Current Events > Why do most historians agree Jesus was a real person when there are no...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Historical records of him outside of the Bible, which doesn't count as a valid historical account?

because there are

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.[10][11]

In a review of the state of research, the Jewish scholar Amy-Jill Levine stated that "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" and that all portraits of Jesus are subject to criticism by some group of scholars.[2]

---

how can jesus be real if our eyes aren't real
---

I always felt like they truly know he's not a real person yet because Catholicism and Christianity do have deep roots in world history both good and bad, they just humor them anyway so believers don't get butthurt or his/her reputation in that field is damaged.
---

Jagr_68 posted...

I always felt like they truly know he's not a real person yet because Catholicism and Christianity do have deep roots in world history both good and bad, they just humor them anyway so believers don't get butthurt or his/her reputation in that field is damaged.

you feel historians just believe made up stuff and don't value the integrity of their field

well I mean, if you feel that way it must be true!


btw, if this was true, why don't they humor the Jews about the pyramids?
---

the pyramids were constructed by aliens in the 12th century to confuse the egyptians
---

for a lot of people in antiquity there isn't any hard evidence they existed, so with someone like jesus we have to view things differently.

we have to say "there is this guy jesus, given the information we have of him from sources, can we conclude it is likely that he exists?"

so first you do have non-christian sources that mention him. people like tacitus and pliny the younger do mention christians, jesus, the crucifixion, and pontius pilate, and for tacitus he mentions jesus in a pretty negative fashion so it is likely that this is not something doctored by early christians because they wouldnt want to say something bad about their savior.

there are also christian sources (the gospels) and jewish sources (like the writings of Josephus, which lots of people think were doctored by early christians).

for the gospels, obviously this is not going to be something that is historically accurate but you can use some critical reading of them all and then compare them, and some of the details make the claim that jesus existed pretty plausible.

for example, according to the gospels, Jesus's parents are from Nazareth but then for whatever reason (these reasons differ in each gospel, whether it is escaping Herod or going for a census), they went to Bethlehem and Jesus was born there.

why? because the old testament prophecies say that the son of God will be born in Bethlehem. So, why did all of these Gospels provide excuses for why Jesus's parents were from somewhere else but went to Bethlehem? If they are all fictional accounts of a fictional character, why not just say that his parents were from Bethlehem? it's likely because if Jesus was a real person, people would know him and know that he wasn't from Bethlehem, so they had to make up a story for why he went from Nazareth to Bethlehem and then back to Nazareth.

so scholars do critical reading of the few texts that mention jesus and early christians to analyze the common aspects of these texts (including what might be omitted and why) and have come to the conclusion that it's most likely that Jesus at some capacity did exist, preached for a few years, and was executed under Pontias Pilate (who we know exists, google the pilate stone).

Source: I read /r/AskHistorians sometimes because I find it fascinating
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Jagr_68 posted...

I always felt like they truly know he's not a real person yet because Catholicism and Christianity do have deep roots in world history both good and bad, they just humor them anyway so believers don't get butthurt or his/her reputation in that field is damaged.

you feel historians just believe made up stuff and don't value the integrity of their field

well I mean, if you feel that way it must be true!


btw, if this was true, why don't they humor the Jews about the pyramids?

Never stated it was a fact though. I was treading on that notion that if it were unanimously concluded that Jesus existed then so would God, Satan, Hell, the Resurrection, and everything else from the Old/New Testaments which also could be validated as factual.
---

They agree that a man who is the basis for the myths existed.
---

Jagr_68 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Jagr_68 posted...

I always felt like they truly know he's not a real person yet because Catholicism and Christianity do have deep roots in world history both good and bad, they just humor them anyway so believers don't get butthurt or his/her reputation in that field is damaged.

you feel historians just believe made up stuff and don't value the integrity of their field

well I mean, if you feel that way it must be true!


btw, if this was true, why don't they humor the Jews about the pyramids?

Never stated it was a fact though. I was treading on that notion that if it were unanimously concluded that Jesus existed then so would God, Satan, Hell, the Resurrection, and everything else from the Old/New Testaments which also could be validated as factual.

?

anyways the historians just agree that he lived and was crucified

all the other details each debate about and have their own view on

this is not considering the miracles which they obviously believe didn't happen
---