just some critical thinking notes.

The title says: "Findings Cast Doubt..." One might expect that the core of the essay will be .... findings. One might expect that as with most commonly taught English writing practices, the first paragraph would both outline the point, and give a brief summary of the point.

Seven, eight paragraphs in, the 'Findings' are still being teased.

This type of article ... accurate or not, is working through a 'Palm reader' technique, where they build up a series of 'connections with the subject', a long line of 'Yeses' then they slowly begin to introduce _their points. The technique is able to slip past some percent of critical thinking, because the person has been led down a path of agreements.

Again accurate or not, it couches the 'Findings' in a sea of 'everyone knows', 'modern scholars agree' , 'doubts have existed from the beginning'. These are not facts, they are well worded disparaging digs, which contextualize the subject to their bias.

I mean, yeah. If you read something about gnostic non-Christian versions of Judaism existent at that time, you might notice that the whole idea of him is reminiscent of what a gnostic cult believer should be himself.

The part about being a higher entity clothed in human existence which should remember itself, drop those clothes and ascend.

Probably grew out of some story of "the guy who actually managed to do that", ha-ha, which somehow blended with a few real figures.

EDIT: Now when I think about it, makes Jedi religion in Star Wars seem even more Christian. Especially if we count various concepts (Journal of the Whills) and branches existent in the EU (Living Force, Potentium and what not).

Interesting. I thought it was fairly well established that Jesus existed in some capacity but the debate was about who he actually was and (from a religious standpoint) if he did any of the things the Bible claims he did. It's interesting to read that non-jewish people of the time seemed to have no knowledge of his existence.

At the same time though, I wonder if it's possible that most people just ignored him, which is why there's apparently very few accounts of him until after he supposedly died, resurrected and ascended to heaven. Kinda like a street preacher in Times Square, NYC. How many people actually acknowledge street preachers on social media, and how many of them actually know the preachers by name? Then think about how social media didn't exist yet, so the bar to be recorded in history by uninterested third parties (even just as a letter to a friend about that "annoying Jesus guy") is probably a lot higher.

Not saying he existed, just that it's interesting to think that he could have existed but the lack of evidence is just because no one gave a fuck.