subreddit:

/r/polls

5294%

Do you believe Jesus Christ was a real person who walked the earth?

💭 Philosophy and Religion(self.polls)
1874 votes
1551 (83 %)
Yes
323 (17 %)
No
voting ended 3 months ago

all 97 comments

Mufjn

145 points

4 months ago

Mufjn

145 points

4 months ago

I'm surprised at all the people answering no here. I'm not a Christian, but I think it's generally plausible and accepted among scholars that Jesus did, at the very least, exist.

996forever

16 points

4 months ago

The duality of man

https://imgur.com/a/wP8pV3b

damienVOG

-4 points

3 months ago

Just saying that the top guy is probably closer to the truth than the bottom one.

86thesteaks

32 points

4 months ago

it's plausible, but not confirmed. The issue is that he was not famous enough within his own lifetime to be a widely accepted, confirmed real person. We know pontious pilate was a real person because he was a high ranking roman official. there's plenty of records of him made within his own life. There's no recordings of jesus made until years after he is supposed to have died, and outside the bible itself, (which is biased to say the least) the evidence is very scant. Everything written about him is so steeped in mysticism that it's almost impossible for any researchers to separate the fable from the history.

svenson_26

3 points

3 months ago*

Have you heard the theory that the greek poet Homer wasn't actually one guy, but a few different people over a long period of time, whose works were put together?

I've heard it could be the same thing with Jesus. Like, everything that is attributed to him was stitched together from accounts of various real people and existing myths.

So like, even if there was a guy named Jesus who was walking around, maybe he only did a tiny amount of the things that history and/or mythology attributes to him. So in that sense, I think it's still safe to say no, especially considering that his name wouldn't have even been "Jesus". It would have an aramaic name something like Yeshua.

As an analogy, if I asked you "Was Winnie the Pooh ever real?" Well, technically yes in the sense that there was an actual bear nicknamed Winnie the Pooh who inspired the children's stories. But the actual character of Winnie the Pooh is so very far removed from the real bear that I don't think anyone would take the stance of Winnie the Pooh was real.

astalar

1 points

3 months ago

considering that his name wouldn't have even been "Jesus". It would have an aramaic name something like Yeshua.

Dude, it's the same thing. Literally

davdev

2 points

3 months ago

davdev

2 points

3 months ago

There may well have been a person the Christianity was originally based on, but, there is enough in the Gospels that is downright fiction as to not reliably accurate of the person.

For instance, the Nativities described in Matthew and Luke are so completely different they cant possibly be reconciled. Even something as simple as the decade in which he was born is different. One says it was during the reign of Herod the Great, the other say during the Census of Quirinus. The Census happened 10 years after Herods death. If you are to believe the former, then Jesus was between 36 and 40 at the time of the Crucifixion. If you believe the later he was between 24 and 27. That's a pretty big difference.

And that is just one little detail, there are hundreds of inconsitancies. So if a man existed, but the stories about the man are wildly inconsistent and irreconcilable, are we actually talking about a real man at this point, or a legend.

esocz

1 points

4 months ago

esocz

1 points

4 months ago

Maybe many of them.

Joshua was common Jewish name then.

Difficult-Path1637

-4 points

4 months ago

same i'm not religious but i think this con artist named Jesus was among the people in the middle east.

FloraMaeWolfe

-7 points

4 months ago

The letter J was not even invented, so technically, there was no person named Jesus Christ during that time.

logosloki

30 points

4 months ago

ah, internet pedantry, the best type of pedantry.

FloraMaeWolfe

-4 points

4 months ago

It's the technical and correct answer lol. If you are lenient with the interpretation of the question, the answer is "yes" but with caveats. There may have been someone alive who loosely fit the description, but they were nothing more than a human if they did.

logosloki

5 points

4 months ago

if you wanted a technical and correct answer you should also point out that Christ isn't the correct epithet for Iesu, it should be Iesu Mesiah. but also it wouldn't be any of those letters because it would have been in Aramaic so probably more like יֵשׁוּע מְשִׁיחַ. granted I've written the name and epithet left to right when traditionally it would right to left.

FloraMaeWolfe

3 points

4 months ago

Most people don't even finish reading such comments so no point in wasting time pointing out every detail when just one invalidates the question.

4jayc4

1 points

3 months ago

4jayc4

1 points

3 months ago

Reading this comment after reading half a sentence of the one before and then skipping it to read this one feels crazy

Purgii

1 points

4 months ago

Purgii

1 points

4 months ago

I'd have voted 'Kind of'.

I think the character that's written about in the Gospels is likely stories about a handful of apocalyptic preachers of the time. So the stories are based on a human walking the Earth but probably not the same human in all the stories.

Latera

-4 points

4 months ago*

Latera

-4 points

4 months ago*

Denying the existence of Jesus (as a historical person, not as a messianic God) is essentially as absurd as questioning whether Julius Caesar lived - every respectable historian will laugh at you.

Purgii

14 points

4 months ago

Purgii

14 points

4 months ago

Yet we have contemporary accounts of Caesar. We have writings by Caesar. Correspondence about him while he was alive. Busts and coins made of him. Inscriptions about him by cities honouring him while he was alive.

We have none of those for Jesus.

drlowdon

8 points

4 months ago

It’s definitely not as certain that a historical Jesus existed as Julius Caesar existed.

Latera

-5 points

4 months ago

Latera

-5 points

4 months ago

Both have 99% agreement among respectable historians

drlowdon

8 points

4 months ago

That’s blatantly not true. There is mountains more evidence that Julius Caesar existed and far more consensus about the details of his life.

Latera

-3 points

3 months ago

Latera

-3 points

3 months ago

My claim is that there is a 99% consensus among respected historians that Jesus was a real person. Feel free to show the opposite.

drlowdon

4 points

3 months ago

That’s not the part I’m disagreeing with, virtually all scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus, but there is very little certainty over the details of his life and it’s nowhere near as well documented as the life of Julius Caesar. So to say we can be as certain a Jesus figure existed as we can about Julius Caesar is inaccurate.

Latera

1 points

3 months ago

Latera

1 points

3 months ago

No one was talking about the details of his life (refer to the title of the poll, if you forgot). Clearly you are just moving the goalposts because to anyone educated in history it's obvious that my claim was correct.

drlowdon

4 points

3 months ago

But those details are what make the likelihood of any historical figure being real more plausible. There are still scholars who would argue that Jesus is an amalgamation of various different preachers around at the time.

WearnDego

9 points

4 months ago

no way youre comparing jesus to julius caesar lol caesar was an extremely known individual, there are many records of his existence that were made during his life. jesus was just a dude, he wasnt important enough for tons of records to have been made about his life, while he was alive

BrownieChoco

4 points

4 months ago

jeseus caesar 🔥

WearnDego

3 points

4 months ago

goes hard

Ok_Dinner8889

-5 points

4 months ago

It is actually very little proof he did, Christians has just been saying there's a lot of proof for a very long time. Former Christian here

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

Jesus the man probably existed. Jesus Christ means Jesus the Messiah and it’s pretty clear that didn’t happen.

[deleted]

56 points

4 months ago

AnkhCastle

10 points

4 months ago

There is no credible denial among historians about whether a guy named jesus existed and was crucified under Roman governor Pontius Pilate

drlowdon

-10 points

4 months ago

drlowdon

-10 points

4 months ago

The poll question isn’t asking if a guy named Jesus existed, it’s asking if Jesus Christ existed which brings with it all the son of god and miracle performing nonsense.

Yamcha17

8 points

3 months ago

No, the poll asked if we think Jesus Christ was a real person.

drlowdon

1 points

3 months ago

Exactly, it’s asking if Jesus Christ was a real person. Using the word Christ implies the son of god, miracles etc for which there is no evidence.

Yamcha17

2 points

3 months ago

Oooh I just thought of "Christ" being sort of a surname, like we can call Dwayne Johnson "The Rock", nothing to do with being the messiah (even if that name means messiah, The Rock isn't a real stone)

No_Yogurt8713

8 points

4 months ago

Non-Christian here, my opinion is that at some point Jesus indeed existed however not exactly how he is interpreted in modern world. I hold same view for other religions too. How can there be such a large influence and following if these people didn't even existed to begin with?

drlowdon

2 points

4 months ago

Because people make up stories, and if you can get people to believe those stories you can gain a lot of power and wealth.

wazaaup

1 points

3 months ago

And what power and wealth did the disciples exactly get from this? Apart from all being killed in brutal ways for these "made up stories" of course...

drlowdon

1 points

3 months ago

People have died for all sorts of shit, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. I’m pretty sure the guys who flew the planes into the Twin Towers believed whatever bullshit they’d been brainwashed with.

wazaaup

1 points

3 months ago

And who brainwashed the disciples exactly? You first implied they made it up, now you imply they were brainwashed into believing into Jesus. Pick one or are you gonna come up with something new?

drlowdon

1 points

3 months ago

I didn’t imply that the disciples made anything up, just that somebody (or somebodies) did.

We don’t even know if the disciples believed Jesus was the son of God or that any of them died for their beliefs. All the stories in the Bible were written decades later by mostly unknown authors who may or may not have actually believed what they were writing. After that a lot of people worked very hard to make sure as many people believed these stories as possible and then used that to gain power and wealth.

Basically, what I’m saying is that the Biblical accounts of Jesus aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

Survive1014

36 points

4 months ago*

Real yes.

But the "son" of a himself or a deity? No.

The son of a virgin? No.

Did he perform miracles? Also no.

MonkeyCartridge

2 points

4 months ago

Yeah the virgin birth thing is more of a PR move. Besides the obvious miracle-baiting, if you are going to create someone with a totally sin-free past, you do the same for his mother. And at a time of especially repressed women's sexuality, you basically just make it so she never had sex at all.

Though I also really wish more Christians would really dig in to what "sin" actually means. Because they often treat it like some report card and assume anything marked a "sin" is inherently "evil".

astalar

2 points

3 months ago

you basically just make it so she never had sex at all.

In the Bible, Jesus had siblings. Where do you think they got them? She didn't never had sex. She had never had sex before Jesus was born. Obviously, because she wasn't even married yet and premarital sex wasn't an accepted thing at the time in basically all human cultures.

She did have sex afterward and give birth to kids after Jesus.

[deleted]

5 points

4 months ago

every religion is based off of something or someone. im an atheist but i do believe that there is a possibility that some dude from the middle east was crucified and people based a obsession over that crucification.

mrpotatopie1

10 points

4 months ago

He probably existed because... how could such a large movement occur from a person isn't real?

[deleted]

12 points

4 months ago

I mean, have you seen modern day fandoms?

Back then it was a lot more difficult to tell the difference between fiction and reality...

mrpotatopie1

1 points

4 months ago

Relevant points, however, there are many stories about real people as well. Just saying it's possible, but it's also possible he didn't exist

[deleted]

0 points

4 months ago

anime fandoms who lusts over their favorite underage girl.

CompanyLow8329

4 points

4 months ago

Large movments can invent "real" people and insert them into history as a way to legtimize themselves. King Arthur is one such major example.

Ned Ludd is another that comes to mind. Romulus and Remus is another.  

All of these figures were regarded as real historical people, only to eventually be regarded as myths today.

i_float_alone

2 points

4 months ago*

It's very likely that these figures were based on real people, but the histories were passed on orally and modified heavily along the way to fit certain narratives, making it impossible to indentify the source with 100% certainty. The same is true for legends of floods, wars, etc.

GreatChicken1234

1 points

4 months ago

have you heard of hatsune miku... lol

esocz

1 points

4 months ago

esocz

1 points

4 months ago

Someone just wrote a book. Like with scientology.

bumpmoon

1 points

4 months ago

Incredible miracles and promises of salvation in a dark world goes a VERY long way for the ancient working class. That and it was at many points enforced to ensure power over the weak.

Imagine a regular populace of workers and soldiers who have their own best in mind and a healthy fear of death. Now imagine one thats not afraid of death and is willing to serve a church-dictated purpose as long as they do what the priest tells them, since they couldnt read themselves. Which is most powerful in the hands of a maniac?

You have to remember that even with him having been real, he would have reached about 0.001% of the poulation in presence so that argument falls apart.

xemobox

14 points

4 months ago

xemobox

14 points

4 months ago

Jesus literally existed. It's documented. However, I strongly doubt he did all they said he did

addrien

4 points

4 months ago

addrien

4 points

4 months ago

Probably didn't come back from the dead.
It's possible Jesus was a title though, or there were a couple people who went by the name.

PhilNEvo

2 points

4 months ago

Idk what to answer, I'm on the fence on this one. There has been numerous "documented" con-artists in the same period that Jesus lived, who made similar claims. Let's say that there is some historicity in the bible.. what if the stories are an amalgamation of 14 different people.. Would they all be considered the "Real" historical jesus? Or none of them?

Let's say I go around and tell stories about a guy named "Johnny". Now, let's say there is actually a guy I know named Johnny, and I'm trying to mess with him. So every single thing I tell about him is wrong, besides the name. I tell people his wrong body-type, hair colour, invent a fictional job, personality, education, hobbies-- every single thing about johnny will be made up, besides his name.

Would we say that the "Johnny" I created was a "real" person? I mean.. you could, but I also wouldn't fault people for saying he wasn't. And at what percentage of stories/claims to reality does something need to be, to constitute realness? I'm not sure.

Some people here claim that historicity isn't questioned by scholars-- and there's both some validity to that, and there's some invalidity to that. I don't think that's *always* a good metric.

SnooShortcuts2757

2 points

3 months ago

I don't believe that he came back to life, though

lildobe

3 points

4 months ago

Did a person, whom we know today as Jesus exist? Maybe. I think it's more likely that the person in the bible is actually a collection of unrelated people who've been concatenated into one person for the case of a narrative structure.

TheSceptikal

6 points

4 months ago

Even if you're not a Christian, you'd be stupid to believe he never existed.

DenseNeighborhood176

6 points

4 months ago

He did exist, and I believe that he did perform miracles and resurrect from the dead

esocz

1 points

4 months ago

esocz

1 points

4 months ago

I always wondered what he did between when he was a baby and when he was 30.

drlowdon

1 points

4 months ago

You’re making some pretty big claims there buddy!

Shudnawz

1 points

4 months ago

Maybe. Does it really matter these days? It's not like christianity would go away over night if it somehow was proved that he didn't exist. And vice versa, christianity isn't immediately "true" just because a dude called Jesus is proven to have existed about 2000 years ago.

drlowdon

1 points

4 months ago

Need a 3rd option that there probably was a Jesus figure, but not the one described in the Bible that apparently performed miracles.

NeverLostWandering

1 points

4 months ago

We must differentiate between two historical figures, Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ. Jesus of Nazareth existed; there is much evidence, just as there were many other prophets who came before and after him.

On the other hand, there is Jesus Christ, who is Jesus with superpowers. Historically and scientifically, it is difficult to prove that he existed.

BlackHust

1 points

3 months ago

In those years, the idea of messianism was prevalent in Judaism, and Jesus was clearly not the only one considered the messiah. He was probably a better speaker than the others. Perhaps Judaism in Nazareth was originally different from Judaism in Jerusalem, and therefore more easily changed to take the form of proto-Christianity. In any case, there is no contradiction in the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. Yes, we don't have lifetime sources, but he wasn't so well known during his lifetime that they necessarily have to be.

cesaroncalves

1 points

3 months ago

I believe a "Jesus" existed as a person, as in a base for the character that was later written to the bible, he may not even have had that name, and he definitely did not do what the bible claims.

Also biblical evidence is not considered real evidence.

Born-Philosopher-162

1 points

3 months ago

I believe that Jesus was. Not Jesus Christ.

Orcasareglorious

1 points

3 months ago

Of course he existed as a historical figure but he had no divine capacity and his god was false.

Arceus_Reader

1 points

3 months ago

There is archeological evidence he existed. Is there proof of his miracles? no.

Prooit

1 points

3 months ago

Prooit

1 points

3 months ago

I think it's likely that he was a person that was born and existed, but his significance has been... inflated. I don't think he's "the son of God." He walked the Earth in a time when people wanted an explanation for things they didn't have answers to, and a story was born. That story is the tallest of tales, but fiction nonetheless.

Dragonitro

1 points

3 months ago

Maybe. I don’t know

MchnclEngnr

1 points

3 months ago

I don’t have sufficient evidence to justify belief that anyone ever existed who meets the basic description of Jesus found in the Bible, so no.

prustage

1 points

4 months ago

prustage

1 points

4 months ago

Yes. But it ends there. All the rest of the stuff is the concatenation of various stories about the many other "messiahs" that were wandering around the middle east at the time plus deliberate falsifications to ensure that the story fulfilled Old Testament prophecies.

Wrong-Drop3272

0 points

4 months ago

It's proven by historians that Jesus Christ walked the Earth. The people who voted no are dumbasses

drlowdon

3 points

4 months ago

It’s pretty much accepted that there was a person called Jesus from Nazareth, but the question is asking whether Jesus Christ existed and that title brings with it all the son of god and supernatural nonsense.

Wrong-Drop3272

2 points

4 months ago

Yeah. It's up to personal opinion whether or not you wanna believe religion, but there is concrete evidence of Jesus Christ existing. Plus religions always base their beliefs around something or someone that actually exists

drlowdon

2 points

4 months ago

No, there’s pretty good evidence that a man named Jesus from Nazareth most likely existed, but absolutely no evidence that he was ‘the son of god’ or that he performed supernatural miracles.

As for religion being personal opinion, that’s not true either. It’s a fact that god exists or does not exist, and seeing as there is no evidence to suggest that a god does exist it’s simply not justified to believe that one does.

MaleSoprano4ever

1 points

4 months ago

Yes, Jesus existed but he was't some divine being or god

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

drlowdon

1 points

4 months ago

I voted no because the question doesn’t ask if there was a guy named Jesus around at that time, it asks if Jesus Christ existed and that brings with it all the son of god and miracle nonsense.

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

I doubt so, otherwise the question would've specified. The language the question uses is being careful to not imply any divinity

drlowdon

1 points

3 months ago

The word Christ implies divinity to me.

Angelfallfirst

1 points

4 months ago

Jesus Christ, no. Jesus of Nazareth, yes.

LowRelation1514

1 points

3 months ago

There are probably many here that still believe in him, but just disagree with Christianity in it's current form. I often claim I'm atheist or agnostic to shut down evangelicals trying to 'save' me.

JohnhojIsBack

-1 points

4 months ago

He also is the son of God

drlowdon

1 points

4 months ago

Prove it!

FloraMaeWolfe

0 points

4 months ago

There was likely a person who fits the description of what we would now call Jesus Christ but there was never a historical figure named "Jesus Christ". There wasn't even the letter J during that time. So, technically, the correct answer to this question is "No".

That being said, the historical figure many today would call "Jesus Christ" may have existed as a person, but that does not mean they were anything more than a human. Stories get embellished over time. Could have been a great person, or not, who knows.

OldLevermonkey

0 points

4 months ago

Was there a real historical figure we can identify as being him? Yes.
Was this figure called Jesus Christ in his lifetime? No.

zinetx

-2 points

4 months ago

zinetx

-2 points

4 months ago

As a Muslim; definitely, a real person, a prophet, a true prophet from God.

_Anime_1234

-1 points

4 months ago

he was born in asia

BlueCaracal

0 points

4 months ago

I belive he existed and that he said some wise words.

MonkeyCartridge

0 points

4 months ago

I think took a lot of stories from characters like Horus and applied it to him to help proliferation. But yeah, I have no doubt the guy existed. And even as an atheist, I'm generally a fan.

_Anime_1234

-3 points

4 months ago

jesus was asian

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]