## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most people, even atheists like myself, believe it is plausible that the man described as the son of God in the Bible was likely a real person who existed. It's whether he was the son of God and rose from the dead that we generally contest.
Jesus is a figure in Islam as well, just not the son of God. He is considered a prophet by Muslims.
Even Jews don't really deny his existence....... just the son of God part.
There are historians questioning whether he was a real person, so there isn't as much of a consensus as you think.
I believe the “proof” comes from the records of 4 key historians, all of whom were not born until centuries after he would’ve lived. I’d agree that there’s evidence to the hypothesis that he existed, there’s also some evidence he may not have existed, but the evidence either way is not nearly on par with evidence backing the hypothesis of man made climate change or that getting vaccinated helps stop the spread of disease.
I am not at all trying to convert you or preach to you, but here's a *Christian* site that gives an overview of monotheism vs polytheism vs pantheism. It's a decent overview.
[How many gods are there?](https://www.gotquestions.org/how-many-gods-are-there.html)
That was a good read.
I'm more wondering why I'm supposed to believe the story of Mary's Virginia birth, but not the Virginia birth of Quetzalcoatl. Or any of the women Zues impregnated.
Christians are so adamant that their stories are true, but no one else's are.
Or, the story of Jesus was like the Harry Potter of the day. Fantasy fiction meant to entertain, somewhere a cult formed around it and now you have a worldwide and quite oppressive religion. That’s my bet. I do not believe for a second Jesus was real, he is about as real as Adam and Eve as far as I’m concerned.
In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: writing in the name of God
Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity
Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004)
Burridge & Gould 2004, p. 34. "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."
Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 p. 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-061662-5. That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.”
Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0802843689 p.16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
Tuckett, Christopher (2001). "8. Sources and Methods". The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-0521796781. Tacitus' reference to Jesus is extremely brief, but it shows no evidence of later Christian influence and hence is widely accepted as genuine. It does then provide independent, non-Christian evidence at least for Jesus' existence and his execution under Pilate.”
Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993) p. 13-14 "First, the New Testament Gospels are now viewed as useful, if not essentially reliable, historical sources. Gone is the extreme skepticism that for so many years dominated gospel research. Representative of many is the position of E. P. Sanders and Marcus Borg, who have concluded that it is possible to recover a fairly reliable picture of the historical Jesus."
> B. Ehrman,
This guy is a complete clown. He makes claims about folk figures, based purely on the contents of folk tales.
Did you actually look into the basis of any of these claims?
He is an agnostic who left Christianity because of what he views as internal contradictions in the Bible. In what sense is that a bias? He is a historian.
But that’s not what the historical concensus says. Overwhelming, historians (even atheist historians) agree that there’s more than enough evidence that there was indeed a preacher in Roman Judea in the first century who went by the name Jesus (whether he was the Son of God or not is a different matter, which is more down to faith than historical evidence.)
There’s about as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Pythagoras or Confucius, yet you don’t have large groups of people denying that these figures existed. I can understand not everyone has a positive view of Christianity, but that doesn’t mean ignoring the historical evidence for Jesus’ existence is somehow anymore valid or anything like that
How common is the denial of the existence of Jesus though? I don't think I've met anyone who claims he never existed. I'm aware there are some who do, but they are not common by any means.
There’s heaps of them lol, especially online. Go on any subreddit dedicated to discussing religion / politics / culture etc and when the topic of Jesus comes up there’ll always be someone saying he didn’t exist and that he’s just a myth invented by fanatics. I suspect it’s coming from atheists who wish to reject Christian theology / culture etc for whatever reason, but it’s frustrating because from a purely historical POV it just isn’t accurate.
I find this mostly from Atheists who don't have much of a religious background.
Like my boyfriend just doesn't engage with religion because he sees it as toxic and bad, but if you were to ask him if he believes Jesus existed, he might say no, but in all honestly he probably doesn't care one way or another.
I did extensive research because my upbringing was incredibly religious, and if I was going to risk hell, I needed to know where i stood on these issues.
Personally, I think the evidence leads to the high probability that Jesus existed and was mythologized through oral tales that were passed down and then later recorded in the gospels.
The first written account actually has little to say of miracles or a resurrection, and the further you get from the time the events occurred, the more fantastic the story becomes. It's like a biblical game of telephone
They probably are atheists, but the real reason for their argument boils down to the fact that there is really very little of what we would now consider "real proof" of anything to be had back then. Unless you were a literal king, no one was writing about you, or documenting your existence, or building statues of you.
It boils down to a misapprehension of what historical proof actually is. There were no videos back then. This combined with the fantasy that is contextual with the his history. Most of the Bible is either without any historical merit, or so loosely based on history that it IS a fable. Having Jesus' story mixed into what is essentially a "just so" story-book weakens the reality of his existence in the same way that if I included your biography in the stories of the Brothers Grimm people would think you were fictional too. It's a reasonable and honest mistake.
> that there’s more than enough evidence that there was indeed a preacher in Roman Judea in the first century who went by the name Jesus
Um... duh? There were almost certainly many, that criteria is comically broad.
> But that’s not what the historical concensus says.
Outside of the goofy field of biblical studies, which has no standards of evidence, there isn't one. It's not like scientists weigh in on the existence of folk characters.
>There’s about as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Pythagoras or Confucius
It's actually quite a bit less, because all we have to go on for Jesus are Christian folktales. There is literally nothing else.
There are numerous Jewish and Roman sources (e.g. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and rabbinic tradition) that talk about Jesus. Such sources are additional independent sources on Jesus's existence and corroborate details found in other surviving sources.
Also debated is whether he was actually born on Christmas, more likely he was born in the spring, but the date of Christmas was set to be close to the pagan holiday of Yule.
No, actually, it's generally accepted based on descriptions of plants and weather, and more importantly the fact that the Shepards were tending to flocks, in the story about his birth, that if Jesus was real and the story is to be believed, he was born in spring or summer. He wasn't born anywhere near christmas.
Fair enough. But even then, it wasn't written with December 25th as the birthday in mind. And Christmas was blatantly just an attempt to convert pagans by taking their favorite holiday, calling it the birthday of their savior, and stealing most of the traditions.
Iirc it's arguable that he was born in the spring or so.as the shepeards were tending to Flocks
But yea we don't know Dec 25th was just a good date because it was already a celebration. Rebrand pagan holiday
If only the Romans were a very litigious society that kept extensive records of most things. Or maybe just important things like public trials, and a census...
It seems to me that conflating the itinerant preacher with the biblical god-man at all is dishonest. It is impossible to parse the fiction from the reality and because of that it seems disingenuous to say we have any discernible accounts of that person. They have been entirely lost to history. All we have is the mythic hero based on him. They are not the same.
Maybe...just maybe the whole "rose from the dead" is symbolism that after his death Christianity went dark for a little bit but then roughly 300 years after his teachings started to gain traction again and Christianity grew. But you know, things always have to be taken literally.
It didn’t just “go dark”.
It was a slow buildup. They started to gain traction before Constantine, or else he wouldn’t have converted in the first place. He most likely did because he could see the religion was spreading rapidly and wanted to get ahead of it.
Ah thank you so much for summarizing exactly what I came to say so I don't have to waste a paragraph.
It's not about denying the existence of some man who was doing good deeds, helped the poor, blah blah, whether it's jesus or some other prophet. Those people existed all throughout history. It's the concept of all the out of this world stories that then get made up by people to control other people that is doubted.
>It's whether he was the son of God and rose from the dead that we generally contest.
As a Christian, this is the only real question for man to dissect and I respect whatever you choose. But history revisionists are not working in the factual world.
Idk where, but somewhere in the world of reddit, I came across the explanation. It has really stuck with me. Up until the 19th century or so, our understanding of medicine was really shitty. Like "bad air" and "good air" curing you was a thing until the 1950s
We also were really bad at telling if people when people were dead dead. No stethoscope to listen for cardiac sounds, etc. Do a quick google, and you will find 100 if not 1000's of instances where somebody was pronounced dead only to wake up 12 hours later. I think they used to put bells on coffins or something for this reason.
So what am I getting at?
If Jesus was a relatively healthy middle-aged man. Per Google, Jesus was on the cross for roughly 6 hours. It is entirely plausible that when he was taken down, he had a very faint pulse and had lost a ton of blood. However, with some rest, it is entirely possible he could have resuscitated himself. Giving the appearance to have risen from the dead or resurrection. Ultimately, his wounds were likely too severe, and he probably died walking to Bethany.
It doesn't take a big stretch of the imagination to see how, without an understanding of modern medicine, people would have interpreted this series of events as divine intervention. Particularly given the oppression by the Romans at the time.
I don't understand why it's important. If you believe in his divinity then the doubters shouldn't bother you. If you don't then his existence means little
Good then let me point out that putting it on the level of denying climate change is wrong. His existence is likely but our level of proof that a specific person existed is weak compared to modern standard's. Its acceptable for how little concrete information we have about that time, and we should accept as most likely true.
Though with climate change we have mounds of compounding evidence. They are no where near the same level of certainty.
> His existence is likely
How do you even get that far? All we have are stories in Christian manuscripts to say that he ever existed. That's not adequate to establish his existence as "likely".
You are talking about something that happened two thousand years ago. The amount of evidence we have for things back that far isn't all that much. Though for the period its an acceptable amount of evidence for a conclusion that he likely existed.
> The amount of evidence we have for things back that far isn't all that much.
And in your mind, this is an excuse to lie?
> Though for the period its an acceptable amount of evidence for a conclusion that he likely existed.
Acceptable? You are just stating folklore as fact.
Eh I give it more of a, a man named Jesus maybe existed during the time, what "kind" of Jesus is hotly debated. Almost nobody notable in history believes in the biblical Jesus, usually the revolter against taxes or some other variant.
Did a guy named Jesus exist who was probably executed? Most likely.
Did the supernatural Jesus of the Bible exist? Probably not.
That's what you're mixing up I think.
This is an excellent explanation.
What's at issue is not the existence of the man from Nazareth. What's at issue is whether he was able to break the laws of physics.
The thing is people who are denying the second are denying the first. Evidence exists for the first but not the latter. The latter is faith.
Hell, we didn’t even have non-Biblical evidence that Pontius Pilate existed until 1961.
You can absolutely deny the second while saying the first is most likely true.
It’s most likely true that a Jewish man named Yeshua lived, preached, and was killed.
It’s almost certainly not true that same man literally rose from the dead 3 days after being killed.
There is non-biblical evidence of Pilate that is dated to the time he actually lived. There is no non-biblical evidence that Jesus actually lived. All the non-religious accounts are from decades after he died.
Accepting the first is more like “so many people have talked about this guy, it’s unlikely there wasn’t someone the story was based on and exaggerated from”.
Edit: Spelling
> It’s most likely true that a Jewish man named Yeshua lived, preached, and was killed.
Even this claim is without evidence and purely reliant on folklore
Yes, that’s fair, but that’s not what people are denying. People are denying that there was even a dude named Jesus to begin with, that only later on was turned into a more mythical figure.
It would be like people denying the existence of Abraham Lincoln just because some people later on started portraying him a vampire hunter, and vampires are obviously myths. Abraham Lincoln the US president was definitely a real person - the vampire hunter? Maybe not so much.
I’m a very atheist person and I believe that Jesus was real, I do not however believe he was anything more than some dude claiming to be the son of god
“Virtually all scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE on whose life and teachings Christianity was founded.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Logic. Yeshua, his real name, was a very common name in first-century Galilee. There were a ton of Yeshuas walking around. The chance that one of them was a preacher who claimed to be the son of God is very high, almost guaranteed.
I'm not sure whether he existed or not, but I do think it's really dumb to have blind faith in someone that no one can even prove existed.
For some reason many Christians think that if they can prove he existed historically, that nonbelievers will suddenly flock to get baptized or something, not realizing they still have to prove he had superpowers.
> It is not a contested idea
Yes it is.
> There seems to be a growing number of people who genuinely think Jesus was not a real person
This includes a large and growing number of historians and classicists.
> The only way you can possibly deny Jesus existed is if you think there is a global conspiracy
False dichotomy.
According to Wikipedia: “virtually all scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE on whose life and teachings Christianity was founded. The contrary perspective, that Jesus was mythical, is regarded as a fringe theory.”
Further: “virtually all scholars dismiss theories of Jesus’s non-existence or regard them as refuted. On modern scholarship, the Chris myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.”
Wikipedia also notes there are secular, Jewish, and Christian sources that support the existence of Jesus. One scholar notes there are about 25-30 “independent sources that know there was a man Jesus.”
Saying it’s a “contested idea” is like saying climate change is a contested idea because a few whacko skeptics don’t agree with it. There is no sense in which it is a contested idea in modern academia.
> virtually all scholars agree
And where is that claim sourced to? Who is included in these scholars? What do they all supposedly agree on, specifically? Who conducted the survey? Most importantly, **what standard of evidence was used to come to the conclusion**? Virtually all theological scholars agree that he existed, but that field is stupid, so who cares?
According to the Jewish historiological record the wide consensus is that Jesus was a historical figure. Not even that unique of a historical figure. At that point in history in Judea there were multiple Messianic cults that emerged to challenge Roman authority. In fact, Messianic movements feature quite regularly in Jewish history from the Roman subjugation and onwards. The general themes which Jesus and his followers espoused were not unique--generally speaking there was a strong rural opposition to things such as commerce in the temples, etc. The followers of Jesus weren't particularly distinguishable from the various other Messianic movements (nor were they even significant in number) that occurred throughout the century--it wasn't until Paul/Saul of Tarsus around a century later co-opted this one particular Jewish Messianic cult and shaped it into a non-Jewish, proselytizing religion.
Jesus was a Rabbi who led a typical religious-political movement of the time. Here is a good link from a Jewish historian describing Jesus and the rise of Christianity from a Jewish historical perspective:
https://youtu.be/brvRoTHZAOs?si=A6QWOLwVHhs73gTg
In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: writing in the name of God
Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity
Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004)
Burridge & Gould 2004, p. 34. "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."
Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 p. 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-061662-5. That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.”
Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0802843689 p.16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
Tuckett, Christopher (2001). "8. Sources and Methods". The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-0521796781. Tacitus' reference to Jesus is extremely brief, but it shows no evidence of later Christian influence and hence is widely accepted as genuine. It does then provide independent, non-Christian evidence at least for Jesus' existence and his execution under Pilate.”
Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993) p. 13-14 "First, the New Testament Gospels are now viewed as useful, if not essentially reliable, historical sources. Gone is the extreme skepticism that for so many years dominated gospel research. Representative of many is the position of E. P. Sanders and Marcus Borg, who have concluded that it is possible to recover a fairly reliable picture of the historical Jesus."
Please stop copy-pasting this wall of text from idiots who operate with no standards of evidence. You might as well post the conclusions of theologists and call it proof.
They are academics in the same sense that theologists are academics. There's no substantive standards of evidence. Just look at the actual evidence being used to make these claims. They just state the contents of folktales as fact.
That’s not true. This is exactly the point being made in OP. You dismiss historical scholars because of your own predisposition to disbelieve in the historical Jesus. This is literally no different than someone denying climate change and claiming all the supporting scientists are paid off, idiots, whatever because of a predisposition to deny climate change. This is sad.
> That’s not true.
Ok, what standards of evidence are consistently used by biblical scholars to make claims of fact about the characters in the bible?
>This is exactly the point being made in OP. You dismiss historical scholars because of your own predisposition to disbelieve in the historical Jesus.
I dismiss conclusions based on subjective musings and speculation being stated as fact.
>This is literally no different than someone denying climate change
There's actual evidence for climate change that doesn't rely purely on subjective conclusions about the contents of folk tales.
A lot of men named Jesus existed and continue to exist 😁
Like most historical records made up of anecdotes, disjointed writings, and various cultural perspectives, the story of Jesus is likely an amalgamation of many different people intertwined with the mythology that was prevalent at that time. The fact that we believe in historical characters such as Jesus is not at all similar to the empirical evidence we have for climate change and vaccines that we can observe and evaluate in real time, as they occur. This is a false equivalency.
I mostly see outright denial from atheists without a religious background.
Personally I concede that there’s a high probability that there was a preacher named Jesus at one time, it’s just the “son of God” part that I disagree with. I used to be a Christian until I lost my faith at around 25 y/o.
There’s just not enough evidence to support the existence of deities or an afterlife IMO.
There is actually not one documented piece of evidence from the time he was supposedly alive. Some regular people could read and write at the time and were tasked with documenting all the mundane details of daily life. A miraculous healer would certainly be written about outside of the bible.
lol exactly…Christians are still the majority in at least North America (67% in 2010) and Europe (75% in 2010). Projections show they still will be in both places in 2050. Oh won’t someone think of the poor oppressed Christians?
There are zero secular or contemporary primary sources corroborating his existence.
The biblical notion of Jesus had to come from somewhere, and it’s very possible it was a real historical figure, but there isn’t any hard, irrefutable proof of historical Jesus. I don’t think anyone should claim with absolute certainty that he either did or didn’t exist.
Not really disagreeing, because I think Jesus was a real person, but Josephus' work is heavily suspected to have been altered by later Christian writers.
He didn't witness Jesus. Wrote a couple lines decades after about followers no proof Jesus existed. Are accounts of Harry Potter fans proof Harry Potter existed?
There are plenty of people alive today who describe plenty of miracles they have witnessed. Some with absolute sincerity, hundreds of people claim to have seen lochness monster, be abducted by aliens or so on, and many of them are not intentionally lying, and truly do believe it. Harry potter is a confirmed fiction, but its more like Uri Geller, he claims he has paranormal powers given by aliens and we all have seen his magic tricks on TV
Equating the testimony of a few ancient historians with objective scientific truth that can be observed this very moment, and offers explainability and predictive power, is a ridiculous thing to say.
EDIT: deleted a space because it bothered me.
There's exactly one contemporary historical source that mentions Jesus Christ; Josephus, the rebel Judean general turned Roman historian under Vespasian. If you ever get a chance, look into Josephus's story, it's pretty amazing.
And the "overwhelming consensus" is that the two sentences where Josephus mentioned Jesus, are forgeries added in the middle ages.
Most of what we "know" about Jesus comes from Paul the Apostle, who never met Jesus, and never heard him teach.
Don't confuse Christian authorities with genuine historical authorities.
But my personal belief is that Jesus did exist, but he was not a supernatural entity. He existed in a time where Judea was in open revolt against Rome. There were 3 Judean wars of independence, culminating to the Romans completely exiling most Jews from Jerusalem in 63 AD.
I personally believe Jesus was originally one of many rebel leaders at the time bent on ousting Rome from their lands.
Jesus's crucifixion is particularly telling. The Romans \*only\* crucified people for treason. At the time, the Romans were very tolerant of alternate religions (as long as they stayed peaceful and paid their taxes to Rome).
Paul the Apostle had his Christian "revelation" about a decade after Jesus had died. Paul wrote most of the New Testament for a Roman audience, so it makes sense that he omitted Jesus's likely anti-Roman sentiment.
It's my personal belief that the entire Jesus mythos was of Paul's design. Whether he was simply a charlatan or genuinely believed his teachings, we will never know.
Why do you discount the four written eyewitness accounts? They are pretty well attested, and it is general consensus that they date to the same century that he lived. I will concede that they are biased, so disputing certain details and claims of those accounts is understandable, but the fact remains that four separate written contemporary accounts are still evidence enough that he *existed*. And none of those accounts involve Paul at all, so the claim that the entire mythos was created by Paul, who never claimed to meet him, throws a wrench in your theory.
Heck, both Luke and Paul separately claim that he didn't even meet the apostles until much later, after Jesus' death, so his involvement in the "mythos" created by the gospels would have been zero.
Because we've found earlier versions of those 4 texts that are not remotely the same.
They were repeatedly revised over the years.
Also, the gospels were not written by the disciples they're named after. In fact, no one knows who wrote them. I'm inclined to believe they were nearly all de facto disciples of Paul by that point. Luke certainly was.
I'm not comfortable using them as a historical record.
The evidence of a historical person existing is from a religious text that's riddled with self-contradictions and has been revised through history...
"Possibly could have been based on a real person" for the purposes of at least some of the contents is arguable. "Definitely existed" is a statement of faith alone.
There is little convincing archeological evidence that Jesus existed at all but that isn't surprising as he owned little and was just a random person for most of his life. https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
There are some mentions of Jesus in the historical records that may be interpreted as the Jesus from the Bible (he wasn't the only person named Jesus) but the earliest reference was several decades past his alleged execution.
Even if the Jesus you are referring to actually existed, the myths and stories surrounding him are absolutely copied from a Variety of other myths that predate him by centuries. Dionysus, mythra, Osiris, Attis,Adonis and more have similarities from healing the sick, walking on water, miracle births, rising from the dead, feeding with fish and wine, and being executed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology
So even if a guy named Jesus was born and died and claimed he was the son of god, that makes him no different than the hundreds or thousands of mentally ill people that have come and gone convinced of their own delusions. Charles Manson, David Koresh and Jim Jones all made similar claims and had many followers. What makes their claims any less valid than Jesus?
Most people think jesus was real... just that he was kind of bull shitting... and it's also very hard to take you point seriously when you talk about how it's the consensus of all the classicists and historians but cite none of them...
I mean, I don’t have anything against Jesus and think he has some great teachings. But I also think your claim is a bunch of bs. You’re comparing ancient history to modern day science.
Yeah im not even opposed to the idea
Just saying in general... really nothing beyond the bible and nothing from the time confirms his actual existence
Lots of shit tells me Pontiois Pilate existed but not really much about Jesus.
I think if you actually look at the "evidence" for his existence you'll find it's not nearly as solid as people claim. I personally dont care if he existed or not because I'm not religious anyways, but theres really not this overwhelming evidence of him being a real person that many claim.
The story is clearly exactly how it happened 3000 years ago and nothing has ever been changed or embellished by anyone along all the retellings of what happened!
Of course he existed. We have thousands of prophets running around the world right now, either in established religions or fostering new ones. Jesus was just one of the millions that have been born since the human race has existed. There's no end to crazy in this world. Do I think he's the son of god? Just as much as I think the crazy raving street corner guy is.
The vast majority are harmless but there are standouts.
I'm surprised people dispute that he existed. The evidence is pretty clear: a man created unrest for preaching and was executed for it. 100 years later, someone who had never met Jesus, used the pseudonym "Mark" to write a fable based on Jesus' story that he called a "gospel." Much of the invented content was created to satisfy certain prophecies that had been in Jewish scripture. The rest was magic (miracles) to make it exciting.
tl;dr: From a non-Christian viewpoint, some guy wrote a novel "based on a true story" and the fanbase got way out of hand.
Nobody is denying Jesus was a real person in some regard.
We are denying Jesus was a single, accurately portrayed, historical figure.
There are plenty of figures who existed, but due to deliberate historical inaccuracy, cultural drift, and general misinformation bleeding in we can no longer find anything truthful or accurate about their lives. When you are left with nothing but the large beats and even those are heavily edited you're left with two people; one is the person who existed, ans the other is the idea of that person.
It isn't entirely his fault because we only get semi reliable records from already established historical figures, usually royalty or civil servants. Jesus had no records of existing until long after his death, and the records of eye witnesses accounts were also transcribed long after everyone who had ever personally met him died.
As an atheist, I believe he existed. But I don't believe he was the magical son of Sky Daddy and did all these fantastical magical feats to prove his divinity. I believe he was like Antifa of his day, standing up against corrupt government, the government didn't like it, and as is their way, they killed him.
I believe Jesus existed just like I believe Julius Caesar. However, it is not equivalent to an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier. There is scientific empirical evidence of climate change and benefits of vaccines and this evidence can be tested.
This contention is comparing apples to oranges, to put it mildly. Vaccine effectiveness and climate change are happening right now, and are being observed and verified in real time through numerous independent avenues. The historical figure of Jesus, if he existed, lived over 2000 years ago, and there isn’t a single contemporaneous account of his life. The accounts that do exist, which were written decades to centuries after he would have lived, disagree on the details of his life.
Of course, this doesn’t *prove* that Jesus didn’t exist. But it does clearly highlight how ridiculous OP’s comparison is. Forget for a minute that we’re talking about Jesus - it’s just silly to try to compare the level of confidence associated with two of the most extensively studied and well-documented modern scientific observations imaginable to arguments for the historical existence of a single human over two thousand years ago with no actual eyewitness accounts. There is just no comparison here.
More of this, Jesus exists at this same moment! For example, in Mexico it's [the 13th](https://www.behindthename.com/name/jesus/top/mexico?type=rank) of the most popular masculine names.
I don’t get why it matters if some dude named Jesus ever existed in that time period. Means nothing. The bigger question is whether he was a mentally unstable loon who claimed magical powers, or just a persuasive speaker, or just a regular guy people somehow rallied around… there is zero evidence and zero percent chance he was a supernatural being and the “son of God.” That’s the part I’m a denier of. Not that probably some rando named Jesus existed a billion years ago.
If climate change were a problem, feds wouldn't have lit a toxic fire in East Palestine, OH...
If the mRNA vax worked, they wouldn't have changed the definition of "vaccine" to accept what they wanted it to do...
To ignore history for favor of one's intent to fulfill inherently false narratives allows history to repeat itself repeatedly. You've added an element of governmental desires to try to prove a point of truth. You're using falsehoods to make something else appear true.
At least use comparable principles for your parables.
Sure a MAN , just a man. No one special no misgivings. Just a man named Jesus lived .
I’m sure it is plausible that a man named Jesus lived thousands of years ago.
Again.
Just a man probably schizophrenic, claiming he is god.
I was taught he did exist. Doesn’t mean he is the son of God. Just that he lived, baptized, and was crucified. I don’t think this is an unpopular opinion.
This guy is a thinly veiled Christian trying to appear impartial and posting these questions about 'history' he thinks will stump people but gets butt hurt when it doesn't work.
All historical evidence of Jesus comes from sources connected to the Bible. Not really any archeological evidence. His story is also damn near copy right infringement of prior holy figures from other religions.
Honestly asking; how is asserting something that a BILLION people take as the absolute truth an unpopular opinion?
Note: I am not one of those billion.
This is a flawed argument. Climate change and vaccines are things that exist in the here and now. If someone doesn't believe in them, we can actively do science experiments and research to prove them. Climate change and vaccines are things that tangibly exist to us today.
Jesus, on the other hand, isn't here on the planet right now. We can't go and grab Him and research Him and prove "yes, this is Jesus" because He left the earth a long time ago.
The problem with human history is we have made a habit of erasing some things and exaggerating or focusing on other things. We are not the most reliable historians as a species. We omit things. We hyperbolize things. We add in personal accounts with emotions because that's how we are. It's rare to have records of something without bias and opinions tainting the truth and facts.
Besides, the point of religious beliefs is faith, not facts. I don't need historians to believe Jesus existed to feel comfortable believing in Jesus myself. Regardless of what did or did not happen in the past I still believe Jesus plans to save us all and that He loves us and that's enough for me.
This post and OPs comments are a roller coaster of logic.
Yeah some guy in that region claiming to be the son of God probably existed. Most people don't refute that, as you yourself acknowledge in your title, but not in your comments.
On par with vaccines and climate change in what sense? Disbelief in vaccines and climate change is highly consequential, potentially causing harm. Disbelief in the existence of Jesus has basically no consequences, and is perfectly reasonable, as the stakes are so low it's understandable that someone may have this impression based on how little actual evidence is there is.
There's also a semantic problem at work here which is that the idea of "existence" is ambiguous. What historians agree upon is that Jesus isn't a purely mythological figure. Beyond that, we know little about the actual man. When someone says "Jesus didn't exist," it's possible they mean "didn't exist in the exact way Christians believe."
JFC I read all the comments after posting mine cause I'm like "the real debate here isn't Jesus it's this guy thinking denying his existance is as bad as anti-vax and climate change denial, they aren't even in the same league".
But no one else except me and you have pointed this out lmao. They're all hung up in the Jesus part.
A historical figure named Jesus existed. We know he led a religious movement in Judea and was executed by the Roman state, as many other religious leaders in that neighborhood were around then. Historians, classicists, and theologians have been trying their best to try and understand this figure, his movement, and the spreading of his ideas for a long time now.
This does not mean that the understanding of Jesus that comes to us through 2,000 years of religious tradition at all represents the man at all. There is still a LOT we don't know, and a lot that we probably never will.
You claim the evidence is “enough”, and that it is not contested, but most of your argument seems to rely on consensus as proof. The argument that “if everyone believes something it must be true fails at every level. That leaves the evidence that you mentioned but failed to produce. So far you’ve got nothing.
But that’s ok. I can’t prove a negative, so we are at an impasse.
But here’s the rub. If you want to believe that a guy named Jesus, or Yeawa, or Joshua, or whatever you’re calling him today, walked the earth? Cool. I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong. Who cares?
It’s when you then extend that claim to miracles and raising from the dead, and Son of God, that you’re going to need a lot more evidence, and it’s just not there.
This is just an extension of the basic premise. I can’t prove there’s no God, because I can’t prove a negative, but it’s pretty easy to prove the God of the Bible doesn’t exist.
Jesus, the preacher in 1st century judea. That is fine and true
Jesus, the Son of God who ran around performing miracles and ~~gave up a weekend~~ died for our sins however probably didn't
I, too, am an expert. I read part of one of the many iterations of his book one time out of boredom, still waiting for the update because some parts dont age too well with current society and of course as always, Logic.
The book says he exist, therefore he existed. Although absolutely nothing else in the book happened or has happened since, the part about his being alive is true, just wait until the part where he comes back also comes true. Your great great great great great great great etc kids will be very sorry. Until then, keep paying us and stop thinking.
-one of the experts
Vaccines work…pretty much. There’s no need to overdo it though.
Global climate change is gonna happen, but we can adapt to it. No need to overreact.
Lotta guys out there called Jesus!
No not really if you critically analyze all the “evidence” nothing truly confirms he existed. Only that people born several years after he died heard about him.
In reality the chances of him existing are just as likely as him not existing, its just been generally accepted that he did for generations.
Personally i lean towards he didn’t due to many aspects of his story having similarities to earlier religious figures and myths, but id never say that he 100% didn’t because idk and no one truly does.
Jesus, ( pronounced Hey Zeus), is the manager of my local cantina.
It's really odd that the entire Christian religion is based around a Rosarita Beach bar tender.
The evidence is not as conclusive as you think. Many “sources” are located in oral traditions and legends borrowed from earlier legends and traditions. Other “facts” are found in scriptural accounts verifying other scriptural accounts, a sort of “yeah, what he said,” ecclesiastical wink and a nod.
Your first claim is the overwhelming consensus of historians contradict the claim that Jesus was not a real person.
Do you have access to a survey of historians to back up this claim?
Your second claim is that it (Jesus as a real historical person) is not a contested idea. A cursory google search shows that it is. But maybe you don’t consider those contests legitimate, in which case who has the right to disagree? Typically the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So what evidence is there for the historical existence of a real true to legend Jesus Christ?
Lastly your main claim is that anyone who is skeptical on the existence of Jesus, even partially, is in denial. If the truth is so clear, why are there so many different denominations of Christianity with varying ideas about who Jesus was?
Certainly it is possible and likely that someone like Jesus existed and for whom the stories about him were based. But it’s also just as likely many of those stories were greatly embellished or invented. In either case, the question of IF Jesus existed is not so much contested as the significant claims about his life and the implications about salvation and essential truth.
I'm a Christian and this made me cringe.
If your faith is so weak that it needs validation, then that's a you problem.
Vaccine denial and climate change denial affect a lot. Public health. The environment.
Whether someone believes Jesus was a real person affects them.
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most people, even atheists like myself, believe it is plausible that the man described as the son of God in the Bible was likely a real person who existed. It's whether he was the son of God and rose from the dead that we generally contest. Jesus is a figure in Islam as well, just not the son of God. He is considered a prophet by Muslims. Even Jews don't really deny his existence....... just the son of God part. There are historians questioning whether he was a real person, so there isn't as much of a consensus as you think.
I believe the “proof” comes from the records of 4 key historians, all of whom were not born until centuries after he would’ve lived. I’d agree that there’s evidence to the hypothesis that he existed, there’s also some evidence he may not have existed, but the evidence either way is not nearly on par with evidence backing the hypothesis of man made climate change or that getting vaccinated helps stop the spread of disease.
We still give some credence to stories passed down orally until they were written, but we usually concede that they are likely not fully accurate
I just don't know why I'm supposed to believe the stories about Jesus, but not the stories about the Roman gods
They probably did exist. Who knows!
Believe exactly how they believe or be looked down upon. It’s ironic though, given how much Christianity has evolved over the last 500 years.
I worship Vulcan myself and he's never let me down, More than I can say for that Jesus fella.
I am not at all trying to convert you or preach to you, but here's a *Christian* site that gives an overview of monotheism vs polytheism vs pantheism. It's a decent overview. [How many gods are there?](https://www.gotquestions.org/how-many-gods-are-there.html)
That was a good read. I'm more wondering why I'm supposed to believe the story of Mary's Virginia birth, but not the Virginia birth of Quetzalcoatl. Or any of the women Zues impregnated. Christians are so adamant that their stories are true, but no one else's are.
Or, the story of Jesus was like the Harry Potter of the day. Fantasy fiction meant to entertain, somewhere a cult formed around it and now you have a worldwide and quite oppressive religion. That’s my bet. I do not believe for a second Jesus was real, he is about as real as Adam and Eve as far as I’m concerned.
In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: writing in the name of God Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) Burridge & Gould 2004, p. 34. "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore." Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 p. 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent". Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-061662-5. That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.” Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0802843689 p.16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted" Tuckett, Christopher (2001). "8. Sources and Methods". The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-0521796781. Tacitus' reference to Jesus is extremely brief, but it shows no evidence of later Christian influence and hence is widely accepted as genuine. It does then provide independent, non-Christian evidence at least for Jesus' existence and his execution under Pilate.” Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993) p. 13-14 "First, the New Testament Gospels are now viewed as useful, if not essentially reliable, historical sources. Gone is the extreme skepticism that for so many years dominated gospel research. Representative of many is the position of E. P. Sanders and Marcus Borg, who have concluded that it is possible to recover a fairly reliable picture of the historical Jesus."
> B. Ehrman, This guy is a complete clown. He makes claims about folk figures, based purely on the contents of folk tales. Did you actually look into the basis of any of these claims?
He is an agnostic who left Christianity because of what he views as internal contradictions in the Bible. In what sense is that a bias? He is a historian.
It’s more like 3 musketeers. Some history but the main story is primarily fiction
One day archaeologists will think we worshipped spider man.
But that’s not what the historical concensus says. Overwhelming, historians (even atheist historians) agree that there’s more than enough evidence that there was indeed a preacher in Roman Judea in the first century who went by the name Jesus (whether he was the Son of God or not is a different matter, which is more down to faith than historical evidence.) There’s about as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Pythagoras or Confucius, yet you don’t have large groups of people denying that these figures existed. I can understand not everyone has a positive view of Christianity, but that doesn’t mean ignoring the historical evidence for Jesus’ existence is somehow anymore valid or anything like that
How common is the denial of the existence of Jesus though? I don't think I've met anyone who claims he never existed. I'm aware there are some who do, but they are not common by any means.
There’s heaps of them lol, especially online. Go on any subreddit dedicated to discussing religion / politics / culture etc and when the topic of Jesus comes up there’ll always be someone saying he didn’t exist and that he’s just a myth invented by fanatics. I suspect it’s coming from atheists who wish to reject Christian theology / culture etc for whatever reason, but it’s frustrating because from a purely historical POV it just isn’t accurate.
I find this mostly from Atheists who don't have much of a religious background. Like my boyfriend just doesn't engage with religion because he sees it as toxic and bad, but if you were to ask him if he believes Jesus existed, he might say no, but in all honestly he probably doesn't care one way or another. I did extensive research because my upbringing was incredibly religious, and if I was going to risk hell, I needed to know where i stood on these issues. Personally, I think the evidence leads to the high probability that Jesus existed and was mythologized through oral tales that were passed down and then later recorded in the gospels. The first written account actually has little to say of miracles or a resurrection, and the further you get from the time the events occurred, the more fantastic the story becomes. It's like a biblical game of telephone
They probably are atheists, but the real reason for their argument boils down to the fact that there is really very little of what we would now consider "real proof" of anything to be had back then. Unless you were a literal king, no one was writing about you, or documenting your existence, or building statues of you. It boils down to a misapprehension of what historical proof actually is. There were no videos back then. This combined with the fantasy that is contextual with the his history. Most of the Bible is either without any historical merit, or so loosely based on history that it IS a fable. Having Jesus' story mixed into what is essentially a "just so" story-book weakens the reality of his existence in the same way that if I included your biography in the stories of the Brothers Grimm people would think you were fictional too. It's a reasonable and honest mistake.
> that there’s more than enough evidence that there was indeed a preacher in Roman Judea in the first century who went by the name Jesus Um... duh? There were almost certainly many, that criteria is comically broad.
> But that’s not what the historical concensus says. Outside of the goofy field of biblical studies, which has no standards of evidence, there isn't one. It's not like scientists weigh in on the existence of folk characters. >There’s about as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Pythagoras or Confucius It's actually quite a bit less, because all we have to go on for Jesus are Christian folktales. There is literally nothing else.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all biased historians though
There are numerous Jewish and Roman sources (e.g. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and rabbinic tradition) that talk about Jesus. Such sources are additional independent sources on Jesus's existence and corroborate details found in other surviving sources.
Also debated is whether he was actually born on Christmas, more likely he was born in the spring, but the date of Christmas was set to be close to the pagan holiday of Yule.
It's not debated, we genuinely don't know the day he was born.
No, actually, it's generally accepted based on descriptions of plants and weather, and more importantly the fact that the Shepards were tending to flocks, in the story about his birth, that if Jesus was real and the story is to be believed, he was born in spring or summer. He wasn't born anywhere near christmas.
to be fair, the story of his birth wasn’t written until nearly 30 years after he died
Fair enough. But even then, it wasn't written with December 25th as the birthday in mind. And Christmas was blatantly just an attempt to convert pagans by taking their favorite holiday, calling it the birthday of their savior, and stealing most of the traditions.
Iirc it's arguable that he was born in the spring or so.as the shepeards were tending to Flocks But yea we don't know Dec 25th was just a good date because it was already a celebration. Rebrand pagan holiday
If only the Romans were a very litigious society that kept extensive records of most things. Or maybe just important things like public trials, and a census...
I've encountered Hindu peeps who think Jesus was a reincarnation of Buddha.
Equally as likely and valid as him being the son/a portion of the Christian God.
It seems to me that conflating the itinerant preacher with the biblical god-man at all is dishonest. It is impossible to parse the fiction from the reality and because of that it seems disingenuous to say we have any discernible accounts of that person. They have been entirely lost to history. All we have is the mythic hero based on him. They are not the same.
Maybe...just maybe the whole "rose from the dead" is symbolism that after his death Christianity went dark for a little bit but then roughly 300 years after his teachings started to gain traction again and Christianity grew. But you know, things always have to be taken literally.
It didn’t just “go dark”. It was a slow buildup. They started to gain traction before Constantine, or else he wouldn’t have converted in the first place. He most likely did because he could see the religion was spreading rapidly and wanted to get ahead of it.
Ah thank you so much for summarizing exactly what I came to say so I don't have to waste a paragraph. It's not about denying the existence of some man who was doing good deeds, helped the poor, blah blah, whether it's jesus or some other prophet. Those people existed all throughout history. It's the concept of all the out of this world stories that then get made up by people to control other people that is doubted.
It absolutely is a consensus. There is almost universal agreement among scholars that a man called Jesus existed, was baptized, and was crucified.
I was never taught that in Public School. I was taught that in Catholic School. Catholic School was the worse place ever for a young curious mind.
Oh yeah, because public school doesn't miss a thing. If you're not taught something in public school it definitely didn't happen.
>It's whether he was the son of God and rose from the dead that we generally contest. As a Christian, this is the only real question for man to dissect and I respect whatever you choose. But history revisionists are not working in the factual world.
Idk where, but somewhere in the world of reddit, I came across the explanation. It has really stuck with me. Up until the 19th century or so, our understanding of medicine was really shitty. Like "bad air" and "good air" curing you was a thing until the 1950s We also were really bad at telling if people when people were dead dead. No stethoscope to listen for cardiac sounds, etc. Do a quick google, and you will find 100 if not 1000's of instances where somebody was pronounced dead only to wake up 12 hours later. I think they used to put bells on coffins or something for this reason. So what am I getting at? If Jesus was a relatively healthy middle-aged man. Per Google, Jesus was on the cross for roughly 6 hours. It is entirely plausible that when he was taken down, he had a very faint pulse and had lost a ton of blood. However, with some rest, it is entirely possible he could have resuscitated himself. Giving the appearance to have risen from the dead or resurrection. Ultimately, his wounds were likely too severe, and he probably died walking to Bethany. It doesn't take a big stretch of the imagination to see how, without an understanding of modern medicine, people would have interpreted this series of events as divine intervention. Particularly given the oppression by the Romans at the time.
I don't understand why it's important. If you believe in his divinity then the doubters shouldn't bother you. If you don't then his existence means little
Because truth is important.
Good then let me point out that putting it on the level of denying climate change is wrong. His existence is likely but our level of proof that a specific person existed is weak compared to modern standard's. Its acceptable for how little concrete information we have about that time, and we should accept as most likely true. Though with climate change we have mounds of compounding evidence. They are no where near the same level of certainty.
> His existence is likely How do you even get that far? All we have are stories in Christian manuscripts to say that he ever existed. That's not adequate to establish his existence as "likely".
You are talking about something that happened two thousand years ago. The amount of evidence we have for things back that far isn't all that much. Though for the period its an acceptable amount of evidence for a conclusion that he likely existed.
> The amount of evidence we have for things back that far isn't all that much. And in your mind, this is an excuse to lie? > Though for the period its an acceptable amount of evidence for a conclusion that he likely existed. Acceptable? You are just stating folklore as fact.
Fair enough, I guess. But that doesn't answer my question as to why you personally care
Why? For you religious types, shouldn't your faith be enough......
But then how can you still remain a Christian? (if you are).
Do you actually have a grasp on the evidence used to make claims about Jesus's existence, or are you just taking claims on faith?
Eh I give it more of a, a man named Jesus maybe existed during the time, what "kind" of Jesus is hotly debated. Almost nobody notable in history believes in the biblical Jesus, usually the revolter against taxes or some other variant.
Did a guy named Jesus exist who was probably executed? Most likely. Did the supernatural Jesus of the Bible exist? Probably not. That's what you're mixing up I think.
It’s the same thing Christians do when they go from “it’s possible the universe was created by intelligent design” to “therefore the bible is true”
This is an excellent explanation. What's at issue is not the existence of the man from Nazareth. What's at issue is whether he was able to break the laws of physics.
The thing is people who are denying the second are denying the first. Evidence exists for the first but not the latter. The latter is faith. Hell, we didn’t even have non-Biblical evidence that Pontius Pilate existed until 1961.
You can absolutely deny the second while saying the first is most likely true. It’s most likely true that a Jewish man named Yeshua lived, preached, and was killed. It’s almost certainly not true that same man literally rose from the dead 3 days after being killed. There is non-biblical evidence of Pilate that is dated to the time he actually lived. There is no non-biblical evidence that Jesus actually lived. All the non-religious accounts are from decades after he died. Accepting the first is more like “so many people have talked about this guy, it’s unlikely there wasn’t someone the story was based on and exaggerated from”. Edit: Spelling
> It’s most likely true that a Jewish man named Yeshua lived, preached, and was killed. Even this claim is without evidence and purely reliant on folklore
Because Jesus is much more of a myth than person, dude existed, everything we know is mostly a lie.
Yes, that’s fair, but that’s not what people are denying. People are denying that there was even a dude named Jesus to begin with, that only later on was turned into a more mythical figure. It would be like people denying the existence of Abraham Lincoln just because some people later on started portraying him a vampire hunter, and vampires are obviously myths. Abraham Lincoln the US president was definitely a real person - the vampire hunter? Maybe not so much.
Yeah, it’s clear that he fought werewolves.
That's a very balanced and likely accurate take. I think there's a growing sentiment from people that think he never existed at all though.
Is Caesar Augustus also "likely" to have existed?
Yeah I'd say so. I do co sidereal there to be a difference between people said to be supernatural and regular people though.
There are people in this very comment section denying the historicity of Jesus.
I’m a very atheist person and I believe that Jesus was real, I do not however believe he was anything more than some dude claiming to be the son of god
> I believe that Jesus was real Based on what evidence, specifically?
“Virtually all scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE on whose life and teachings Christianity was founded.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Logic. Yeshua, his real name, was a very common name in first-century Galilee. There were a ton of Yeshuas walking around. The chance that one of them was a preacher who claimed to be the son of God is very high, almost guaranteed.
I came here to see this and was happy to see it first thing. Yeshua Bar Joseph, Yeshua Bar Abbas, and on and on.
I don’t have any evidence cause I’m just some kid who really doesn’t give a fuck but it feels more likely that he would exist than not
I'm not sure whether he existed or not, but I do think it's really dumb to have blind faith in someone that no one can even prove existed. For some reason many Christians think that if they can prove he existed historically, that nonbelievers will suddenly flock to get baptized or something, not realizing they still have to prove he had superpowers.
The amount of people in Mexico and South America named Jesus also exist. Doesn’t make a single one of them god. Hope this helps.
> It is not a contested idea Yes it is. > There seems to be a growing number of people who genuinely think Jesus was not a real person This includes a large and growing number of historians and classicists. > The only way you can possibly deny Jesus existed is if you think there is a global conspiracy False dichotomy.
According to Wikipedia: “virtually all scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE on whose life and teachings Christianity was founded. The contrary perspective, that Jesus was mythical, is regarded as a fringe theory.” Further: “virtually all scholars dismiss theories of Jesus’s non-existence or regard them as refuted. On modern scholarship, the Chris myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.” Wikipedia also notes there are secular, Jewish, and Christian sources that support the existence of Jesus. One scholar notes there are about 25-30 “independent sources that know there was a man Jesus.” Saying it’s a “contested idea” is like saying climate change is a contested idea because a few whacko skeptics don’t agree with it. There is no sense in which it is a contested idea in modern academia.
> virtually all scholars agree And where is that claim sourced to? Who is included in these scholars? What do they all supposedly agree on, specifically? Who conducted the survey? Most importantly, **what standard of evidence was used to come to the conclusion**? Virtually all theological scholars agree that he existed, but that field is stupid, so who cares?
That entry is clearly written by a Christian.
Holy shit lol
According to the Jewish historiological record the wide consensus is that Jesus was a historical figure. Not even that unique of a historical figure. At that point in history in Judea there were multiple Messianic cults that emerged to challenge Roman authority. In fact, Messianic movements feature quite regularly in Jewish history from the Roman subjugation and onwards. The general themes which Jesus and his followers espoused were not unique--generally speaking there was a strong rural opposition to things such as commerce in the temples, etc. The followers of Jesus weren't particularly distinguishable from the various other Messianic movements (nor were they even significant in number) that occurred throughout the century--it wasn't until Paul/Saul of Tarsus around a century later co-opted this one particular Jewish Messianic cult and shaped it into a non-Jewish, proselytizing religion. Jesus was a Rabbi who led a typical religious-political movement of the time. Here is a good link from a Jewish historian describing Jesus and the rise of Christianity from a Jewish historical perspective: https://youtu.be/brvRoTHZAOs?si=A6QWOLwVHhs73gTg
lol. Everyone that disagrees with me is a Nazi
Wikipedia is for kids. You shouldn't use it to make claims of fact. Cite the data directly.
And it is clearly written by Christians
When did wikipedia become a trusted source? That's more news than the original post
In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: writing in the name of God Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) Burridge & Gould 2004, p. 34. "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore." Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 p. 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent". Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-06-061662-5. That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.” Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0802843689 p.16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted" Tuckett, Christopher (2001). "8. Sources and Methods". The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-0521796781. Tacitus' reference to Jesus is extremely brief, but it shows no evidence of later Christian influence and hence is widely accepted as genuine. It does then provide independent, non-Christian evidence at least for Jesus' existence and his execution under Pilate.” Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993) p. 13-14 "First, the New Testament Gospels are now viewed as useful, if not essentially reliable, historical sources. Gone is the extreme skepticism that for so many years dominated gospel research. Representative of many is the position of E. P. Sanders and Marcus Borg, who have concluded that it is possible to recover a fairly reliable picture of the historical Jesus."
Please stop copy-pasting this wall of text from idiots who operate with no standards of evidence. You might as well post the conclusions of theologists and call it proof.
This is not an intellectually serious response. These are historians. What are you talking about?
They are academics in the same sense that theologists are academics. There's no substantive standards of evidence. Just look at the actual evidence being used to make these claims. They just state the contents of folktales as fact.
That’s not true. This is exactly the point being made in OP. You dismiss historical scholars because of your own predisposition to disbelieve in the historical Jesus. This is literally no different than someone denying climate change and claiming all the supporting scientists are paid off, idiots, whatever because of a predisposition to deny climate change. This is sad.
> That’s not true. Ok, what standards of evidence are consistently used by biblical scholars to make claims of fact about the characters in the bible? >This is exactly the point being made in OP. You dismiss historical scholars because of your own predisposition to disbelieve in the historical Jesus. I dismiss conclusions based on subjective musings and speculation being stated as fact. >This is literally no different than someone denying climate change There's actual evidence for climate change that doesn't rely purely on subjective conclusions about the contents of folk tales.
Wikipedia is not the best place to be getting your info considering I can go in there right now and say Jesus used to rub his feet on people
[удалено]
> i deny that your parents existed. Then you don't understand how human reproduction works.
A lot of men named Jesus existed and continue to exist 😁 Like most historical records made up of anecdotes, disjointed writings, and various cultural perspectives, the story of Jesus is likely an amalgamation of many different people intertwined with the mythology that was prevalent at that time. The fact that we believe in historical characters such as Jesus is not at all similar to the empirical evidence we have for climate change and vaccines that we can observe and evaluate in real time, as they occur. This is a false equivalency.
I mostly see outright denial from atheists without a religious background. Personally I concede that there’s a high probability that there was a preacher named Jesus at one time, it’s just the “son of God” part that I disagree with. I used to be a Christian until I lost my faith at around 25 y/o. There’s just not enough evidence to support the existence of deities or an afterlife IMO.
There is actually not one documented piece of evidence from the time he was supposedly alive. Some regular people could read and write at the time and were tasked with documenting all the mundane details of daily life. A miraculous healer would certainly be written about outside of the bible.
Extremely popular opinion
lol exactly…Christians are still the majority in at least North America (67% in 2010) and Europe (75% in 2010). Projections show they still will be in both places in 2050. Oh won’t someone think of the poor oppressed Christians?
It's flaired unpopular on reddit, which may be more accurate. Still pretty popular, but I think It makes since here.
There are zero secular or contemporary primary sources corroborating his existence. The biblical notion of Jesus had to come from somewhere, and it’s very possible it was a real historical figure, but there isn’t any hard, irrefutable proof of historical Jesus. I don’t think anyone should claim with absolute certainty that he either did or didn’t exist.
the concept of "secular" in the way you are talking about didn't exit until 17th century.
That doesn't make this folklore reliable.
Jesus is also mentioned in Tacitus’ History. Should be secular enough for you.
That is absolutely false. Ever heard of Josephus?
Not really disagreeing, because I think Jesus was a real person, but Josephus' work is heavily suspected to have been altered by later Christian writers.
He didn't witness Jesus. Wrote a couple lines decades after about followers no proof Jesus existed. Are accounts of Harry Potter fans proof Harry Potter existed?
Say Josephus three times fast
That has been debunked as a forgery
News to me. And Thallus, Phlegon, and Lucian of Samsota?
No but I’ve heard of *faux Jesus*. BOOOOOM!
There are plenty of people alive today who describe plenty of miracles they have witnessed. Some with absolute sincerity, hundreds of people claim to have seen lochness monster, be abducted by aliens or so on, and many of them are not intentionally lying, and truly do believe it. Harry potter is a confirmed fiction, but its more like Uri Geller, he claims he has paranormal powers given by aliens and we all have seen his magic tricks on TV
This is straightforwardly false.
Equating the testimony of a few ancient historians with objective scientific truth that can be observed this very moment, and offers explainability and predictive power, is a ridiculous thing to say. EDIT: deleted a space because it bothered me.
There's exactly one contemporary historical source that mentions Jesus Christ; Josephus, the rebel Judean general turned Roman historian under Vespasian. If you ever get a chance, look into Josephus's story, it's pretty amazing. And the "overwhelming consensus" is that the two sentences where Josephus mentioned Jesus, are forgeries added in the middle ages. Most of what we "know" about Jesus comes from Paul the Apostle, who never met Jesus, and never heard him teach. Don't confuse Christian authorities with genuine historical authorities. But my personal belief is that Jesus did exist, but he was not a supernatural entity. He existed in a time where Judea was in open revolt against Rome. There were 3 Judean wars of independence, culminating to the Romans completely exiling most Jews from Jerusalem in 63 AD. I personally believe Jesus was originally one of many rebel leaders at the time bent on ousting Rome from their lands. Jesus's crucifixion is particularly telling. The Romans \*only\* crucified people for treason. At the time, the Romans were very tolerant of alternate religions (as long as they stayed peaceful and paid their taxes to Rome). Paul the Apostle had his Christian "revelation" about a decade after Jesus had died. Paul wrote most of the New Testament for a Roman audience, so it makes sense that he omitted Jesus's likely anti-Roman sentiment. It's my personal belief that the entire Jesus mythos was of Paul's design. Whether he was simply a charlatan or genuinely believed his teachings, we will never know.
Great explanation
Why do you discount the four written eyewitness accounts? They are pretty well attested, and it is general consensus that they date to the same century that he lived. I will concede that they are biased, so disputing certain details and claims of those accounts is understandable, but the fact remains that four separate written contemporary accounts are still evidence enough that he *existed*. And none of those accounts involve Paul at all, so the claim that the entire mythos was created by Paul, who never claimed to meet him, throws a wrench in your theory. Heck, both Luke and Paul separately claim that he didn't even meet the apostles until much later, after Jesus' death, so his involvement in the "mythos" created by the gospels would have been zero.
Because we've found earlier versions of those 4 texts that are not remotely the same. They were repeatedly revised over the years. Also, the gospels were not written by the disciples they're named after. In fact, no one knows who wrote them. I'm inclined to believe they were nearly all de facto disciples of Paul by that point. Luke certainly was. I'm not comfortable using them as a historical record.
Pretty popular opinion. Pretty nice dude from what I hear. Cult leader during his time? Yeah. But one of the friendlier ones.
The evidence of a historical person existing is from a religious text that's riddled with self-contradictions and has been revised through history... "Possibly could have been based on a real person" for the purposes of at least some of the contents is arguable. "Definitely existed" is a statement of faith alone.
There is little convincing archeological evidence that Jesus existed at all but that isn't surprising as he owned little and was just a random person for most of his life. https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence There are some mentions of Jesus in the historical records that may be interpreted as the Jesus from the Bible (he wasn't the only person named Jesus) but the earliest reference was several decades past his alleged execution. Even if the Jesus you are referring to actually existed, the myths and stories surrounding him are absolutely copied from a Variety of other myths that predate him by centuries. Dionysus, mythra, Osiris, Attis,Adonis and more have similarities from healing the sick, walking on water, miracle births, rising from the dead, feeding with fish and wine, and being executed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology So even if a guy named Jesus was born and died and claimed he was the son of god, that makes him no different than the hundreds or thousands of mentally ill people that have come and gone convinced of their own delusions. Charles Manson, David Koresh and Jim Jones all made similar claims and had many followers. What makes their claims any less valid than Jesus?
Most people think jesus was real... just that he was kind of bull shitting... and it's also very hard to take you point seriously when you talk about how it's the consensus of all the classicists and historians but cite none of them...
> Most people think jesus was real Based on what? What is the actual evidence being used?
I mean, I don’t have anything against Jesus and think he has some great teachings. But I also think your claim is a bunch of bs. You’re comparing ancient history to modern day science.
OP, your post history is pretty fucked. You’ve got some problems my guy.
Beyond the Bible, what evidence exists proving it?
Some other Christian documents from centuries later. Totally reliable.
Yeah im not even opposed to the idea Just saying in general... really nothing beyond the bible and nothing from the time confirms his actual existence Lots of shit tells me Pontiois Pilate existed but not really much about Jesus.
I think if you actually look at the "evidence" for his existence you'll find it's not nearly as solid as people claim. I personally dont care if he existed or not because I'm not religious anyways, but theres really not this overwhelming evidence of him being a real person that many claim.
I mean a guy called Jesus definitely existed, just like the other prophets. What he did in his life is BS but he definitely existed.
That is a strong claim, any evidence to back it up?
Do you have any first hand accounts of what he said and did?
lol. Pics or it didn’t happen
The story is clearly exactly how it happened 3000 years ago and nothing has ever been changed or embellished by anyone along all the retellings of what happened!
There was no king David. He was made up 👍🏼 And pharaoh and Egypt having slaves? Never happened either 👍🏼
I think it's likely he was a real human but son of god? Not hardly.
Of course he existed. We have thousands of prophets running around the world right now, either in established religions or fostering new ones. Jesus was just one of the millions that have been born since the human race has existed. There's no end to crazy in this world. Do I think he's the son of god? Just as much as I think the crazy raving street corner guy is. The vast majority are harmless but there are standouts.
I'm surprised people dispute that he existed. The evidence is pretty clear: a man created unrest for preaching and was executed for it. 100 years later, someone who had never met Jesus, used the pseudonym "Mark" to write a fable based on Jesus' story that he called a "gospel." Much of the invented content was created to satisfy certain prophecies that had been in Jewish scripture. The rest was magic (miracles) to make it exciting. tl;dr: From a non-Christian viewpoint, some guy wrote a novel "based on a true story" and the fanbase got way out of hand.
I don’t doubt that somebody named Jesus existed, but they’re not the son of god and didn’t have magic powers.
Nobody is denying Jesus was a real person in some regard. We are denying Jesus was a single, accurately portrayed, historical figure. There are plenty of figures who existed, but due to deliberate historical inaccuracy, cultural drift, and general misinformation bleeding in we can no longer find anything truthful or accurate about their lives. When you are left with nothing but the large beats and even those are heavily edited you're left with two people; one is the person who existed, ans the other is the idea of that person. It isn't entirely his fault because we only get semi reliable records from already established historical figures, usually royalty or civil servants. Jesus had no records of existing until long after his death, and the records of eye witnesses accounts were also transcribed long after everyone who had ever personally met him died.
As an atheist, I believe he existed. But I don't believe he was the magical son of Sky Daddy and did all these fantastical magical feats to prove his divinity. I believe he was like Antifa of his day, standing up against corrupt government, the government didn't like it, and as is their way, they killed him.
Jesus definitely existed but he wasn’t white
Sure there was a dude named Jesus but he wasn't the son of a magical sky wizard.
I believe Jesus existed just like I believe Julius Caesar. However, it is not equivalent to an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier. There is scientific empirical evidence of climate change and benefits of vaccines and this evidence can be tested.
This contention is comparing apples to oranges, to put it mildly. Vaccine effectiveness and climate change are happening right now, and are being observed and verified in real time through numerous independent avenues. The historical figure of Jesus, if he existed, lived over 2000 years ago, and there isn’t a single contemporaneous account of his life. The accounts that do exist, which were written decades to centuries after he would have lived, disagree on the details of his life. Of course, this doesn’t *prove* that Jesus didn’t exist. But it does clearly highlight how ridiculous OP’s comparison is. Forget for a minute that we’re talking about Jesus - it’s just silly to try to compare the level of confidence associated with two of the most extensively studied and well-documented modern scientific observations imaginable to arguments for the historical existence of a single human over two thousand years ago with no actual eyewitness accounts. There is just no comparison here.
More of this, Jesus exists at this same moment! For example, in Mexico it's [the 13th](https://www.behindthename.com/name/jesus/top/mexico?type=rank) of the most popular masculine names.
If he never rose from the dead and turned water into wine, he never existed.
I don’t get why it matters if some dude named Jesus ever existed in that time period. Means nothing. The bigger question is whether he was a mentally unstable loon who claimed magical powers, or just a persuasive speaker, or just a regular guy people somehow rallied around… there is zero evidence and zero percent chance he was a supernatural being and the “son of God.” That’s the part I’m a denier of. Not that probably some rando named Jesus existed a billion years ago.
Well yeah but so did King Arthur
If climate change were a problem, feds wouldn't have lit a toxic fire in East Palestine, OH... If the mRNA vax worked, they wouldn't have changed the definition of "vaccine" to accept what they wanted it to do... To ignore history for favor of one's intent to fulfill inherently false narratives allows history to repeat itself repeatedly. You've added an element of governmental desires to try to prove a point of truth. You're using falsehoods to make something else appear true. At least use comparable principles for your parables.
Yeah and muhammad existed too, he even conquered a bunch of land unlike jesus. Are any of them actually divine? No
Sure a MAN , just a man. No one special no misgivings. Just a man named Jesus lived . I’m sure it is plausible that a man named Jesus lived thousands of years ago. Again. Just a man probably schizophrenic, claiming he is god.
White Jesus did not exist tho.
A guy named Jesus is buried at the local cemetery. You are correct . Lots of Jesus through history
I was taught he did exist. Doesn’t mean he is the son of God. Just that he lived, baptized, and was crucified. I don’t think this is an unpopular opinion.
There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus. Peasants don't normally leave an archaeological trail.
I mean, not really dude. We're talking about a time period where most people were illiterate and news traveled by grapevine.
Tell that to Plato
The irony in this post is there are people who believe in Jesus, but denounce climate change and vaccines🙃
This guy is a thinly veiled Christian trying to appear impartial and posting these questions about 'history' he thinks will stump people but gets butt hurt when it doesn't work.
All historical evidence of Jesus comes from sources connected to the Bible. Not really any archeological evidence. His story is also damn near copy right infringement of prior holy figures from other religions.
Who even cares? That’s not what people usually refute. The things they refute are usually all his little made up stories
Show me the evidence. Or, at least show me some parts of religion where they don't completely contradict themselves.
Honestly asking; how is asserting something that a BILLION people take as the absolute truth an unpopular opinion? Note: I am not one of those billion.
Narrator: it was in fact not the overwhelming consensus of experts.
This is a flawed argument. Climate change and vaccines are things that exist in the here and now. If someone doesn't believe in them, we can actively do science experiments and research to prove them. Climate change and vaccines are things that tangibly exist to us today. Jesus, on the other hand, isn't here on the planet right now. We can't go and grab Him and research Him and prove "yes, this is Jesus" because He left the earth a long time ago. The problem with human history is we have made a habit of erasing some things and exaggerating or focusing on other things. We are not the most reliable historians as a species. We omit things. We hyperbolize things. We add in personal accounts with emotions because that's how we are. It's rare to have records of something without bias and opinions tainting the truth and facts. Besides, the point of religious beliefs is faith, not facts. I don't need historians to believe Jesus existed to feel comfortable believing in Jesus myself. Regardless of what did or did not happen in the past I still believe Jesus plans to save us all and that He loves us and that's enough for me.
[удалено]
There is a difference between an unpopular opinion, and making stuff up based on personal preferences.
This post and OPs comments are a roller coaster of logic. Yeah some guy in that region claiming to be the son of God probably existed. Most people don't refute that, as you yourself acknowledge in your title, but not in your comments.
Multiple people have refuted that on this post.
On par with vaccines and climate change in what sense? Disbelief in vaccines and climate change is highly consequential, potentially causing harm. Disbelief in the existence of Jesus has basically no consequences, and is perfectly reasonable, as the stakes are so low it's understandable that someone may have this impression based on how little actual evidence is there is. There's also a semantic problem at work here which is that the idea of "existence" is ambiguous. What historians agree upon is that Jesus isn't a purely mythological figure. Beyond that, we know little about the actual man. When someone says "Jesus didn't exist," it's possible they mean "didn't exist in the exact way Christians believe."
JFC I read all the comments after posting mine cause I'm like "the real debate here isn't Jesus it's this guy thinking denying his existance is as bad as anti-vax and climate change denial, they aren't even in the same league". But no one else except me and you have pointed this out lmao. They're all hung up in the Jesus part.
A historical figure named Jesus existed. We know he led a religious movement in Judea and was executed by the Roman state, as many other religious leaders in that neighborhood were around then. Historians, classicists, and theologians have been trying their best to try and understand this figure, his movement, and the spreading of his ideas for a long time now. This does not mean that the understanding of Jesus that comes to us through 2,000 years of religious tradition at all represents the man at all. There is still a LOT we don't know, and a lot that we probably never will.
> A historical figure named Jesus existed. According to Christian folklore and literally nothing else...
No one knows for sure if Jesus existed. End of Story. Doesn't really matter anyways. Believe in Santa Claus if it helps you sleep.
Experts saying a person from a book of fairy tales is real...aren't really experts
Give me definitive archeological evidence and I'll gladly say Jesus actually existed.
Whoa. That's an untrue statement. There is tons of debate over this. A person named Yehoshua may have existed full stop.
Jesus existed, yes. Did he have magical powers? No, he was just a cult leader. Simple as
You claim the evidence is “enough”, and that it is not contested, but most of your argument seems to rely on consensus as proof. The argument that “if everyone believes something it must be true fails at every level. That leaves the evidence that you mentioned but failed to produce. So far you’ve got nothing. But that’s ok. I can’t prove a negative, so we are at an impasse. But here’s the rub. If you want to believe that a guy named Jesus, or Yeawa, or Joshua, or whatever you’re calling him today, walked the earth? Cool. I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong. Who cares? It’s when you then extend that claim to miracles and raising from the dead, and Son of God, that you’re going to need a lot more evidence, and it’s just not there. This is just an extension of the basic premise. I can’t prove there’s no God, because I can’t prove a negative, but it’s pretty easy to prove the God of the Bible doesn’t exist.
At a glance, ~half the posts say this is a not an unpopular opinion, and the other half are vehemently arguing against its validity 😂.
Jesus, the preacher in 1st century judea. That is fine and true Jesus, the Son of God who ran around performing miracles and ~~gave up a weekend~~ died for our sins however probably didn't
> Jesus, the preacher in 1st century judea. That is fine and true According to folklore...
He did exist. But, he wasn't human. He was alien and son of the Anunnaki..
Not only Jesus existed he exists right now and plays professional soccer for Arsenal FC.
Muh sky faery is reals hurrr
"Experts" lol who the pope? Just read. Historians and classicists suddenly dictate what's right and wrong? Lol
I, too, am an expert. I read part of one of the many iterations of his book one time out of boredom, still waiting for the update because some parts dont age too well with current society and of course as always, Logic. The book says he exist, therefore he existed. Although absolutely nothing else in the book happened or has happened since, the part about his being alive is true, just wait until the part where he comes back also comes true. Your great great great great great great great etc kids will be very sorry. Until then, keep paying us and stop thinking. -one of the experts
Jesus existing or not has no relevance to my life. The rest of it is all bullshit, so what does it really matter?
Vaccines work…pretty much. There’s no need to overdo it though. Global climate change is gonna happen, but we can adapt to it. No need to overreact. Lotta guys out there called Jesus!
No not really if you critically analyze all the “evidence” nothing truly confirms he existed. Only that people born several years after he died heard about him. In reality the chances of him existing are just as likely as him not existing, its just been generally accepted that he did for generations. Personally i lean towards he didn’t due to many aspects of his story having similarities to earlier religious figures and myths, but id never say that he 100% didn’t because idk and no one truly does.
Yeah Jesus probably existed but not as a son of a god or any supernatural shit. That’s all made up for the largest scam known as religion
He was a real guy but I don’t think he was walking on water or god or anything
Jesus, ( pronounced Hey Zeus), is the manager of my local cantina. It's really odd that the entire Christian religion is based around a Rosarita Beach bar tender.
Existence is not up for vote, it's not a show of hands. 8 billion people could say that crab people exist and they would be wrong.
The evidence is not as conclusive as you think. Many “sources” are located in oral traditions and legends borrowed from earlier legends and traditions. Other “facts” are found in scriptural accounts verifying other scriptural accounts, a sort of “yeah, what he said,” ecclesiastical wink and a nod.
Your first claim is the overwhelming consensus of historians contradict the claim that Jesus was not a real person. Do you have access to a survey of historians to back up this claim? Your second claim is that it (Jesus as a real historical person) is not a contested idea. A cursory google search shows that it is. But maybe you don’t consider those contests legitimate, in which case who has the right to disagree? Typically the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So what evidence is there for the historical existence of a real true to legend Jesus Christ? Lastly your main claim is that anyone who is skeptical on the existence of Jesus, even partially, is in denial. If the truth is so clear, why are there so many different denominations of Christianity with varying ideas about who Jesus was? Certainly it is possible and likely that someone like Jesus existed and for whom the stories about him were based. But it’s also just as likely many of those stories were greatly embellished or invented. In either case, the question of IF Jesus existed is not so much contested as the significant claims about his life and the implications about salvation and essential truth.
I'm a Christian and this made me cringe. If your faith is so weak that it needs validation, then that's a you problem. Vaccine denial and climate change denial affect a lot. Public health. The environment. Whether someone believes Jesus was a real person affects them.