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.
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.