The Christian message did not "burst upon the scene". It was just one of many cults and if it had not been adopted as the Roman state religion we may still all be pagans. Islam was spread by military conquest and then by favourable treatment of Muslims such as lower taxes.

I regard the Abrahamic faiths as an interlocking set of self-perpetuating memes. They do not require the existence of their founders to succeed or to be rendered explicable, only belief in their existence or even in just the validity of the teachings ascribed to them. Whether Jesus founded Christianity or it was a group effort (e.g. the Jerusalem Council hiding behind their own concocted Jesus mythos), doesn't really matter.

The explanation is simply that most humans are still more comfortable with ideologies that cater to their confirmation bias around mortality and transcendence. People want something that affirms their hopes and dreams and aspirations and soothes their fears. Religion has delivered this, and largely still does. So it endures.

@mordant This question could be framed differently....as in the Great Man Theory
[en.wikipedia.org]

@cava Even historically existent Great Men were not necessarily or clearly all that great, it is the mythos around their lives that confers "greatness" upon them. They are symbols at least as much as they are people.

For example, we ignore that Lincoln was given to terrible depression and suspended habeus corpus and played dirty politics with the best of them and was still rather a product of his times in how he regarded the personhood of Negroes or their fitness to have full human rights. Instead we cherry pick his brilliant moves, his compassionate side, and his martyrdom as powerful symbols.

@mordant OK that's fine but regardless of Lincoln's frailties he had the skills required to hold together a Union in the face of a civil war, and emancipate the slaves and he left us with some great ideas about who we are and where we came from. Sure he was a man of his times, he was the perfect instrument for his times...A Great Man.

@cava My point exactly. The Lincoln mythos distills his greatness. We don't hold up his failures, only his successes. I'm not denying that Lincoln had greatness in him, and that it positively shined in important and historic ways ... I'm simply saying that there's a divergence between Lincoln the symbol and Lincoln the actual man. The cause of the emancipation of slaves wasn't Lincoln, it was some of Lincoln's ideas, advanced by Lincoln's charisma and persistence and leadership skills, in spite of Lincoln's human weaknesses and blind spots.

To my original point, then, it's hardly controversial that the enduring aspect of the influence of Jesus on culture and society isn't Jesus himself, or his historicity, but the ideas and concepts and principles attributed to him and the parts of his life as presented and commonly understood.

The question is "What difference would it make..." if any of these people did not exist...think about Lincoln...if he was never President...

From the perspective of a historian, sure, establishing as best one can the facts of history is important. But establishing that Jesus was not an historical figure only really undermines the belief of those who rely on a literalist / inerrantist understanding of Christianity.

Besides, early Christianity had competing orthodoxies, all but one of which didn't win the lottery. The major one of those was gnosticism, which regarded Jesus as a celestial apparition and not a flesh and blood god-man. One can plausibly argue that half of first century Christianity didn't believe Jesus was an historical figure -- along with a significant percentage of 2nd and 3rd century Christians.

I don’t think he is speaking from a personal perspective, but from a philosophical observation. I think I get the point he is making, its all about our cultural acceptance of certain customs, regardless of whether they originated in myth or reality. Folklore in most countries and cultures is a weaving of fact and fiction, sometimes we can’t distinguish where fact ends and myth begins, but they are part and parcel of our acceptance of being part of that shared heritage and community. We are fully aware that not everything is true, it just seems to be more important to us to hold on to perceived wisdoms that are part of our shared identity and heritage. There is no denial of history involved in what he said, I think you misinterpreted his point.

@mordant I agree with all of that. However, concerning this post, Christianity is a prime example of what happens when myth and history fuse together, and people no longer care what was "real" or "true". It doesn't matter, the argument goes, because only the "influence" that the story has had. I fundamentally reject that. It's dangerous, and it leads to, amongst other things, these damn religions that most of us here long to see on the other side of history, as the myths they are based on, possibly with some historical elements that trained historians tease out with careful application of the historical method. I don't think the poster knows what he is talking about. Not separating real history from myth is as poor an intellectual exercise as not separating science from science fiction. To do that would be like saying its doesn't matter if Han Solo really existed, and the influence on people of him in his Millenium Falcon is all that counts. Nonsense.

@David1955 I hear you. I am somewhat conflicted because coming as I do out of Christian fundamentalism I understand how much damage belief contrary to established or likely facts can do. At the same time, I acknowledge the reality that people are irrational and respond to symbols more than to reality. And they are going to do that whether or not I like it. And it's a good idea to understand that motivation whether or not it floats my boat, because it makes people and broad cultural trends more predictable and explicable.

So there's a side of me that's like you, jumping up and down and asking WTF it would take for people to separate supportable belief from wishful thinking, and there's a side of me that accepts that most people just aren't interested in the distinction and never will be.

@Marionville well okay, but the problem is not when people are influenced by culture and stories that they know are a mish mash of history and myth, but when this mish mash is peddled as true and historical. Like Christianity. The poster said it doesn't really matter. I say it does.

@David1955 Okay...it does matter to us...we who are reasoning, questioning, critically thinking beings. But does it matter to the majority of people out there? I think not. That, however, should not stop us trying to make the others see our point of view, and pointing out the danger for them in believing the myths, especially the religious ones, and being able to distinguish what is dangerous to believe and what can be just a bit of childish fun, such as the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

@Matias so, notice how you assert that the Holocaust is a fact, and to be accepted. Yes, based on evidence. Historical figures likewise, based on evidence. It is the social science of history.

What bothers me is that you, and some here, tend towards thinking, well, in the end it doesn't matter so much if what we say about history is really true or not, it's all part of culture and its influence. That's bad social science. It is no better than bad physical science. I have too much respect for the social science of history, and the historical method, to ever accept that.

@Matias well now you're changing the argument. Yes, I agree, historical events and people become mythologised over time. That's inevitable, particularly by less scrutinizing minds. My objection is saying it doesn't matter, or it isn't important to apply rigour to history because, hey that's culture. You doubtless know the saying that those who forget history are deemed to repeat it. Mythologising history from the facts and evidence, as known by objective historical analysis, is one way history is forgotten. Reading Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is one thing. Reading a history book on Julius Caesar by a historian is quite another. I totally separate them. If others don't, then that reflects their ignorance of the subject.