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.

  • SlothMama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’ve always understood historical Jesus as a concession, and not a reflection of confirmed existence.