If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

Hopefully, you do not expect a definitive answer here on DCUM. Look it up, as they say. And keep in mind that "real historical figure" does not mean "son of god" - just that there is evidence that the person once lived -- like Ben Franklin, or Henry the 8th, or you, assuming you have a valid birth certificate.

It’s impossible to definitively prove he was a real person.

There is some circumstantial evidence though that shows he was most likely a real person.

So what? There's compelling evidence that Ben Franklin, Henry the 8th and presumably you were real people. There's no evidence that anyone is supernatural - it's beyond science and thus requires faith to believe it.

I think the OP was just asking if he was an actual person, not about the supernatural stuff. The pp you're responding to has it right i'm sure. Jeus was most likely a real person. I do believe he lived, was baptized, preached in the Galilee area, and probably went to Jerusalem at the end of his days -- beyond that everything is conjecture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

l

Hopefully, you do not expect a definitive answer here on DCUM. Look it up, as they say. And keep in mind that "real historical figure" does not mean "son of god" - just that there is evidence that the person once lived -- like Ben Franklin, or Henry the 8th, or you, assuming you have a valid birth certificate.

It’s impossible to definitively prove he was a real person.

There is some circumstantial evidence though that shows he was most likely a real person.

So what? There's compelling evidence that Ben Franklin, Henry the 8th and presumably you were real people. There's no evidence that anyone is supernatural - it's beyond science and thus requires faith to believe it.

Yup. The last six years have shown us that people will believe all kinds of crazy crap that is easily disputable with modern technology.

2000 years ago? They wouldn’t even bother to “do your own research”. They just loved a good story and kept passing it on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^This is a great post. It supports the opposite of what you intended, though.

And that’s only Mithras, there are so many other messianic similarities.

Oh look, a hit and run without any substance.

If you have a substantive argument, now would be the time to bring it out. I for one am very impressed with pp’s points about the silliness of the Mithras claim. You, though, look like a grade schooler.

Ad hominem again. So PP can make points without citations, because he agrees with you, but I can not, because I don't agree with you. Got it.

Not one of PP's claims are cited. There are no historical citations in that link... And even if you take them as 100% accurate, nothing disputes the point that there eerie similarities in the legends, in fact it supports that observation, which was the point of the post you rudely replied to.

And my previous post DID have citations that contradict what PP copied from that link... look them up, one by one, and you shall see. The truth shall set you free.

You have no leg to stand on here man, sorry. Fail.

image upload



You posted and sourced your claim with a disputed Wikipedia article. Reading through it shows why it’s disputed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Even if they feel very, very strongly about his existence, it’s impossible to definitively prove. Most likely existed? Sure.

And that’s not as important as the story of Jesus. People love a good story. And his story has had quite a big impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Even if they feel very, very strongly about his existence, it’s impossible to definitively prove. Most likely existed? Sure.

And that’s not as important as the story of Jesus. People love a good story. And his story has had quite a big impact.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Jesus was a man who walked the earth. Why you deny Him is that you fear Him. Why put all this effort into denial of Him, especially when mainstream atheist scholars also agree Jesus existed? Do you think your Wikipedia research shows you the “real” truth that somehow all the big guns missed or are ignoring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^This is a great post. It supports the opposite of what you intended, though.

And that’s only Mithras, there are so many other messianic similarities.

Oh look, a hit and run without any substance.

If you have a substantive argument, now would be the time to bring it out. I for one am very impressed with pp’s points about the silliness of the Mithras claim. You, though, look like a grade schooler.

Ad hominem again. So PP can make points without citations, because he agrees with you, but I can not, because I don't agree with you. Got it.

Not one of PP's claims are cited. There are no historical citations in that link... And even if you take them as 100% accurate, nothing disputes the point that there eerie similarities in the legends, in fact it supports that observation, which was the point of the post you rudely replied to.

And my previous post DID have citations that contradict what PP copied from that link... look them up, one by one, and you shall see. The truth shall set you free.

You have no leg to stand on here man, sorry. Fail.

image upload



You posted and sourced your claim with a disputed Wikipedia article. Reading through it shows why it’s disputed.

Hey pp, Mithras? Was the rock he was born from a virgin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

Hopefully, you do not expect a definitive answer here on DCUM. Look it up, as they say. And keep in mind that "real historical figure" does not mean "son of god" - just that there is evidence that the person once lived -- like Ben Franklin, or Henry the 8th, or you, assuming you have a valid birth certificate.

It’s impossible to definitively prove he was a real person.

There is some circumstantial evidence though that shows he was most likely a real person.

So what? There's compelling evidence that Ben Franklin, Henry the 8th and presumably you were real people. There's no evidence that anyone is supernatural - it's beyond science and thus requires faith to believe it.

I think the OP was just asking if he was an actual person, not about the supernatural stuff. The pp you're responding to has it right i'm sure. Jeus was most likely a real person. I do believe he lived, was baptized, preached in the Galilee area, and probably went to Jerusalem at the end of his days -- beyond that everything is conjecture.

Again, So what? So he lived -- lots of people lived back then and no one has bothered to try to prove it because no supernatural claims were being made about them. The big claim is not simply that Jesus lived, but that he was Son of God and historical evidence somehow adds to the credence of that claim, which no historian will ever make, because history only deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world that some people believe in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

Hopefully, you do not expect a definitive answer here on DCUM. Look it up, as they say. And keep in mind that "real historical figure" does not mean "son of god" - just that there is evidence that the person once lived -- like Ben Franklin, or Henry the 8th, or you, assuming you have a valid birth certificate.

It’s impossible to definitively prove he was a real person.

There is some circumstantial evidence though that shows he was most likely a real person.

So what? There's compelling evidence that Ben Franklin, Henry the 8th and presumably you were real people. There's no evidence that anyone is supernatural - it's beyond science and thus requires faith to believe it.

I think the OP was just asking if he was an actual person, not about the supernatural stuff. The pp you're responding to has it right i'm sure. Jeus was most likely a real person. I do believe he lived, was baptized, preached in the Galilee area, and probably went to Jerusalem at the end of his days -- beyond that everything is conjecture.

Again, So what? So he lived -- lots of people lived back then and no one has bothered to try to prove it because no supernatural claims were being made about them. The big claim is not simply that Jesus lived, but that he was Son of God and historical evidence somehow adds to the credence of that claim, which no historian will ever make, because history only deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world that some people believe in.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. History and religion and science are 3 distinct realms. We know Jesus was a real historical person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

Hopefully, you do not expect a definitive answer here on DCUM. Look it up, as they say. And keep in mind that "real historical figure" does not mean "son of god" - just that there is evidence that the person once lived -- like Ben Franklin, or Henry the 8th, or you, assuming you have a valid birth certificate.

It’s impossible to definitively prove he was a real person.

There is some circumstantial evidence though that shows he was most likely a real person.

So what? There's compelling evidence that Ben Franklin, Henry the 8th and presumably you were real people. There's no evidence that anyone is supernatural - it's beyond science and thus requires faith to believe it.

I think the OP was just asking if he was an actual person, not about the supernatural stuff. The pp you're responding to has it right i'm sure. Jeus was most likely a real person. I do believe he lived, was baptized, preached in the Galilee area, and probably went to Jerusalem at the end of his days -- beyond that everything is conjecture.

Again, So what? So he lived -- lots of people lived back then and no one has bothered to try to prove it because no supernatural claims were being made about them. The big claim is not simply that Jesus lived, but that he was Son of God and historical evidence somehow adds to the credence of that claim, which no historian will ever make, because history only deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world that some people believe in.

Because plenty question whether he even did. I think that's what OP is asking about. Bart Ehrman sys there was a historical Jesus, and that's good enough for me. The other stuff, the supernatural claims, yeah, I agree that can never be proved one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

Hopefully, you do not expect a definitive answer here on DCUM. Look it up, as they say. And keep in mind that "real historical figure" does not mean "son of god" - just that there is evidence that the person once lived -- like Ben Franklin, or Henry the 8th, or you, assuming you have a valid birth certificate.

It’s impossible to definitively prove he was a real person.

There is some circumstantial evidence though that shows he was most likely a real person.

So what? There's compelling evidence that Ben Franklin, Henry the 8th and presumably you were real people. There's no evidence that anyone is supernatural - it's beyond science and thus requires faith to believe it.

I think the OP was just asking if he was an actual person, not about the supernatural stuff. The pp you're responding to has it right i'm sure. Jeus was most likely a real person. I do believe he lived, was baptized, preached in the Galilee area, and probably went to Jerusalem at the end of his days -- beyond that everything is conjecture.

Again, So what? So he lived -- lots of people lived back then and no one has bothered to try to prove it because no supernatural claims were being made about them. The big claim is not simply that Jesus lived, but that he was Son of God and historical evidence somehow adds to the credence of that claim, which no historian will ever make, because history only deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world that some people believe in.

Because plenty question whether he even did. I think that's what OP is asking about. Bart Ehrman sys there was a historical Jesus, and that's good enough for me. The other stuff, the supernatural claims, yeah, I agree that can never be proved one way or the other.

Because Science and technology have no tools to prove God exists. They don’t even try because they know they don’t have the juice to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Even if they feel very, very strongly about his existence, it’s impossible to definitively prove. Most likely existed? Sure.

And that’s not as important as the story of Jesus. People love a good story. And his story has had quite a big impact.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Jesus was a man who walked the earth. Why you deny Him is that you fear Him. Why put all this effort into denial of Him, especially when mainstream atheist scholars also agree Jesus existed? Do you think your Wikipedia research shows you the “real” truth that somehow all the big guns missed or are ignoring?

Yes, you have copied and pasted that blurb multiple times. That doesn’t make it any more convincing. Or demonstrate that he definitively was a real person.

I DGAF if he lived or not. Most likely he did.

But people shouldn’t falsely claim he was a real person as 100% fact. We only have circumstantial evidence.

And I didn’t post anything from Wikipedia - there are multiple posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Even if they feel very, very strongly about his existence, it’s impossible to definitively prove. Most likely existed? Sure.

And that’s not as important as the story of Jesus. People love a good story. And his story has had quite a big impact.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Jesus was a man who walked the earth. Why you deny Him is that you fear Him. Why put all this effort into denial of Him, especially when mainstream atheist scholars also agree Jesus existed? Do you think your Wikipedia research shows you the “real” truth that somehow all the big guns missed or are ignoring?

Yes, you have copied and pasted that blurb multiple times. That doesn’t make it any more convincing. Or demonstrate that he definitively was a real person.

I DGAF if he lived or not. Most likely he did.

But people shouldn’t falsely claim he was a real person as 100% fact. We only have circumstantial evidence.

And I didn’t post anything from Wikipedia - there are multiple posters.

I think we should just leave it at this. Now the real question, as other posters have suggested, is who made up this whole religious theology in his name and why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Even if they feel very, very strongly about his existence, it’s impossible to definitively prove. Most likely existed? Sure.

And that’s not as important as the story of Jesus. People love a good story. And his story has had quite a big impact.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Jesus was a man who walked the earth. Why you deny Him is that you fear Him. Why put all this effort into denial of Him, especially when mainstream atheist scholars also agree Jesus existed? Do you think your Wikipedia research shows you the “real” truth that somehow all the big guns missed or are ignoring?

Yes, you have copied and pasted that blurb multiple times. That doesn’t make it any more convincing. Or demonstrate that he definitively was a real person.

I DGAF if he lived or not. Most likely he did.

But people shouldn’t falsely claim he was a real person as 100% fact. We only have circumstantial evidence.

And I didn’t post anything from Wikipedia - there are multiple posters.

We have more evidence that Jesus actually existed as a man that walked the earth than for 99.9% of people who existed in his timeline. So yeah, that’s a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

Hopefully, you do not expect a definitive answer here on DCUM. Look it up, as they say. And keep in mind that "real historical figure" does not mean "son of god" - just that there is evidence that the person once lived -- like Ben Franklin, or Henry the 8th, or you, assuming you have a valid birth certificate.

It’s impossible to definitively prove he was a real person.

There is some circumstantial evidence though that shows he was most likely a real person.

So what? There's compelling evidence that Ben Franklin, Henry the 8th and presumably you were real people. There's no evidence that anyone is supernatural - it's beyond science and thus requires faith to believe it.

I think the OP was just asking if he was an actual person, not about the supernatural stuff. The pp you're responding to has it right i'm sure. Jeus was most likely a real person. I do believe he lived, was baptized, preached in the Galilee area, and probably went to Jerusalem at the end of his days -- beyond that everything is conjecture.

Again, So what? So he lived -- lots of people lived back then and no one has bothered to try to prove it because no supernatural claims were being made about them. The big claim is not simply that Jesus lived, but that he was Son of God and historical evidence somehow adds to the credence of that claim, which no historian will ever make, because history only deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world that some people believe in.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. History and religion and science are 3 distinct realms. We know Jesus was a real historical person.

We don’t definitively know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Even if they feel very, very strongly about his existence, it’s impossible to definitively prove. Most likely existed? Sure.

And that’s not as important as the story of Jesus. People love a good story. And his story has had quite a big impact.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Jesus was a man who walked the earth. Why you deny Him is that you fear Him. Why put all this effort into denial of Him, especially when mainstream atheist scholars also agree Jesus existed? Do you think your Wikipedia research shows you the “real” truth that somehow all the big guns missed or are ignoring?

Yes, you have copied and pasted that blurb multiple times. That doesn’t make it any more convincing. Or demonstrate that he definitively was a real person.

I DGAF if he lived or not. Most likely he did.

But people shouldn’t falsely claim he was a real person as 100% fact. We only have circumstantial evidence.

And I didn’t post anything from Wikipedia - there are multiple posters.

We have more evidence that Jesus actually existed as a man that walked the earth than for 99.9% of people who existed in his timeline. So yeah, that’s a big deal.

A large amount of circumstantial evidence is still circumstantial.

Most likely he existed.