Your phrasing implies the first parts actually happened
Followers of the cult claim an ancient carpenter started the cult and got executed by Romans, same as how they claim he respawned after: in contradiction of all evidence, and without being able to show integrity in discussions of the topic
Fair point. More accurate: "Followers claim their guy did miracles, got killed, came back to life." Zero contemporary evidence outside their own texts. Romans kept decent records - no mention of zombie prophet causing mass hysteria in Jerusalem. But pointing out obvious mythology gets you labeled edgy. Wild how ancient fanfiction still runs the world.
Still implies "their guy" was an ancient carpenter instead of whoever actually started the religion
