Did Jesus actually exist? | The Tylt
Most scholars agree Jesus Christ was a real person. But some historians argue the non-Biblical evidence for what is called "the historical Jesus" is thin. There is no mention of Jesus in Roman records, for example. The New Testament Gospels are third-party narratives, written many decades after Christ's death–and they contradict each other frequently. But with two billion followers, it's hard to believe Jesus didn't actually walk the earth. What do you think?
Did Jesus actually exist?
There are good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence: "There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus," says Raphael Lataster, lecturer in religious studies. "All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased."
In his article "An Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus," Tim O'Neill writes:
Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
If Christ did exist, no accounts of his life were written while he was still alive. The earliest Gospels date from maybe 70 A.D., 40 years after Christ's demise. Imagine someone trying to write a book about your life four decades after your death (with no Internet). While some scholars think the four canonical Gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability, others say that little in the Gospels can be considered historically reliable.
Whether or not you believe he was divine, the majority of historians concur that Jesus was a real person who walked the earth. There are dissenters, but they are in the minority.