65
Jesus was a historical person. This doesn’t mean Christianity is correct, but there is sufficient historical evidence and most mainstream scholars of the era agree on this. (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
143 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

I think even "vague Jesus human person existed" is maybe too much confidence with nothing to back it up. Don't even know if it was a singular dooms day death cult leader or an amalgamation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Amalgamation doesn't work on such short timelines. We have evidence of christian missionaries less than 50 years after JCs death. It's not comparable to, say, Arthur, where the legends start 400 years after his supposed death.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent