How likely is it that Jesus was a real historical figure? One

>>2808810
>How likely is it that Jesus was a real historical figure
Considering that only edgy fedoras 2000 years later started doubting he existed, 100%.

>>2808916
Thank (you)

>>2808916
I guess they had plenty of fodoras in early christian communities then

>I was lead to believe that these text were altered by Christians due to the fact that the prose in these text differ from Josephus' usual writings
There is an alteration but the mention of Jesus isn't part of it. The alterations were small additions that made it seem like Josephus recognised the divinity of Christ.

Origen quotes the original passage, having lived before the alterations were made, the alterations and Jesus is still mentioned.

Generally speaking OP you're not going to find any professional historians who dispute the existence of Jesus. It's not a tenable position. It's like trying to argue that Hannibal or Boudicca or Alexander didn't exist.

>The only problem with these are that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus.
This isn't a problem in ancient historiography, because sources are quite scarce in general. It's the norm that sources are written long after the deaths of those who the author is writing about. My history professor said that a good rule of thumb is that a source can be trusted if it was written within two generations of the life of the subject, because that's the last time the author could've spoken to an eyewitness or someone who spoke to an eyewitness.

For reference the most comprehensive biography we have of Alexander the Great was written about 400 years after he died, St Patrick isn't historically attested until 300 years after he died, etc.

>>2809114
Thanks for the straightforward reply this answer helps me out a lot. I love history and these kind of questions always tickle the noggin.

A historical Jesus 100% existed, it's all the miracle and resurrection shit that gets tricky. The writings of Josephus prove Jesus(yeshua) was a real figure and that he was crucified by Pilate

>>2808810
> Lists sources on Jesus
> Doesn't have the NT on the list
Every fucking time.

>>2809423

>yeshua

Wasn't that a relatively common name? And weren't crucifixions also relatively common? Just because you know for a fact a guy named Arthur existed in the past doesn't mean you know he was King Arthur.

>>2809429

I bet you're thinking the New Testament is a good source of evidence because it's an extremely "reliable" text due to the large number of copies and the time between the original and the earliest surviving copy. That's a very specific meaning of "reliable" though. We know with great certainty that the New Testament copies we see were identical or near identical to the original. That doesn't mean we know the New Testament was a factually accurate record of events.

>>2809432
yes, but the fact that there's so many stories surrounding the life of this guy called "Yeshua" that all bear similarities and all come the same era strongly suggests that there was a figure called Yeshua who had some sort of religious following.

I'll ask you this, what's more likely - that a non-existent Jesus sprung up as a figure present in so many different texts, movements and beliefs out of nowhere, or there was actually a historical man named Jesus, who was later interpreted in a number of ways?

>>2809432
>please let Jesus not be real... please let Jesus not be real...

Fedoras are so desperate I swear. One fact that often gets overlooked in these discussions is that the Jews who HATED Jesus and wanted to crush Christianity never denied Jesus' existence. If Jesus was just a fiction you can bet the Jews would have used that to attack the church, but they didn't. So when even Christ's worst enemies agreed He existed, it's safe to say He existed.

>>2809114
/thread

>>2809432
>Wasn't that a relatively common name? And weren't crucifixions also relatively common?
Yes, and those points actually work in favor of Jesus existing historically. It's really not that much of a stretch to accept that someone named Jesus (Yeshua) lived during the first century, traveled around as an apocalytpic preacher, gained a small following, was crucified for sedition, and continued to be regarded by his remaining disciples. All of those things were common enough that it would be weird if someone like that didn't exist at some point. His divinity isn't a historical question, but there's no reason to doubt that someone fitting the description of Jesus probably existed.

And your Arthur analogy doesn't really work, because the criteria for a historical King Arthur are much less common. If you were able to find evidence of a 5th century person named Arthur who was regarded as a king, and fought Saxons you'd have a pretty good case for an origin of King Arthur. But it's not like any of those were super common or as expected as Jesus's traits.

File: Did_Jesus_Exist_(Ehrman_book).jpg (39KB, 326x499px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 326x499px

>>2809457
No, I think the NT is a good source because it consists of several independent books consisting independent material, the earliest of which is less than 20 years after Jesus's death. Also, I'm an atheist and I have to agenda to push here except for being historical.

>>2809457
I mean St. Paul and St. Peter were real, and they're two of the most important figures in Christianity after Jesus. Why can't we trust their writings?

>>2809466
Good point

>>2808810
A historical character being behind all the myths and mythology is really not that farfetched. The historical Jesus or Yeshua story is basically: religious/political dissident gains following, causes trouble, gets executed by authorities for causing trouble, followers continue to believe in his message after death and start making shit up about his life to make him seem better and/or more special then he is already.

>>2809473
Cause they might have made the shit up