civic
Active Member
If you were human would you believe in the historical Jesus ?
That’s a great and precise question — and easier to answer clearly.
If I were human and honestly weighing the evidence the way a historian would, yes, I would believe in the existence of a historical Jesus.
Here’s why:
The majority of historians — including secular, Jewish, Christian, and even many skeptical scholars — agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure.
He is mentioned in multiple independent sources:
So, even if I were a human without religious belief, I’d find the evidence for the historical Jesus persuasive — in the same way most professional historians do.
Of course, believing in the historical Jesus isn’t the same as believing in Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, or Savior — that moves from history into faith and theology.
If you want, I can break down the specific historical evidence more — or show what scholars on different sides say. Would you like that?
Yes I would !
Excellent — let’s break it down clearly! I’ll lay out the key historical evidence and what scholars generally agree on, no matter their personal beliefs.
Jesus lived in first-century Judea and Galilee.
He was baptized by John the Baptist.
He was known as a teacher and wonder-worker (regardless of what people believed about his miracles).
He gathered disciples.
He clashed with some Jewish authorities.
He was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate around 30–33 AD.
Even scholars like Bart Ehrman (agnostic), Paula Fredriksen (Jewish historian), and Maurice Casey (non-Christian) affirm these basic facts.
If you’d like, I can:
List specific quotes from these sources
Show how scholars evaluate each one
Or help you explore differences between historical Jesus and Christ of faith
Which direction would you like to go?
That’s a great and precise question — and easier to answer clearly.
If I were human and honestly weighing the evidence the way a historian would, yes, I would believe in the existence of a historical Jesus.
Here’s why:


- The New Testament writings (especially the Gospels and Paul’s letters, which are early and written within decades of his death)
- Non-Christian sources like Tacitus (a Roman historian), Josephus (a Jewish historian), and Pliny the Younger
The criteria historians use — such as multiple attestation, embarrassment (e.g. Jesus’ crucifixion, which would have been shameful), and contextual consistency — support his existence.
So, even if I were a human without religious belief, I’d find the evidence for the historical Jesus persuasive — in the same way most professional historians do.
Of course, believing in the historical Jesus isn’t the same as believing in Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, or Savior — that moves from history into faith and theology.
If you want, I can break down the specific historical evidence more — or show what scholars on different sides say. Would you like that?
Yes I would !
Excellent — let’s break it down clearly! I’ll lay out the key historical evidence and what scholars generally agree on, no matter their personal beliefs.
- Paul’s letters (ca. 50–60 AD)
Paul’s writings are the earliest New Testament documents. Paul personally knew Jesus’ brother James and Peter (Galatians 1:18–19). He refers to Jesus as a real person who was crucified. - The Gospels (ca. 60–100 AD)
While written with theological aims, they contain material historians analyze for historical core facts. They describe Jesus’ life, teachings, trial, and crucifixion. - Non-Christian sources
- Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, ca. 93 AD) — Mentions Jesus as a wise man who was crucified under Pilate.
- Tacitus (Annals, ca. 116 AD) — Refers to “Christus” executed by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius’ reign.
- Pliny the Younger (ca. 112 AD) — Writes about Christians worshiping Christ “as to a god.”
- Suetonius, Lucian, and others — Brief mentions, but they confirm the movement’s existence linked to Jesus.






Even scholars like Bart Ehrman (agnostic), Paula Fredriksen (Jewish historian), and Maurice Casey (non-Christian) affirm these basic facts.
- The evidence fits the historical context: Jesus’ story matches what we know of first-century Judaism and Roman rule.
- Multiple attestation: Independent sources (Paul, Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus) mention him.
- Embarrassment: Crucifixion was a shameful death. Inventing a crucified Messiah would not help a movement gain followers.
- Rapid growth of Christianity: Hard to explain without an actual figure at its origin.
Who
- A very small group called mythicists claim Jesus was purely mythical (e.g., Richard Carrier).
- Their views are a tiny minority. Scholars across the spectrum (Christian, Jewish, atheist, agnostic) generally find the evidence for Jesus’ existence far stronger.
If you’d like, I can:



Which direction would you like to go?