Did Jesus Exist?

Did Jesus Exist? If so, was he telling the truth? if yes, why do people not believe?

>Did Jesus Exist?
yes
>If so, was he telling the truth?
sometimes
>if yes, why do people not believe?
no proof to back it up

>If so, was he telling the truth?
>sometimes

How does this work? Who determines whether he was telling the truth or not? Wouldn't it be a matter of "belief"? Why do you think he was "sometimes" telling the truth?

Why isn't Veeky Forums a christian board even if Jesus existed?

>Did Jesus Exist?
Yeah.
>If so, was he telling the truth?
I don't know.
>if yes, why do people not believe?
People do believe.

>Did Jesus Exist?

Somewhat difficult to ascertain, and this question doesn't have a simple "yes" or "no" answer. As countless people have already posted: it is likely that a historical Jesus (Yeshua) existed, who was an apocalyptic preacher and who was put to death by the Roman occupation. However, this historical Yeshua should not be confused for the Jesus Christ of Christianity, who is a fictional character based only very loosely on this historical Yeshua.

>If so, was he telling the truth?

No.

Can you elaborate ?

Yeshua is Jesus you fucking moron

Not him, but I'm pretty sure that he meant that the person of Yeshua has been largely deified into our understanding of Christ today, not that they are literally two differant people

Yeshua is not Jesus Christ.

To clarify one last time for you Christcucks: Yeshua refers to the historical preacher from the 1st century, whereas Jesus Christ (emphasis on Christ) refers to the mythical savior figure of Christianity, who is only loosely based on the historical Yeshua.

On summary: Certain historical events are difficult to explain without appealing to the figure of an historical Jesus, hence the name.

If you want a better summary, Bart Erham writed a book about that historical jesus.

Wrong yet again Jew. Do some research.

>Certain historical events are difficult to explain without appealing to the figure of an historical Jesus

Which ones?

Not him, but let's just take a figure like Polycarp who was the disciple of John the Apostle. Irenaeus heard him preach when he was young. We have continuity of the testimony of a person who actually saw, talked with, and followed Jesus. Whether his accounts were totally correct or colored by personal beliefs, him following Jesus was a thing.
I'm an atheist myself, but I really like early church history.

>if you call him a Jew without responding with any facts of your own, you win!

>We have continuity of the testimony of a person who actually saw, talked with, and followed Jesus

Wait a minute, John the Apostle as in the John who wrote the Gospel of John? Wouldn't someone who knew Jesus be long dead by then?

It was "written"by John, no one knows who actually wrote it, though it's possible for him to have written or finalized it in the last decades of his life.

>no one knows who actually wrote it

But that means that there is no direct link to someone we knew actually knew Jesus then.

We know that john was an apostle and polycarp studied under him, we just don't know if he wrote a specific book or if someone wrote it in his name. The gospel of John isn't the only work connecting him to Jesus.

There's not that many generations between Jesus and the early 200s when you think about it. Remember that President John Tyler's grandson is still alive

But if the Gospel was written by someone else, than all the accounts of John are second-hand. Or third hand, even. Did Polycarp ever write something about John?

Most accounts of people around that time are second hand, that's not really a problem. But you have John, who was uniformly agreed to have been an apostle (even if there was no Gospel of John), teaching Polycarp who preached when Iranaeus was in the audience, and they likely conversed.

Who says that John knew Jesus and that he taught Polycarp (apart from Irenaeus)?

Tertullian

Did he know Polycarp personally?