What is your view on the historicity of Jesus?

clearly the most important.
No other Man has meant as much to humanity as Christ.
That's why this board is dedicated to religion,as it says in the sticky.
this board is basically /christ/

>>41304
Did he exist as a historical person, though? The only sources are biblical and certainly not trustworthy in proving his actual existence.

>>41714
I think there are records that a man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

>>41258
I do not believe that he was a single person.

>>41714
>The only sources are biblical

Tacitus refers to christianity as a religion centered around a man who suffered extreme penalty under Pontius Pilate - while he does not name Jesus, he does name Pilate. Josephus also makes reference to Jesus, as do some other contemporary sources.

>>41258
Who made the greater sacrifice ?

[spoiler]It was socrates[/spoiler]

Find me five academic historians specialising in the period who think Jesus wasn't a historical person

It simply isn't a tenable position. No real historian takes it seriously, they never have.

Granted I'm appealing to the consensus here but the consensus is fucking universal. There has never been a serious scholarly work advocating Christ mythicism

File: EadwineJesus.jpg (25KB, 315x373px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 315x373px

Jesus was a psychedelic mushroom, and simply a shared vision/personification of ideals among the disciples.

>>41258
Mixed.
Jesus may or may not have existed but the end product was Christianity.
Christianity has literally NOTHING to do with the old testiment, in fact you could make an argument strongly that the Christianity was a response/revolt to Judaism (see dead sea scrolls).
Historically there's a few characters who are mentioned which sound like Jesus but nothing concrete.

>>41258
There's no reason to doubt he existed. While we don't have a lot of written evidence, and none of the non-christian one is contemporary, ancient writers never doubted the historicity of Jesus and always mention him as a man who actually existed. We make a big deal of it, but it's not like other historical characters accepted to exist aren't worst attested.

>>41890
Why WOULD he name Jesus? At the time, Jesus was just a former carpenter turned cult leader on the other side of the world, he was literally of no importance to the Romans.

>>41890
Let's put it like this: There are no known primary sources. The gospels doesn't reflect any first-hand witness and Tacitus and Josephus were not actual contemporaries.

>>42348
This desu, christianity wasn't important at all before the 3rd century crisis.

>>42291
There is certainly room for doubts. If we were to accept that Jesus existed we could never accept what has been ascribed to him.

>>42042
gtfo you are clearly mentally disabled