is throughout these readings as well.

I don't know, OP, how would anyone know what he is like if we reject all the earliest accounts of him as worthless?

He was an apocalyptic preacher, originally a disciple of John the Baptist, another apocalyptic preacher. He believed that God would soon intervene to overthrow evil and establish his rule on earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhEUWobdXqY

This should give you all you need to know.

Read Zealot by Reza Aslan

>>1388468
>read a pop work by a Muslim trying to pull a "y-you too!" against Christians who criticize Mohammed for his violence
Why not just recommend the Da Vinci Code? It's more enteraining

>>1388468
No, don't, Aslan is a creative writing graduate posing as a historian and does a pretty poor job of it.

>>1388477

Sup /Pol/?

>>1388424

Revolution in Judea, by Hyam Maccoby makes a stab at it, but the admitted weakness in attempting to reconstruct texts to edit out probable biases leads to more speculation than real prediction.

>>1388424
This thread might just make me shake the dust off my sandals and move on.

Yup. It did.

>>1388454
Well usually you can read between the lines, cut out the more clearly embellished stuff and find a real man behind it, by questioning the overall actions and motives of the man.

Literally all that's even reasonably certain is that he was a Jewish preacher crucified by the Romans.

There's decent evidence to believe he was in some way connected with the Essenes and John the Baptist, who baptized him.

There's nothing even close to consensus on anything else.