Did Jesus ever exist?

Keep trying, Satan. Until you walk directly in His sight you have no clue what I am talking about. It's anecdotal but I know He existed, or else how would I exist?

That site is not a primary source, nor does it cite any primary sources on the historicity of Jesus.
Try again.

Next you're going to say Tacitus was a source too.

>The general scholarly view is that while theTestimonium Flavianumis most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration

>Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not,[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[17][nb 8][19][20][21]

>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[21][22][23] Jesus was a Galilean Jew[12] who was baptized by John the Baptist and subsequently began his own ministry, preaching his message orally[24] and often being referred to as "rabbi".[25] He was arrested and tried by the Jewish religious authorities,[26] and turned over to the Roman government, and was subsequently crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect.[27] Jesus debated fellow Jews on how to best follow God, performed healings, taught in parables and gathered followers.[27][28]

Meh, good enough for me. I'm not a believer by any means but he probably existed.

Yeah but obviously the bible isn't giving us a full picture of what he taught because the apostles are in contradiction with one another, especially tonally.

quads prove god exists

>how would I exist

Because of some other prime mover?

This is your brain on Protestantism

Which quads do I trust?
or

kek confirms.

weren't there lots of wacko cultists wandering around at the time? Jesus is probably an amalgamation of lotsa dudes.

wew lads. The eternal battle rages on...

In all seriousness, I believe there was a man/group of men who various writers and stories attributed things to and built upon and then were passed around the region and eventually became the story of the Jesus Christ and led to the development of Christianity. And I still say that I believe in Jesus Christ, and I don't believe that cheapens my belief in any way.

I'm Lutheran, btw.

He existed and attained liberation by having sex with Mary Magdalene in a cemetery after eating pork and drinking beer by attaining non-duality state and experiencing mahamudra.

Then the jews deleted it from the bible and suplanted the account with the crucifixion because it wasn't halal

How do you reconcile this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/09/04/an-atheists-defense-of-the-historicity-of-jesus/

>"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

- Bart Ehrman

>"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 any more.

- Michael Grant

>"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.

- Richard Burridge

wtf, I'm confused user. explain your beliefs.

>Bart
Dismissed

...

I think he did exist, he's far more real than libercuck's 31 genders, but whether he's the son of God and Messiah or not is highly debatable. He's more like a deluded man at most.

Also Jesus is not the only one who successfully self-claimed as son of God.

>very abundant evidence
Evidence that is never presented.
I have yet to see A SINGLE PRIMARY SOURCE of Jesus' historicity.

Find me five professional historians who do not believe that Jesus existed

>I have yet to see A SINGLE PRIMARY SOURCE of Jesus' historicity.
There are no primary sources of the historicity of Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Boudicca, Avitus, Flavius Aetius, Vortigern or St Patrick but I'm sure you believe in them

Rise child, drink my blood, eat my flesh and live forever.

-Vampire Lord Jesus.

Probably. He wasn't the son of any deity (he doesn't even claim this, it's later fanfic) and he wasn't the Messiah (didn't fulfill any of the four things the Messiah was supposed to do), but there was probably a Jesus who started a cult and convinced a bunch of less intelligent people to follow him.

>believe

Nope. I think they probably existed, but I don't "believe" in them, and even if they didn't exist it doesn't matter in the slightest because no-one ever got burned at the stake for denying the historicity of Alexander the Great.

Did people get burned at the stake for denying the historicity of Jesus?

>jesus doesn't real
>but all these others also not real!!!
So? That doesn't do anything for Jesus, pro or con.

You're missing the point by a mile

Not having a primary source documenting the existence of a person is the norm in the ancient world, not the exception. All things considered Jesus is actually pretty well-documented, considering the most comprehensive biography of Jesus was written about 60 years after he died and the most comprehensive biography of Alexander was written about 500 years after he died.

>This false argument is always used

I'll just stick with Alexander and Hannibal here because I shouldn't ave to prove 7 people you erroneously spout as a defense for a completely and utterly inability to prove a religious figure.

>Alexander
We have Babylonian Royal library documents give us the exact day of Alexander's death. Also other government records such as Bacteria's.

Let alone proof of Greek conquest in this territory at the time of his life

>Hannibal
Please disprove the 2nd Punic war or the events that took place in it. Our main historian of the account ,Polybius, is the most reliable historian of Antiquity. He interviewed soldiers of the war, witnessed the destruction of Carthage, etc.

When you have proof of the actual events associated with the person, the need to prove that person is less.

Also not to mention the burden of proof is far larger for somebody claiming to have religious significance. At least with generals, there impact can be seen directly in the world.

Prove any of the events associated with Jesus happened. Even his birth story is completely fabricated in order to fulfill a Messiah prophesy

>When you have proof of the actual events associated with the person, the need to prove that person is less.
Christianity exists numbnuts

I think you are actually literally retarded. Re-read what you just wrote out.

He ALWAYS existed and WILL exist brainlet

>the absolute fucking state of Veeky Forums

Why are the consequences of Alexander's and Hannibal's lives enough to definitively prove their historicity but the consequences of Jesus' life aren't? Could you perhaps have a dose of the auld bias user

why don't you do some research into the consensus among professional historians on the matter? nobody here is going to convince you. read what the experts say.

>Did Jesus ever exist?

Probably, but many of his miracles are probably white lies...

youtube.com/watch?v=ewF0zrJDNow

youtube.com/watch?v=orz_II04RU0

So does Hinduism. Faith in something doesn't prove that

>Arguments

Honestly, I don't give a shit if Alexander or Hannibal existed, the events attributed to them occured. So, if there must be somebody associated with it, let it be them if you want I don't give a shit. But not even the events associated with Jesus can be proven and many have myths doing the same exact thing before jesus. So if you want to believe in him, go ahead, but I'm just saying it's hard to prove he's a Messiah when this is the case, especially when he doesn't even fulfill the definition of a Messiah (look to Cyrus the Great for what a Messiah is).

I have. And yes I know what consensus is, but also this topic is so tainted by religious and cultural bias.

Although it is not in agreement with a consensus, and he acknowledges it, I personally prefer Robert Price's interpretation.

>If there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more

The Koran

>also this topic is so tainted by religious and cultural bias.
It really isn't as much as you'd think. Some of the most avowed supporters of a historical Jesus are vehemnt anti-theists.

It is when most of the documents from that era are accepted to be edited after the fact by christians and arguing the existence of Jesus leads to directly questioning the legitimacy of christianity.

Actually we don't.
So the answer is a maybe leaning to a no. More likely that he's a mix of several preachers that got blown out of proportion by retelling.

>More likely that he's a mix of several preachers
literally no historians think this

...

Are you implying that the Josephus interpolation is the entire passage? Because that idea is like 150 years old and pretty widely discredited.

That's not even mentioning the fact that Josephus mentions Jesus in another passage which has no interpolation.

Obviously a Ghoul with a vore fetish.

For evidence, quality > quantity

Also, the years they attribute for the NT are off. It's more like 100-200 years from the events

Yes. The only thing we know about him is that he was crucified, because that's all the nonbiblical sources say about him.

Let’s review what we’ve learned from hostile pagan and Jewish sources describing Jesus. We’ll do our best to discount the anti-Christian bias we see in the sources, just as we discounted the pro-Christian bias we think might exist in some versions of the writing of Josephus. Many elements of the Biblical record are confirmed by these hostile accounts, in spite of the fact they deny the supernatural power of Jesus:

Jesus was born and lived in Palestine. He was born, supposedly, to a virgin and had an earthly father who was a carpenter. He was a teacher who taught that through repentance and belief, all followers would become brothers and sisters. He led the Jews away from their beliefs. He was a wise man who claimed to be God and the Messiah. He had unusual magical powers and performed miraculous deeds. He healed the lame. He accurately predicted the future. He was persecuted by the Jews for what He said, betrayed by Judah Iskarioto. He was beaten with rods, forced to drink vinegar and wear a crown of thorns. He was crucified on the eve of the Passover and this crucifixion occurred under the direction of Pontius Pilate, during the time of Tiberius. On the day of His crucifixion, the sky grew dark and there was an earthquake. Afterward, He was buried in a tomb and the tomb was later found to be empty. He appeared to His disciples resurrected from the grave and showed them His wounds. These disciples then told others Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven. Jesus’ disciples and followers upheld a high moral code. One of them was named Matthai. The disciples were also persecuted for their faith but were martyred without changing their claims. They met regularly to worship Jesus, even after His death.

That biography is nit a primary source, not by a mile so to speak.
For Alexander we have coins with his image minted during his lifetime.

But the real point is this: any unbiased historian will question and debate the historicity of any historical figure. And we should not accept more lenient standards regarding sources for Jesus. If anything, we should be more careful and apply more scrutiny before we accept a source as evidence. Because the stakes are (and were in the past) so high.

If we do this, and reject religiously biased and second hand accounts, we are left empty handed. No evidence remains. And the historicity of Jesus can only be asserted based on faith. And nothing else.

Most historians would agree that a man with the latinized name of Jesus of Nazareth existed sometime in the early 1st century and was executed by the Romans and that afterwards his followers formed a cult around him, which eventually morphed into Christianity

>Let’s review what we’ve learned from hostile pagan and Jewish sources describing Jesus
lmao, a lot of the stuff you posted is exclusively in the gospel, like the earthquake and the sky turning dark

*gospels

>Accurately predicted the future

Wasn't the world supposed to end before the first generation of followers died?

>He was a wise man who claimed to be God
I'm not a heretic, but where in the Scriptures does he do this?

>He accurately predicted the future.
He may have if the Scriptures are true, but weren't the Gospels written after the things Jesus supposedly predicted happened?

Anyways, a lot of people don't trust Biblical accounts. That's why I only mentioned what nonbiblical sources said about Jesus, so that I could convince OP (who may not be religious) that Jesus did indeed exist.

Doubtful.

>this is your brain on Petersonism

3 > 2 brah