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.
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 ?