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.
Jesus coming to earth as a human was possibly borrowed from Krishna, who I believe came to earth as an “avatar”.
I think there are other similarities between Jesus and Krishna.
The earliest Christians did not view Jesus as God incarnate. That’s a later development through the second century.
Why Krishna specifically, instead of another avatar of Vishnu like Rama?
How do you explain the transmission of that idea? Are we supposed to imagine something of a “Journey to the East” where mostly illiterate conquered peasants brought back the ideas if not the text of the Bhagavad Gita?
Maybe look into who popularized your idea. The guy who made Zeitgeist also made Loose Change…