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
[–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

The Zoroastrian “borrowing” is more along the lines of there’s a perfect good force versus a perfect evil force.

This is far from the only thing. They also had the concept that everyone has free will to choose between good and evil. I believe they also had a concept of final judgement and heaven/hell (or an analogue).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 10 months ago

    Were those solely present in Zoroastrianism? From what I understand of Egyptian religion, there’s the whole Thoth “weighing your heart to see if it’s lighter than a feather” thing. I think free will has always been a “popular” idea, but even then, there are passages in the Bible that contradict free will - to the point that Calvinists much later discarded it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent