not everyone. while there’s some historical documentation Jesus may have been a historical person, there’s also hoax and fraudulent accounts that have been passed on as historical, the narrative outside of Christian religious accounts is very minimal and the religious accounts only start up at best 20+ years after his lifetime but more likely 50-100 years after, as it was a doomsday cult, they didn’t see the point of writing things down all that much until enough time passed they started to have a longer view of when the end would be.
Most records of historical people from that era were written well after, Jesus’ records were actually comparatively recent.
the narrative outside of Christian religious accounts is very minimal
Narratives surrounding Roman leaders, etc, outside of Roman accounts would be very minimal also. If Jesus of Nazareth really was God, it would be expected that the first-hand witnesses would of course be His followers and those that were close to Him. We do have enough from external accounts to know that He was crucified, and those that knew Him said He did miracles, they witnessed it, and that He was worshipped as God and it was widely claimed that He rose from the dead, and His body was never found. And the same people who said they witnessed it wouldn’t recant it either, on pain of death. The movement exploded a bit initially, and this would have been with first hand witnesses still alive that people could talk to, and quite a large number of them at that.
Sure, there’s not really a specific smoking gun, but it’s actually quite a lot more plausible than you realise.
I used to be a priest, I took this all very seriously and studied it a lot, and I’m sorry to say but what your talking about as widely accepted historical fact is not correct. There’s no first hand accounts or eye witness accounts of Jesus’s ministry, the only texts we have are compilations of sayings and sermons from a wide verity of sources that Catholic scholars only attributed names to so people would know the general source, sources that were at the nearest maybe 20+ years afterwords, but much more likely 50+. Also Jesus’s divinity wasn’t a documented Christian belief until well after it became an established religion, and when it did come about it was heavily debated among leaders and scholars, and even today there are sects that reject Jesus’s divinity as part of the Christian faith. You are welcome to believe what you do, but there is a difference between your faith, and historical fact. Keep in mind also the history surrounding Christianity is almost exclusively the work of Christian scholars, not secular scholars, So saying it’s somehow biased to say Jesus’s divinity was not a belief in the early church, doesn’t work well as an argument when it’s modern Christian scholars that are saying this is the case. they have to take the data as important, not their personal faith, or it would just be a sermon of their own making and not historical information. you’re more than welcome to believe and have faith in whatever you choose, it’s not just historical fact.
Ahh I didn’t know the naming conventions, rabbinic new. Thanks for the knowledge, I’ll be reading the wiki on that for future reference.
I believe a person named Jesus existed, or dont care to deny it at the very least. I just wanted to be inclusive of different view points around the very existence of the person we call Jesus so thanks for supporting me in that, as I don’t always speak good
Basically everyone agrees that Jesus existed, was a Jew and was even crucified under Pontius Pilate.
Jesus was Jewish in first century terms, yes. He followed second-temple Judaism. He wasn’t a rabbinic Jew, which is what’s around today.
not everyone. while there’s some historical documentation Jesus may have been a historical person, there’s also hoax and fraudulent accounts that have been passed on as historical, the narrative outside of Christian religious accounts is very minimal and the religious accounts only start up at best 20+ years after his lifetime but more likely 50-100 years after, as it was a doomsday cult, they didn’t see the point of writing things down all that much until enough time passed they started to have a longer view of when the end would be.
Most records of historical people from that era were written well after, Jesus’ records were actually comparatively recent.
Narratives surrounding Roman leaders, etc, outside of Roman accounts would be very minimal also. If Jesus of Nazareth really was God, it would be expected that the first-hand witnesses would of course be His followers and those that were close to Him. We do have enough from external accounts to know that He was crucified, and those that knew Him said He did miracles, they witnessed it, and that He was worshipped as God and it was widely claimed that He rose from the dead, and His body was never found. And the same people who said they witnessed it wouldn’t recant it either, on pain of death. The movement exploded a bit initially, and this would have been with first hand witnesses still alive that people could talk to, and quite a large number of them at that.
Sure, there’s not really a specific smoking gun, but it’s actually quite a lot more plausible than you realise.
I used to be a priest, I took this all very seriously and studied it a lot, and I’m sorry to say but what your talking about as widely accepted historical fact is not correct. There’s no first hand accounts or eye witness accounts of Jesus’s ministry, the only texts we have are compilations of sayings and sermons from a wide verity of sources that Catholic scholars only attributed names to so people would know the general source, sources that were at the nearest maybe 20+ years afterwords, but much more likely 50+. Also Jesus’s divinity wasn’t a documented Christian belief until well after it became an established religion, and when it did come about it was heavily debated among leaders and scholars, and even today there are sects that reject Jesus’s divinity as part of the Christian faith. You are welcome to believe what you do, but there is a difference between your faith, and historical fact. Keep in mind also the history surrounding Christianity is almost exclusively the work of Christian scholars, not secular scholars, So saying it’s somehow biased to say Jesus’s divinity was not a belief in the early church, doesn’t work well as an argument when it’s modern Christian scholars that are saying this is the case. they have to take the data as important, not their personal faith, or it would just be a sermon of their own making and not historical information. you’re more than welcome to believe and have faith in whatever you choose, it’s not just historical fact.
Ahh I didn’t know the naming conventions, rabbinic new. Thanks for the knowledge, I’ll be reading the wiki on that for future reference.
I believe a person named Jesus existed, or dont care to deny it at the very least. I just wanted to be inclusive of different view points around the very existence of the person we call Jesus so thanks for supporting me in that, as I don’t always speak good
Ah yeah that makes sense, fair