Jews, Muslims and Christians MUST insist Jesus Christ was the man of the book and existed because if they were to question it for a second (maybe excluding the Jews?) then their religion may appear to have faults.

IE; No Jesus, no sacrifice, no savior, a domino effect of falsehoods.

I hear people constantly saying:

Jesus existed, anyone who says otherwise is crazy and stupid.

Jesus never existed, anyone who says otherwise is crazy and stupid.

And a final question:

Was Jesus Christs sacrifice manufactured as a sort of "religious reform" to the blood sacrifices at the time? If i understand correctly, Christianity is an offshoot of the Jewish faith, so it was basically a "sect" breaking off that formed into its own religion.

(I really hate thinking im breaking a rule here, my first time asking here)

Also, i mean no offense by suggesting anything, I am just actually curious of the possibility.

In the 18th century, Lima outnumbered Philly by a huge margin. Was it because of a headstart? Trade?

I've also made this question at /r/AskAnthropology, but this sub is far more active, and I guess that the people who study religions might have a saying at this.

I'm currently reading Eliade's 'Myth of the Eternal Return', and I've already read his 'Myth and Reality'. I also have 'The Sacred and The Profane' waiting for me at my book shelf, and so far I enjoy his works too much. I'd like to read something posterior to his works where he is (at least a bit) criticized. Can anyone help me here?

Is this historically accurate at all?

Let's define propaganda as information of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

Thinking about all the news of countries spying on each other (Germany, the US, Turkey...). If you're presented with transcripts and emails from these activities 20 year from now, how do you handle data gathered like this? Very personal and sensitive information is sure to be included.

What about information acquired from torture or murder? Is there a written moral code among historians or a statute of limitations for such things?

A question that I was asked a few days ago by a family friend, but i was unable to provide a good answer, as it is far from my area of research. There were a couple of questions that were posed:

What was the size of this organisation? Did they have much sway on Spartan politics? What was the extent of the killings of the helots?

Hopefully someone can answer these questions!

I'm interested in a more detailed history of Taiwan than the one provided on Wikipedia, for example:

Were there any interactions with China prior to the European colonial powers or Ming?

When did the first Hakka, Fujianese or other settlers arrive in Taiwan?

When and in what capacity did the Ming Dynasty interact with Taiwan - why did they decide to take it?

How did the Qing Emperors feel about Taiwan? Did the average late 17th-19th century Chinese feel that Taiwan was part of the Chinese Empire?

When did the modern mythology that "Taiwan has always been a part of China" become a part of mainstream history?

Any info on pre-Japanese Taiwan not found on Wiki or other quick Google searches would be great. Thanks.

I keep hearing that CIA trained Osama bin laden and I don't know why he turned against the US.

Reading up on the Roman Republic (currently re-reading Adrian Goldsworthy's Life of a Colossus) I have always wondered what exactly was the source of Cicero's power (autocritas)?

He was a "novous homo", he had zero martial success, he had very limited wealth, yet he was a mover and shaker in a world dominated by people like Caesar, Pompey, Crassus, Cato. All these guys had either an illustrious family line (Caesar, Cato, Clodius etc), or they were acclaimed as the greatest generals of their time (Caesar, Pompey) or was wealthier than half the Senate put together (Crassus). Now I am leaving out a lot of other names, but they would all fulfill one of the other criteria above.

Cicero was a successful lawyer, a plebian, had relatively no wealth, yet made consul, yet was considered a power centre in Rome.

The question is, from what or whom did he draw his power?

Why did Austria do this and what were the pro's and con's of this?

Thanks.

It seems to be one of the few almost universal traits among fast foods - pizza delivery is common and consistent across the board. What's the history behind that, if we know?

I often see German conspiracy theorists write about Germany not signing a peace contract after WWII and still being at war. They also talk about Germany not being a sovereign state as it is still being occupied by the US. I know this is obviously not correct, but what exactly is legitimate evidence against it (for example a specific treaty/contract)?