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.
Can someone share a link or two that confirms the existence of historical Jesus?
UsefulCharts just released a youtube video on the topic. The argument is basically “the earliest documents referencing Jesus aren’t explicit that he was real but on the other hand it wasn’t long before he was treated as real”. Basically there wasn’t a lot of time for myth to be reinterpreted as history.
Personally I’m ambivalent, Sherlock Holmes wasn’t real but he may have had a real effect on criminology. People may confuse his historicity. Compared to Houdini.
This passage in Josephus’s Antiquities would be the best evidence outside of the New Testament texts. Josephus refers to “Jesus, who was called Christ”’s brother James being executed, likely due to his role in leading an early group of Christians.
You can also read Bart Ehrman for some analysis and arguments from a professional historian.
I was under the impression that historians more didn’t have any evidence to discount the existence of the guy than so much as distinct records of him, so because of Christianity it’s generally accepted a guy existed. But it’s been a while since I looked into it and my memory is kinda shit, I’m getting old.