• bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    3 days ago

    Imma be a total dweeb and give the correct answer. Jesus is just Josh in Greek. There’s many meticulous Roman records about messianic rebels in Judea, not a single Josh among them. One possible interpretation would be that the Romans were so invested I’m erasing Jesus from history, they removed the Joshes, but Christianity was a NON-factor before 77AD, so doubtful Roman clerks were furiously burning records to cover up a messianic figure nobody would give a shit about for a century.

    The earliest 1st century CE images have Jesus portrayed like a little Harry Potter of indeterminate race, which seems weird since he’s supposed to be 30, but maybe it’s a Michael J Fox situation, where he points his magic wand at images of the miracles (like loaves and fishes) but it’s more likely he never existed (thus the absence of that Josh in the meticulous records).

    Rome around this time was religiously divided between an ostensible state religion of the Roman pantheon we all know and love and various “cults” such as The Cult of Saint John, which predates Christianity – you can think of his appearance in Christianity like how Munch from Homicide: Life on The Streets carried over to Law & Order: SVU. Other cults were influential among various groups – Cult of Isis and Osiris was for the nerds, Mithraism was for the jocks, Cult of Cybele was for the ladies.

    Constantine, when he came to power, desperately wanted to reboot the Roman state religion with more of that slick theocratic energy they saw in Judea, so he decided the answer was scrapbooking: He’d call the religion Christianity, but Jesus would be sexy Apollo, and God would be bearded Zeus, both of Greco-Roman imagery. The marriage ceremony would come from Isis and Osiris, and they shoehorn in mother imagery from Cybele and Skandamata, creating Mary iconography. Throw in a dash of baptism from John the Baptist and Mitraism’s bath in bull’s blood, and voila! Christianity as we know it.

    So the tl;dr is that’s not your Jesus, that’s Sexy Apollo with a Jesus skin mod, and there never was a historical Jesus, he never existed

    • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I mean, there probably was a carpenter called Jeshua… But you could probably say the same today.

      • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 days ago

        This is why I don’t take it seriously.

        Was there a carpenter turned preacher named Jesus in ancient Judea? Sure why not.

        Was there an accountant turned preacher named Bill in 1940s Alabama? Sure why not.

        It’s such a mundane claim it’s not worth taking seriously.

      • flora_explora@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        The non-historicity of Jesus has never had traction in scholarship. Mythicism is rejected by virtually all mainstream scholars of antiquity, and has been considered a fringe theory for more than two centuries. Mythicism is criticized on numerous grounds such as for commonly being advocated by non-experts or poor scholarship, being ideologically driven, its reliance on arguments from silence, lacking positive evidence, the dismissal or distortion of sources, questionable or outdated methodologies, either no explanation or wild explanations of origins of Christian belief and early churches, and outdated comparisons with mythology. While rejected by mainstream scholarship, with the rise of the Internet the Christ myth theory has attracted more attention in popular culture, and some of its proponents are associated with atheist activism.