Current Events > So serious question, was Jesus a real person?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I literally have never given a fuck about religion so I am truly ignorant about this. Was he real and just the mythical stuff wasn't real? Like was there some guy named Jesus at one point of time who did some stuff?

I'm not trolling I just don't really know and have never looked into it.

at this point, I feel like it doesn't even matter.

---

I dunno are you? Checkmate athiest

---

Historians trend toward "probably"
---

He better be. I modeled my whole look after him
---

Maybe? People have written about him but there aren't any documented "miracle" things he has done. if anything he was just a man who cared about people and helped them. think of it like this....if a man today walked around saying "I am the son of god", would we all bow down to him or would we think he was crazy?
---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
---

Probably not.
---

Yes, I think the historical community with the evidence they have of him outside of the christian bible say that he was indeed a real person. What seems to be the controversy/disagreement is whether he really was the "son of god".

---

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[g]although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus.[21][h][i]
---

Guide posted...

Historians trend toward "probably"

---

The legend he became is far greater then the man he was. It doesn't matter.
---

Jesus as the son of God? If so was Hercules a real person?
---

Why dont you ask someone who knows the truth

crickets....

---

Yes, but he was really fat
---

creativerealms posted...

The legend he became is far greater then the man he was. It doesn't matter.

Hmm
---

---

Probably a couple different people.
---

You are all wrong. The only real question is whether you believe in the legend of Jesus Christ or not. If you do, then there should be no doubt in your mind that he died the death of a hero. If you do not believe in the legend, then he was just a man and it does not matter how he died.
---

If he was real I doubt the actual man would be recognizable to us

I think so much of him was changed for the Bible. Likely like 90% of his story is made up and altered.

The concept of Christ came from Paul. Thats definitive.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQKxoBpV2NE" data-time="

This is a pretty informative video with sources that you can look into yourself and come to your own conclusion.

He is real.

dartman posted...

lol thats hilarious
---

Guide posted...

Historians trend toward "probably"

My dude, its a lil more than that. Pretty much all historians agree he was a real person.

---

Probably, but he was probably like the original Marshall Applewhite or John Edwards lol

There's really not much hard evidence, not that it necessarily means much when talking about most people who lived in 1st Century AD.

From a historical, evidence based standpoint, it's a maybe.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

There's really not much hard evidence, not that it necessarily means much when talking about most people who lived in 1st Century AD.

From a historical, evidence based standpoint, it's a maybe.

Looking into it, Ive found its actually not really any less likely that Jesus existed than it is for, say, Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar to have.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

There's really not much hard evidence, not that it necessarily means much when talking about most people who lived in 1st Century AD.

From a historical, evidence based standpoint, it's a maybe.

Its a lot more than a maybe my dude.

---

no evidence

but it doesn't matter because he's a powerful archetype
---

Mr Hangman posted...

EzeDoesIt posted...

Looking into it, Ive found its actually not really any less likely that Jesus existed than it is for, say, Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar to have.

This is wildly ignorant. Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar both were among the most influential people in history and there are mountains of hard archaeological evidence about them.

Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[3][4][5][note 1]

The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts and applying the standard criteria of critical-historical investigation,[6][7][8] and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence.[9]

While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[10][note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
---

Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain

"Nearly all Christian's think jesus was real"
Wow you got us there
---

You can study theology without being religious, and Near East historians =/= Christians.

Plus you ignored this for some reason:

While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[10][note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

Ill never understand why people respond to posts without reading them properly first. To be funny?
---

EzeDoesIt posted...

You can study theology without being religious, and Near East historians =/= Christians.

Plus you ignored this for some reason:

While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[10][note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

Ill never understand why people respond to posts without reading them properly first. To be funny?

I'm sure he existed the same as any human during that time period but him being magical is not proven
---

Yeah I didnt mean to imply that.

Some people even read the Bible purely metaphorically, (in part) to account for Jesus miracles.
---

EzeDoesIt posted...

You can study theology without being religious, and Near East historians =/= Christians.

Plus you ignored this for some reason:

While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[10][note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

Ill never understand why people respond to posts without reading them properly first. To be funny?

Except there is no proof that there was a specific person named Jesus that did any of those thing, the none religious stuff anyway. In that part of the world at that time Jesus was the most popular name in the region. It's like how half of all characters today are named John. Jesus was a generic name. IF, and that's a big if, there was someone that rebelled against the Romans the name Jesus could have just been given to him because it was the most popular name at the time.

Furthermore, there are actual Roman records of Pontius Pilate that were found in Rome and he was absolutely nothing at all like he was described in the bible. If someone rebelled against Rome claimingmto be a king or having others do it in their name, then there would have been no philosophical discussions no giving the crowd a choice. He would have been executed without hesitation, especially during the time of Passover. The bible isn't an actual historical source as Pilate is the one figure from it was have actual proof existed and he wasn't anything like he was described in it.
---

Well, historians disagree with all that, and I dont really see why your first paragraph is relevant. Does The Rock not exist because its not his given name? Jesus Christ is obviously a title. It means the Anointed Messiah. Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua basically meant something like hero.
---

boshafty posted...

Jesus as the son of God? If so was Hercules a real person?

In that 2014 Hercules movie with The Rock, I noticed that the lion head he carried on his shoulder wasn't as big as the lion depicted when the bard was telling the story. Maybe Hercules was a real person, but the bard greatly exaggerated his feats.
---

EzeDoesIt posted...

Well, historians disagree with all that, and I dont really see why your first paragraph is relevant. Does The Rock not exist because its not his given name? Jesus Christ is obviously a title. It means the Anointed Messiah. Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua basically meant something like hero.

Someone has poor reading comprehension skills. "Jesus" wasn't written about until decades later by people that weren't there. So if there really was someone that tried standing up to the Romans but his name was unknown decades latter then he most likely would have just been given the name Jesus as it was the most popular name at the time. We do the same thing today when we don't know someone's name, they are referred to as "John Doe."

Also claiming historians disagree with all that without actually providing any evidence is not an argument. Especially considering historians is where I learned it from in the first place. So obviously not all historians disagree.
---

Gamerguymass posted...

EzeDoesIt posted...

Well, historians disagree with all that, and I dont really see why your first paragraph is relevant. Does The Rock not exist because its not his given name? Jesus Christ is obviously a title. It means the Anointed Messiah. Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua basically meant something like hero.

Someone has poor reading comprehension skills. "Jesus" wasn't written about until decades later by people that weren't there. So if there really was someone that tried standing up to the Romans but his name was unknown decades latter then he most likely would have just been given the name Jesus as it was the most popular name at the time. We do the same thing today when we don't know someone's name, they are referred to as "John Doe."

None of this contradicts anything in my post.

Also claiming historians disagree with all that without actually providing any evidence is not an argument. Especially considering historians is where I learned it from in the first place. So obviously not all historians disagree.

Right but most do.
---

EzeDoesIt posted...

Gamerguymass posted...

EzeDoesIt posted...

Well, historians disagree with all that, and I dont really see why your first paragraph is relevant. Does The Rock not exist because its not his given name? Jesus Christ is obviously a title. It means the Anointed Messiah. Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua basically meant something like hero.

Someone has poor reading comprehension skills. "Jesus" wasn't written about until decades later by people that weren't there. So if there really was someone that tried standing up to the Romans but his name was unknown decades latter then he most likely would have just been given the name Jesus as it was the most popular name at the time. We do the same thing today when we don't know someone's name, they are referred to as "John Doe."

None of this contradicts anything in my post.

Also claiming historians disagree with all that without actually providing any evidence is not an argument. Especially considering historians is where I learned it from in the first place. So obviously not all historians disagree.

Right but most do.

You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.

I honestly don't even know what it is you are saying "most" historians disagree with. The Roman records on Pontius Pilate are real. They actually exist and are probably on display somewhere in Rome if you want to go look at them yourself. So I have no idea what it is you are trying to defend.
---

iirc there is little to no contemporary evidence pointing to the existence of the man we call jesus
---

This blows my mind. I get that you might not believe he performed actual miracles, but to doubt he even existed?!

Like holy shit this is scary.

---

why would that scare you
---

There isn't much evidence of Jesus of Nazareth, but, then, you wouldn't expect much contemporary evidence of a man who died in an obscure backwater as one of many obscure apocalyptic Jewish prophets. He didn't become relevant until centuries after his death.

There is; however, some evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate and Caphaiphus(sp?) that attests to their existence in the place and time in which the Gospels place them. Christian writings referencing Jesus start showing up (relatively) soon after his death which refer to him as a man who lived and preached in Judea, and there's speculation that the early Gospels were possibly drawing upon some sort of collection of sayings or stories(Q) that may have been written even sooner after his death than Mark.

The fact is that History is a social science, and the further back you go, the harder it is to find hard evidence of some one's existence, particularly if, again, they were of little consequence until centuries after their life and death. The circumstantial evidence is; however, pretty persuasive. As others have pointed out, it's likely he's partly conflated with other, similar preachers of the time(particularly John the Baptist. It's widely speculated that Jesus was initially a disciple of John).

Iirc, most historians conclude that either there was a single messianic prophet on which the Biblical figure is based, or that the Biblical figure is a conglomeration of the multiple suspected messanic prophets of the time.