• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I tend to trust experts on their own fields.

    I do too, but most historians throughout time that have studied Christian historicity have been Christians themselves, meaning these are not unbiased scientists, but more likely to be Christian fanatics desperately seeking evidence for their belief.

    Plus I don’t think it’s really that far fetched that someone could have amassed a bunch of followers and birthed a new religion.

    I agree it’s not far fetched, there is just no evidence of it, which is weird, since shortly after it becomes the official religion of the Roman empire!
    A movement that big with such a charismatic leader and no evidence?

    Again Occam’s razor indicate the story was made up by followers of Jesus Christ, an idealized concept that existed before they personified him in stories that are now included in the bible. Christianity did not start with the writings of the scripture in the bible.

    • Sasha [They/Them]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      This is something widely accepted by secular historians, it’s widely accepted by atheists too.

      Occam’s razor does not work like that. It would actually suggest that Jesus did exist, given that it requires a single person to have existed instead of requiring a mountain of very valid evidence to be a conspiracy while a whole group people, who’s entire profession revolves around determining the trustworthiness of such evidence, to suddenly all be very bad at their job on this one specific issue etc.