this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2025
64 points (69.5% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

8425 readers
12 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.


6. Defend your opinion


This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rodneylives@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Going from memory here, I heard it years back. Robert M. Price's podcast The Bible Geek covered the argument against a historical Jesus in an episode, noting that a major pillar in the argument is an obituary written by Josephus. Wikipedia has a page on Josephus's account.

Price's argument, such that I remember, has to do with the fact that Josephus' account outright calls Jesus the Messiah, despite supposedly being written in the first century CE when this would have been a niche argument, suggesting that this account was not actually written when it purports to be. But I haven't listened to Bible Geek in a long time, all of this could be a misrepresentation.

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yeah afaik the earliest record of the gospels and Jesus date to 90AD, which is of course beyond the memory of a single generation. Either the stories were passed down orally that long (telephone game), or the whole thing was really invented around that time, since there are multiple written records suddenly appearing in the early 2nd century.

The creation of Christianity around 90-120AD makes more sense than anything to me, given the geopolitics of the time.

A stroll through any necropolis back then would reveal many tombs marked Yeshua and Miryam and Yosef. Just common names. If someone were to invent myths around that time, they might just pick names like that, especially given the hebrew meaning of Yeshua (salvation through god).

I not a biblical scholar so grains of salt.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The earliest Gospel, Mark, was written about 70 CE. (There’s also evidence that a “Q source” and a “sayings source” were floating around earlier - the commonalities in Luke and Matthew) Paul’s epistles are even earlier; Galatians was written somewhere 40-60 CE. Paul’s epistles are written to communities of Christians, meaning that that Christianity has already spread by then.

[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not quite certain that Jesus and Paul actually met in person. So all his writing might be apocryphal. His word might have become christian canon, but he is not really a source one can trust.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Interesting, thank you for the missing detail there. I didn't realize Paul's writings were that early, but, he would have been 65-70 at least by then? I suppose that's possible.

[–] rodneylives@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

What I remember from Bible Geek (and/or Human Bible, another podcast he did) was that the earliest of the gospels actually dates to the 4th century CE, and that three of them are likely derivative works from an earlier book, lost to us, that scholars call "Q." I think it was John that was the only gospel thought not to originate from it.

Addition: looking it up, here's Q source on Wikipedia. It states that Matthew and Luke are thought to originate from Q, but not Mark or John.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Price is specifically referring to the “Testimonium Flavianum“ there, which most scholars agree was altered. The part of The Antiquities that refers to “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” most scholars think is original, and I don’t know if Price has made an argument about that quote.

Price is probably the only person with enough background to be a mythicist, but his arguments still just don’t seem to match how people act. “Oh, the Egyptians have Osiris, let’s make up our own god who gets resurrected!”

The evidence just seems more likely to show that the man existed, and had more elaborate details added to his biography as time went on. You can see a much higher “Christology” as you read each Gospel in the order they were written (details in the resurrection story, how many angels were at the tomb) until you get to John which makes Jesus the logos itself. The story needs to start with some sort of nucleus, something real, that has things added to it step by step.

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

“Oh, the Egyptians have Osiris, let’s make up our own god who gets resurrected!”

Isn't that pretty much the whole origin of the roman pantheon? They heard about the cool greek gods and made their own copies.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

That’s a common misunderstanding/simplification. It’s more “wow, these gods are kinda similar to ours, so they must be the same.” Portable Orange on YT has a good and well sourced video, and I think reading Dr. Devereaux’s blog posts is a good way to understand some ideas about ancient polytheism. Neither of these are published journal articles or books, but they both thoroughly cite their sources.

[–] 6stringringer@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 months ago

Jesus-ish existed? Just a thought. A little of this a little if that. Some of these & those. Perhaps a few of the other things and ta da. An individuals legacy can change with every generation. The fish gets bigger every time my Dad recounts the tale of the monster Largemouth Bass he caught.

[–] 58008@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

There's a conspiracy theory that Jesus is a composite character plagiarised from half a dozen or more pre-Christian faiths, and in particular the key points of his life are actually personified versions of the Winter solstice and the movement of the sun and the stars (including the Zodiac in some versions of the theory).

It's widely believed amongst atheists, but it's simply not true on any level. He was a real dude and was really crucified, and the supposed earlier versions of Christ-like characteristics are either extremely tenuous coincidences or simply outright lies (with some honest mistranslations/misinterpretations). Bart Ehrman, an atheist himself but a world-renowned scholar on the history of Christianity, has several books which deal with this question to varying degrees, the main one being "Did Jesus Exist?". It's worth reading (or listening to) if you're curious about it. He addresses the specific claims of proponents of the conspiracy theory directly, like those of Richard Carrier.

I'm atheist, but I respect history and historical scholarship. It's one of the handful of disciplines that humanity can't really afford to overlook or devalue in 2025 if we want to survive into the next millennia. Agreeing on reality is one of the hardest things to do in the current climate. Overeager atheism that plays fast and loose with historical fact is not helping us secularise the world. It's making us seem like we're debunkable, because in this specific case, we are. It's like in a video game when you get to a boss fight and see that the boss has a glowing section on its body that you're supposed to shoot. Pretending Jesus wasn't a real person is like us placing a giant glowing chest plate on our efforts and watching helplessly as Christians fire directly at it. There's no need for it.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

realizing that there was nothing unusual about a messianic Jewish troublemaker in Judea during the early Roman Empire.

Maybe nothing unusual about his existence, since it is historically proven anyway. But what about the stories of healing and even resurrecting? Would you also think that these were not unusual?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›