The debate "Jesus was a real person who walked the Earth and performed miracles" was started by
July 17, 2019, 5:14 pm.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Light posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 1 argument, mwest0097 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Light, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near, Starlight, Deat, sk25 and 15 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, mwest0097, historybuff, mtbtheboss and 9 visitors disagree.
I'm not aware of any eyewitness accounts of Jesus. I know the Bible itself claims he was seen by thousands of people, but that claim itself is not from a first-hand source. It is a secondary source repeating the claim that there were thousands of witnesses. There may or may not have been. It simply isn't verifiable. The oldest collection of writings I'm aware of related to Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas, where Thomas or someone else recorded the supposed sayings of Jesus. but even that single source isnt able to be verified as an eyewitness account.
A collection of anecdotal stories that have been passed around for decades about a man performing magic is not history. If someone told me that a story boy named Harry Potter could do magic and defeated evil and I then wrote a book discussing the history of harry potter, that doesn't make it a historical text that should be trusted. It makes is a bunch of stories that I believed to be true and then chose to write down and call history.
And no, the accounts don't agree. The bible agrees with itself, mostly. But that is because they were collected and edited by a centralized group who wanted to tell a specific narrative. Any conflicting information was deemed heretical and they went out of their way to destroy it. One such example is the Gospel of Thomas. It does not mention the crucifixion, the resurrection, or the final judgment; nor does it mention a messianic understanding of Jesus. The church decided it didn't have the right tone so they declared it to be heresy.
Additionally, books don't usually survive for thousands of years. The ancient books we have are mostly copies of earlier versions of the book that were copied and recopied as the older versions decayed. But in the christian world, the people who usually did the copying were monks or priests. So if the books were deemed heretical by the church, they obviously weren't getting copied by priests. So even if the church didn't manage to burn conflicting versions, they would just decay and be lost. So after 1,000 years of dominance by the catholic church most conflicting evidence has been either been intentionally destroyed or just lost to time.
All the accounts we have left were stored by a centralised organisation. Of course they don't conflict.
That was how people chose to record history back then. Also all the accounts we have agree with one another.
Yeah, there are literally no eye witness accounts to the life of Jesus. We have no writings at all from anyone who met him. It is doubtful we have any writings from people who talked to anyone who met him.
The only writings about him come from decades after his death from people who are writing down stories that had been circulating for years and years. Then a group of men got together and decided which parts they liked and which parts they didn't. They then put all the parts they liked together and created what we now know as the bible. Any parts they didn't like they worked to suppress and destroy.
So while there are enough accounts of him to conclude that Jesus almost certainly did exist, there is absolutely no reliable evidence he performed miracles or was any different from the numerous other "messiahs" that circulated around the middle east.
Thousands of eyewitness accounts? According to what? The oldest versions of the Gospel we have were written 30-90 years after Jesus died. That's according to religious historians. They don't even believe they were written by people who saw Jesus. There's were written by people who had heard stories about him.
Those that witnessed him believed he'd return in their lifetime so they recorded very little in text. If there were any original Aramaic texts written by the original disciplines, and its believed Matthew did write one, we have not found them.
Over 30 years of Chinese whispers before putting pen to paper is the perfect breeding ground for exaggeration. Their society couldn't fact-check either so it's highly likely facts were exaggerated like every other religion.
How do you justify the thousands of eyewitness accounts then
It is quite likely that Jesus is a historical figure and really lived. There are alot of accounts of him. I know wikipedia isn't always reliable, but below is a link that discusses whether jesus is a historical figure.
That being said, I would argue it is highly unlikely he the things described in the bible. There is no evidence he performed miracles or was any different from the dozen other men claiming to be the messiah who were wondering the middle east at the same time. Jesus was just more successful at starting his own cult than the others.
I agree he was a real person. I believe he was a great person who did amazing things. But, I also believe a lot of what he did was distorted.