Speaker 1: Ever think about how how just one story, basically a
narrative about one person's life from what two thousand years ago,
could literally change the world.
Speaker 2: It's pretty staggering when you start to think about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean influencing laws, art, our whole sense of self,
all tracing back. But what if that central figure, Jesus Christ,
what if he wasn't actually you know, a historical person,
Like what if all this massive impact grew from something
more like a powerful myth? It feels like a huge
question to even ask.
Speaker 2: It is a huge question, and it touches on faith obviously,
but also history, culture exactly.
Speaker 1: And you've pulled together some really fascinating stuff for us,
old religious texts, Roman historians, even what people are saying
online today.
Speaker 2: That's the plan. We've got quite a mix.
Speaker 1: So left us dive straight in. Is Jesus Christ real?
What can we actually figure out from the evidence we have?
Speaker 2: Absolutely? And just to be clear, the goal here isn't
about challenging anyone's personal faith. It's more like putting on
a historian's hat. What information can we verify? What can
we reasonably say about this person Jesus of Nazareth based
on the sources. So, yeah, we'll look at it early
Christian writings, mentions by non Christians which are really key,
and even some of the skeptical views. The idea is
just to give our listeners a clearer picture of the
historical side of things.
Speaker 1: Okay, it makes sense. So where do we start with
such a massive question. I guess the earliest writings we
actually have about Jesus makes sense, that's.
Speaker 2: The logical place. Yeah, and that brings us straight to
the letters of Paul.
Speaker 1: Paul's letters. These are really interesting because they were written
before the Gospels weren't there.
Speaker 2: That's right, significantly earlier. In fact, we're talking roughly forty
eight to sixty two eighty wow.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that's really close to when Jesus is thought
to have lived and died.
Speaker 2: It is very close. And what's really compelling about Paul's
letters is that he claims like direct personal connections with
people who knew Jesus, knew him personally. Yeah. He specifically
names Peter and John, you know, key disciples, and even Jane,
who he calls.
Speaker 1: Jesus's brother, Jesus' brother.
Speaker 2: Okay, and Paul says these meetings started around thirty six
a d that's potentially just three to six years after
the crucifixion, which is usually dated around thirty or thirty
three AD.
Speaker 1: So Paul isn't writing based on like third hand rumors
decades later. He's saying he talked to the eyewitnesses.
Speaker 2: That's what he asserts. Yes, firsthand knowledge from the people
who are actually there.
Speaker 1: And it's not just him dropping names, is it. I
saw one of our sources mentioned Paul's letters actually give
us a sort of basic outline of Jesus's life exactly.
Speaker 2: He talks about Jesus being Jewish, his connection to King
David's line, and as I said, having actual biological brothers.
It definitely paints a picture of a real person in
a specific time and place.
Speaker 1: So Paul clearly thought of Jesus as a real historical figure.
Speaker 2: It seems very likely. As the scholar Simon Gathicle points out,
the way Paul describes Jesus, his life on Earth, his family,
it strongly suggests Paul saw him as a tangible person,
not you know, some kind of allegory or myth that
grew over time. And this matter is because these letters,
they're the absolute earliest written records we have that talk
about Jesus directly.
Speaker 1: Okay, so Paul's letters are foundational. That brings us then
to the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke the Synoptics. They're
usually what people think of as the main story of
Jesus's life. How do they help us answer our big question?
Speaker 2: Well, the Synoptic Gospels give us the narrative Jesus' life,
his teachings, miracles, the crucifixion, and the resurrection accounts. Now,
they were written in Greek, likely for communities outside of Judea,
but the general consens of among scholars is that they
weren't written in a vacuum. They drew on earlier material.
Speaker 3: Earlier sources like what probably a mix of things written
documents maybe, but also oral tradition, stories passed down, and
some of that underlying material might have even been in Aramaic.
Speaker 1: The language Jesus himself likely spoke exactly.
Speaker 2: So potentially tracing back quite closely to eyewitnesses. And it's
interesting Luke, in his Gospel's opening actually says that many
people had already tried to compile narratives about Jesus. Oh
really yes, based on what they got from eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word. So Luke himself acknowledges there were
multiple earlier accounts floating around before he wrote.
Speaker 1: His, So it wasn't just Matthew Mark and Luke inventing
things years later. There was already a body of stories
and maybe even writing what a Luke's statement suggests.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, a widespread awareness and attempts to document Jesus's
story in those first few decades.
Speaker 1: And then there's John's Gospel, which is a bit different.
And what about those other gospels you sometimes hear about,
like Thomas or Peter or Judas. Where do they fit in?
Speaker 2: Yeah, the non canonical gospels. Historians generally see them as
less reliable for like the midy, gritty historical details of
Jesus's life. Why is that they tend to be written later,
sometimes reflecting theological debates or different streams of thought that
developed a century or more after Jesus. They're fascinating for
understanding early Christian diversity, for sure, but they usually don't
have that same potential connection back to the historical person
that the canonical Gospels or Paul's letters might have. But again,
Luke's comment about many earlier narratives is key. It reminds
us that tradition was bigger than just the four Gospels
that ended up in the Bible.
Speaker 1: Okay, so think of it like different biographies of someone
famous today. Some are closer to the source, some are
written later with a different angle.
Speaker 2: That's a good analogy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So we've got these early Christian writings. They appear
relatively soon, claim links to eyewitnesses. But the big question
for many is is there anything outside of Christian sources,
any independent proof?
Speaker 2: Ah. Yes, And this is where it gets really interesting
for historians. We have a very important reference from the
Roman historian Tacitus.
Speaker 1: Tacitus right when was he writing.
Speaker 2: Around one fifteen a d. In his major work the Annals. Yeah,
he's describing the Great Fire of Rome and sixty four
AD and how Emperor Nero needed a scapegoat.
Speaker 1: And he blamed the Christians.
Speaker 2: Exactly, And in explaining who these Christians were, Tacitus mentions
their founder Christus Christus Christ. Yes, he says Christus was
executed by the governor Ponchus Pilot during the reign of Tiberius.
Tassis also calls Christianity a pernicious superstition that started in Judea,
but had spread even to Rome by Nero's time.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 1: So Tacitus, a respected Roman historian with no Christian agenda,
confirms Christ's existence, his execution under Pilot, and the early movement.
Speaker 2: That's the significance. Yes, the scholarly consensus on this passage
being authentic and valuable is very strong. It's a key
piece of independent, non Christian evidence.
Speaker 1: Okay, that definitely sounds significant. What about Flavius Josephus. He
was a Jewish historian from the first century. He gets
mentioned a lot too.
Speaker 2: Josephus is another crucial, though slightly more complicated case. Writing
around ninety three or ninety four AD, he has a
passage about Jesus known as the Testimonium Flavianum.
Speaker 1: The Testimonium, right, I've heard that's debated.
Speaker 2: It is most scholars believe the version we have now was,
let's say, in enhanced by later Christian scribes, adding bits
that sound overtly Christian. Okay, But there's also a strong
consensus that underneath those editions there's an authentic core that
really does come from Josesis.
Speaker 1: So even if we ignore the bits that seem added later,
what can we get from the original core potentially well.
Speaker 2: Even cautiously, the core likely points to Jesus existing, being
known for remarkable deeds, gathering followers both Jews and Gentiles,
being accused by Jewish leaders, and being crucified under ponscous pilot.
It might also mention that his followers believed he appeared
to them again, and that the movement persisted.
Speaker 1: So even the more cautious readings suggests Josephus knew about Jesus,
his followers, and his execution exactly.
Speaker 2: The very fact that a prominent Jewish historian writing for
a Roman audience felt the need to mention Jesus and
his movement suggests Jesus wasn't just some obscure nobody. He'd
made enough of a mark to be noticed.
Speaker 1: Right. That makes sense now. One of the stars you
shared from American atheists brings up a case argument. It
quotes someone named Remsberg pointing out that, well, lots of
other Jewish and pagan writers from that time don't mention
Jesus or his disciples at all. How do we weigh
that silence against the mentions we do have from Tacitus
and Josephus.
Speaker 2: That's a fair point. To raise. And it's true we
don't have mentions from every writer of the period. But
you know, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence,
Meaning well, there could be lots of reasons. Maybe Jesus
was seen initially as primarily a local jude and figure
not significant enough to warrant mentioned by writers focused on say,
Roman imperial politics or Greek philosophy. Maybe their writings just
didn't survive. We've lost vast amounts of ancient literature. Okay,
think about it. How many people lived and died back
then whose names are completely lost. The fact that we
do have these specific, independent mentions from high profile historians
like Tacitus and Josephus on top of all the early
Christian material is actually quite striking. It suggests he wasn't
entirely unknown, at least not to everyone pay attention to Judea.
Speaker 1: So the silence doesn't automatically cancel out the references we
do possess.
Speaker 2: Not necessarily, No, you have to weigh the evidence we have. Okay.
Speaker 1: Now, speaking of details within the texts, that same American
atheist source points out something specific in Mark's Gospel. It
mentions a journey Jesus supposedly took from Tire through Sidon
to the Sea of Galilee. Geographically that route sounds well backwards.
Speaker 2: Ah, yes, the Tire Sidon Galilee route. That is a
classic example used in critiques. Sidon is north of Tire,
so going through Sidon to get south the Galilee seems
illogical geographically speaking.
Speaker 1: So what do we make of things like that? Doesn't
mean the whole account is unreliable.
Speaker 2: It highlights the complexities of dealing with ancient texts. There
are possibilities. Was it a simple geographical error by Mark
or his source. Was there a reason for going via
Sidon that isn't stated? Is it a textual corruption issue? Interestingly,
the source notes the King James version translation seems to
slightly alter the phrasing, maybe trying to smooth it out.
It shows we need to engage in careful textual analysis.
Sometimes descriptions might have symbolic meaning rather than being precise
geographical itineraries. It's a challenge, for sure, but finding one
potential geographical puzzle doesn't automatically invalidate the broader historical claims
about Jesus' existence or core events like the Crucifixion. It
just reminds us. These aren't modern history books or GPS logs, right.
Speaker 1: They're ancient documents with their own contexts and potential issues. Okay,
so we've looked at text Christian non Christian potential issues.
Let's shift gears a bit. What about the impact? The
source how did the life of Jesus impact the world?
Really focuses on this.
Speaker 2: Yes, and this is another angle altogether. Putting aside the
debates about specific historical proofs for a moment, you simply
cannot deny the absolutely massive world altering impact the figure
of Jesus as understood by his followers has had.
Speaker 1: It's undeniable.
Speaker 2: Really, it really is. This source talks about the kind
of total transformation reported in the lives of countless people
across centries and cultures, all attributed to their encounter with
Jesus' story and teachings.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It mentions people facing incredible hardship, persecution, even death
because of their faith in him, and also just dedicating
their whole lives to serving others, often at great cost, inspired.
Speaker 2: By him exactly. The source gives some pretty powerful examples,
like Jong Gan Kim in Korea. His wife and father
were murdered, but he ended up forgiving the killers and
leading many of them, including the actual person responsible to Christianity.
Speaker 1: That's profound forgiveness.
Speaker 2: It is. Or think of someone like Mother Teresa. Her
explanation for her life's work serving the pores of the
poor was simple. It was expressing her love for God
inspired by Jesus. And these aren't isolated cases. From the
earliest Christians facing Roman persecution to people involved in social
justice or charity work today, the motivation often traces back
to those core teachings attributed to Jesus, Love God, love
your neighbor. It's been a powerful driving behind acts of
immense sacrifice, resilience, and efforts to well make the world
better according to their beliefs.
Speaker 1: That kind of deep, lasting influence is definitely a form
of evidence in itself suggesting something significant happened.
Speaker 2: It certainly suggests that the belief in Jesus and his
message had and continues to have very real and powerful
consequences in the world.
Speaker 1: Okay, now let's bring in something more contemporary. The Reddit
discussion you've found it gives us a snapshot of how
regular people are thinking and talking about this exact question today.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and as you'd expect from Reddit, it's a real
mix of opinions. You definitely see the debate playing out
about the historical sources outside.
Speaker 1: The Bible, like Tacitus and Josephus.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Some users point out quite correctly that there aren't tons
of these references. They are written after Jesus died, and
they don't prove anything supernatural, just that a man named
Jesus might have existed and started a movement, which are
all valid points for discussion.
Speaker 1: And people also brought up the timing of the Gospels right,
that they were written maybe a generation later, and mentioned
the other gospels, the Gnostic ones that didn't make it
into the Bible exactly.
Speaker 2: That leads into discussions about how the New Testament canon
was formed the Council of Nicea in three twenty five
AD solidifying doctrine. People question how much the figure of
Jesus was shaped by later church decisions and interpretations, which.
Speaker 1: Are fair historical questions to ask.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it highlights that there's a historical process between the
actual person Jesus if he existed, and the figure worshiped
in Christianity today. But interestingly, some other users push back
on that.
Speaker 1: How so well.
Speaker 2: One user affection at Will three eighty six mentioned doing
their own research and feeling convinced by quote concrete archaeological
evidence for Jesus. Now, our sources don't detail what that
evidence might be, but it shows that people are actively
looking into this and reaching different conclusions based on what
they find. It's not a subtle issue for everyone.
Speaker 1: So the reddit thread really shows the whole range, doesn't it.
Speaker 2: It absolutely does. From people certain who is historical, maybe
a wise teacher, a prophet, to others comparing him to
someone like Robinhood may be based on a real person,
maybe not all the way to people who think he's
purely a myth created later. It really mirrors the broader
spectrum of views out there.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we see the debates. Let's get some clarity
on the official views. How is Jesus understood in different
major religions Christianity obviously, but beyond.
Speaker 2: That, right, so, within mainstream Christianity, the core belief, as
one source outlines, is pretty specific. Jesus conceived by the
Holy Spirit, born to the Virgin Mary, performed miracles, died
on the cross to a tone for sins, rose again,
ascended to heaven, and is worshiped as God incarnate, the
son of God, part of the Trinity.
Speaker 1: And major holidays like Christmas in Easter revolve.
Speaker 2: Around this precisely, and our whole calendar's system ADCE is
technically based on his estimated birth year.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's the Christian view. What about Islam? I know
Jesus is important in Islam too, but differently very important.
Speaker 2: Yes. In Islam, Jesus or Isa is revered as the
Messiah in one of God's mightiest prophets. They believe he
was born of the Virgin Mary.
Speaker 1: Okay, similarity there.
Speaker 2: Yes, But Muslims do not believe Jesus was divine or
the son of God. They see him as human prophet. Crucially,
they also don't believe he was crucified. The Quran states
he was raised to heaven by God before the crucifixion
could happen.
Speaker 1: Oh. Interesting, So no crucifixion, no resurrection in the Christian sense.
Speaker 2: Correct, But they do believe he will return to Earth
before the final day of judgment. He's mentioned very frequently
and respectfully in the Quran.
Speaker 1: Fascinating contrast any other faiths where he features prominently.
Speaker 2: The Bahai faith in the Drus also hold Jesus in
very high regard as a divine messenger or prophet.
Speaker 1: And what about Judaism. The tradition Jesus himself was born.
Speaker 2: Into Judaism acknowledges Jesus as a historical figure, a Jew
who lived in first century Judea during Roman rule. However,
Judaism firmly rejects the claim that he was the Messiah.
Speaker 1: Why is that.
Speaker 2: Primarily because, from their perspective, he didn't fulfill the key
prophecies about the Messiah found in the Hebrew Bible, like
restoring the kingdom of Israel, rebuilding the Temple, bringing world peace,
and so on. They also point to the lack of
a proper Davidic annoying thing as king, and don't accept
the concept of a physical resurrection in the way Christianity
describes it.
Speaker 1: So a clear rejection of the Messianic and divine claims,
while acknowledging the historical person.
Speaker 2: Existed generally speaking.
Speaker 1: Yes, Lastly, just a quick point on the name itself,
Jesus Christ. It sounds like a first name and last name,
but it's not, is it?
Speaker 2: No, not at all. Jesus comes from the Hebrew name
Yeshua or Joshua. It means Jahweh, saves or salvation. Is
actually a pretty common name back then. Okay, Matthew's Gospel
even makes a point of this, saying he's named Jesus
because he will save his people from their sins. Christ
isn't a name, it's a title. It comes from the
Greek word Christos. It's the Greek translation of the Hebrew
word mashiach or Messiah. Both mean an anointed.
Speaker 1: One, anointed one.
Speaker 2: Like a king, exactly in Jewish tradition, the Messiah was
expected to be an anointed king from David's line. So
when early followers came to believe Jesus was that prophesied Messiah,
they started calling him Jesus the Christ or Jesus Christ. Eventually,
the title almost fused with the name.
Speaker 1: So Jesus Christ basically means Jesus the Messiah.
Speaker 2: That's the origin and meaning. Yes, yeah, it encapsulates his
given name and the central belief of his followers about
who he was.
Speaker 1: Okay, Wow, we've covered a lot of ground here, from
Paul's letters right up to Reddit debates and the meaning
of his name. As we sort of wrap up this
deep dive. What are the main things people should take
away regarding the question was Jesus real?
Speaker 2: I think the key takeaways are these. First, his existence
is supported by early sources, both within Christianity like Paul's
very early letters claiming contact with eyewitnesses, and outside of it,
with those independent references from Roman and Jewish historians like
Tacitus and.
Speaker 1: Josephus right even with the caveats about josephus passage, even
with the caveats.
Speaker 2: Second, while those non Christian sources don't confirm miracles or divinity,
they do seem to corroborate a historical figure named Jesus,
known for starting a movement, who is executed under Ponsco's pilot. Third,
the impact is undeniable. The movement sparked by this figure
has profoundly shaped history, ethics, culture. That level of influence
is historically significant in.
Speaker 1: Itself, But it's also crucial to remember, as we discussed,
that the sources aren't simple. They have complexities, potential biases,
textual issues.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, there's no single slam dunk piece of evidence that
convinces everyone from every perspective. Interpreting ancient history always involves
weighing probabilities, analyzing texts critically, and acknowledging ambiguities. It's not
like watching a video recording.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely not.
Speaker 2: So what we've tried to do here is just lay
out the main pieces of the puzzle, the key evidence
that debates the different viewpoints, to give you the listener,
a solid overview to think about.
Speaker 1: So it really it comes down to weighing that evidence. Okay,
as we finished up, maybe one last thought for people
to chew on, Well, perhaps consider this.
Speaker 2: We've looked at text, historical mentions impact. Think about how
these different strands weave together, the early claims, the outside confirmations,
the sheer transformative power of the movement he inspired. Regardless
of where you personally land on the theological questions, what
does the convergence of this evidence suggest to you about
the reality of the man at the center of it all?
This question that's resonated for two millennia, and reflecting on
the foundations we've discussed, might just offer some fresh perspectives