this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2025

63 points (69.6% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

8128 readers

122 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

technopagan@lemmy.world

Dremor@lemmy.world

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 4 days ago by andros_rex@lemmy.world to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world

132 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.

(page 3) 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

ITT: "Hitler existed"

Oh so you're a Nazi and believe Raiders of the Lost Ark was a documentary?! Go to hell! (Which doesn't exist and I know that because I'm smart.)

Anyway, my understanding was that the existence of a single man, Yeshua the Nazarene, was still a bit controversial. Don't some scholars suspect the Biblical Jesus was an amalgamation of a number of itinerant preachers? Or does much of the historical evidence lie in the fact that the Gospels seem to be talking about the same person? Which I think is your take?

What's your background on this particular post? LOL, not looking for a resume, just broad strokes.

Also, why is he referred to as being from Nazareth when the Bible clearly states he was born in Bethlehem? Was Nazareth a state in which lay Bethlehem? I thought Judea was the state.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Don’t some scholars suspect the Biblical Jesus was an amalgamation of a number of itinerant preachers?

I haven’t seen this idea seriously suggested. Perhaps some of the ideas are an amalgamation - I suspect Paul had to do with a lot of softening of anti-Roman rhetoric. But the mainstream consensus suggests an individual.

Also, why is he referred to as being from Nazareth when the Bible clearly states he was born in Bethlehem? Was Nazareth a state in which lay Bethlehem? I thought Judea was the state.

What seems to be likely is that he was from Nazareth (tiny, backwater town), but prophecy would suggest he needed to be from Bethlehem, which explains the ridiculous “go to your homeland for the census” thing. (This also is sorta evidence for the historicity of the individual - what we might call a “criterion of embarrassment” - if they were just going to make the guy up on the spot they’d have had him just born in Bethlehem.)

My background is that I have a BA in history, and have done a little graduate level study of religion and historiography. I’m not a professional academic but I’m enough of an armchair enthusiast to have studied a little Koine.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

they’d have had him just born in Bethlehem

Doesn't the Bible say exactly that?

So his parents were from Nazareth and the census was a literary device to get Jesus' birth to line up with prophecy? I'm still a bit confused.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

So his parents were from Nazareth and the census was a literary device to get Jesus’ birth to line up with prophecy?

Yes. Jesus was referred to often as a “of Nazareth.” If he had actually born in Bethlehem, then he probably would have been referred to as “of Bethlehem.” Notice how Mark, the gospel that was probably written first, does not have any form of birth story. Luke and Matthew have two contradictory accounts, which invoke a contrivance to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. Mark just says that he came out of Nazareth.

It’s easy to see the authors of Luke and Matthew adding the nativity stories in to make a prophetic argument.

I think the closest thing to a “historical” Jesus in the Gospels is probably found in the original Mark. The ending of Mark describing Jesus’s appearances after the resurrection is a later addition and was not present in the original texts.

[–] 58008@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days 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 4 days 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?

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 4 days ago

When people stop being at war with themselves, various degrees of physical and mental healing happen.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world -4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

I never understood the problem with Jesus existing. Like, duh, you think the Roman Empire, the America of the time, the Big Satan, would just be randomly coerced into changing their state religion by, well, nothing? A group of loud folks that followed the (new and radical at their time, btw) teachings of... no one? Even without much historical knowledge, Jesus existing seems like the most reasonable conclusion, lol.

I think those who had bad experiences with religion often go all out... but just because some religious ideologies might be internally inconsistent or just because your parents forced you to go to church instead of letting you play Pokémon Emerald and you resent them for it does not mean that nothing behind Judeo-Christianity happened. 🤷

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Son_of_Macha@lemmy.cafe -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Jesus was in no way a historical figure.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Very convincing argument./s

Can you provide evidence of a 1st century conspiracy to make such a figure up? What was the purpose of that conspiracy?

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments