Is Jesus really a historical person

[Hodos]

At this point, it is kind of absurd scholarship that would reject Jesus as a historical person. Jesus has earlier and more attestation as a historical character than nearly any single person in the ancient world. The fact of Jesus existence is attested to by at least 10 different Biblical authors within the lifetime of his followers, each providing independent testimony of his historicity. In addition, to these we have thousands of epistolary documents in the centuries after Jesus lived from the early Church Fathers, to heretical writings, and we have independent secular testimony from historical writers such as Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc. We also have a few archeological finds that attest to Jesus existence such as the Church in Capernaum, the ossuary of James (admittedly still under academic debate) that demonstrate the historicity of Christ. It really is not a serious question THAT Jesus existed, what is more generally questioned is whether you believe in what the Biblical writers believed about him.

 

[PetraG]

At this point, it is kind of absurd scholarship that would reject Jesus as a historical person. Jesus has earlier and more attestation as a historical character than nearly any single person in the ancient world. The fact of Jesus existence is attested to by at least 10 different Biblical authors within the lifetime of his followers, each providing independent testimony of his historicity. In addition, to these we have thousands of epistolary documents in the centuries after Jesus lived from the early Church Fathers, to heretical writings, and we have independent secular testimony from historical writers such as Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc. We also have a few archeological finds that attest to Jesus existence such as the Church in Capernaum, the ossuary of James (admittedly still under academic debate) that demonstrate the historicity of Christ. It really is not a serious question THAT Jesus existed, what is more generally questioned is whether you believe in what the Biblical writers believed about him.

More to the point, contemporary writers who don’t think much of Christians don’t say that he didn’t exist. No one in the time says he was a figment of anybody’s imagination, and certainly considering what his followers claimed there would have been writers in the opposition saying that claims about his existence were an utter fabrication. Instead, they say they don’t believe he was what the Christians claim he was.

 

[DIERM]

This can be a dicey topic. While we might be lead to believe the seculars, atheists, or anti-religious are more likely to argue there was no Historical Jesus, the argument that there was can be a dangerous seed sewn by well intended Christians.

The trouble comes when the division between the Historical Jesus and the Divine are too exacting, leading some to feel there was two Jesus, and you can chose the one you like, and the world is in balance.

There was a Historical Jesus because of the Incarnation. But the two cannot be separated. It boils to down that there was a Historical Jesus only because there was a Divine Jesus.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Jesus is a historical person. Pagan sources: Tacitus, Seutonius, Pliny the Younger. Jewish sources: Josephus, Philo. Christian sources: too many to list.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Is Jesus really a historical person?

In the skeptics attempt to raise the evidentiary bar impossibly high they also make figures such as Hannibal Barca, Caesar and Alexander the Great into myths.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Put it this way. If someone doesn’t believe Jesus existed, they also should forget about Alexander the Great or Buddah since the first writings we have about them were written 300 years after their deaths.