I think Lemmy has a problem with history in general, since most people on here have degrees/training in STEM. I see a lot of inaccurate “pop history” shared on here, and a lack of understanding of historiography/how historians analyze primary sources.
The rejection of Jesus’s historicity seems to be accepting C S Lewis’s argument - that if he existed, he was a “lunatic, liar, or lord,” instead of realizing that there was nothing unusual about a messianic Jewish troublemaker in Judea during the early Roman Empire.
Just because Jesus could have existed, doesn’t necessarily mean that he did
Except a guy called (roughly translated and modernized) Jesus did exist and was associated with messianic cults and seems to have been crucified. Which wasn’t particularly uncommon, either the name, the messianic cults, or the crucifixions. Basically there’s no reason not to accept a guy that seems to be who Christianity is based on actually existed and probably said and did some of the (non miraculous, obviously) things that were written about him.
But then what prompted an apocalyptic political and religious movement to spring forth from the Levant at the time, with missionaries going round the world to share the message of one Yeshu from Galilee ?
I mean sure maybe it was a conspiracy and they lied about their founder but what’s the point of that ? Occam’s Razor tells you that most of the time when a group of people start repeating the exact same message claiming it comes from person X, then person X existed.
What’s baffling to me is that theories where Jesus doesn’t exist are generally more convoluted and less explicative. What’s the point ?
I mean, he did leave a big mark in the world but yeah, sure, although we’re about two millennia late for visual confirmation, lol.
Yeah, so did Zeus
I think you misunderstand this post: Jesus is a dude who lived. Just a dude. No one is making any more claims.
And that’s not an agreed upon fact among historians.