I'm curious. Is the Xtian view of Jesus really that accurate on who he actually was? I feel like most of modern Xtianity comes from Paul and even the "Apostles" seem suspect. Like, I don't think there are any written accounts from the man himself. It just seemed like Xtians took the death of a Jewish man and went with it. Did he really claim to be G-d? I'm not familiar with his *actual* story beyond the common Xtian version plastered everywhere.
So, it's difficult to say anything about the historical Jesus. There are no contemporary accounts. None. However, based on the number of accounts after his death and his influence, it's probably more likely that he existed than not.
The earliest mention of Jesus is from Josephus in 93 CE, some 60 years after his supposed death. Josephus wasn't even BORN when Jesus was alive. That is the closest you get to a contemporary source.
As far as the NT itself, you're right, MOST of it is written by Paul, who himself says that he never met Jesus (while he was alive anyway). So we can automatically discard everything but the gospels when it comes to the "what was the real story of Jesus" question.
The thing about the gospels is that they weren't written by the apostles we traditionally associate with them. They were all written anonymously, and the gospel attributed to John actually makes it clear that it was EXPLICITLY NOT written by John. The gospels never claim to be written by ANY apostles, actually.
Actually, they weren't attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John until St Irenaeus, who lived from about 130-200 CE, not born until 100 years after Jesus approximate death.
Actually, while we assume they're probably older, the earliest manuscripts (fragments) of these gospels are from 125 CE onwards. There's nothing before that. So the GOSPELS don't even appear until about 100 years after Jesus's death.
The gospels we call Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptic gospels. They overlap enormously, because they were all essentially copies of/based on another source text that we don't have. So, not only did the original manuscripts of THOSE gospels vanish somehow, but there were MORE gospels that we don't have ANY manuscripts of. (Theres lots more gospels too, gnostic ones considered heretical by Xians. But by textually analyzing the synoptic gospels we can infer there was another one, a missing source, which probably would have been canonized if they had it.)
So at this point, we have nothing about Jesus until 100 years after his death, except for the Josephus texts. But surprise! Those are almost CERTAINLY altered by later Xians so that they better align with their agenda.
Actually, Xians historically had no issues with changing the text of the NT to fit their theological needs after the fact. 1 John 5:7-8, the ONLY clear biblical reference to the trinity, was added in the Latin Vulgate after the doctrine of the trinity was solidified at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. The entire ending of the gospel of Mark (19:9-20) doesn't appear in any manuscripts before the 5th Century CE. This is CRITICAL because... Jesus doesn't rise from the dead in original ending. They find an empty tomb, but the NT implies that he was placed in a temporary grave and was always intended to be moved to a more permanent one. In the original manuscripts of Mark, they find an empty tomb, but no resurrection is mentioned, no back from the dead, no ascension to heaven.
The Talmud MIGHT mention Jesus, but it's really impossible to say, because Yeshu was an incredibly common name at the time. Some Talmud "Yeshu" stories are from a hundred years before Jesus, or a hundred years after. The Christian Church has also censored the Talmud (yes, even copies you might get today) by destroying what they considered heretical stories about Jesus. It's a sensitive topic because while MOST Yeshu stories in the Talmud ARE DEFINITELY NOT Jesus, a few... might be. And they paint him in an unflattering light, because the followers of Jesus basically betrayed other Jews and helped the Romans crush Jewish revolutions. But the thing is, sometimes in the middle ages when a Jew would convert (or be forced to convert) to Xianity, they would tell the Church about those stories, and the Church would respond by... Killing Jews en masse. So using the Talmud as a source about Jesus is difficult and unreliable at best, bloody and murderous at worst.
So, again. Nothing is sacred, we know that the Church has meddled in, censored, redacted from, and added to ALL the texts about Jesus, their own and other's. We know that there's nothing within 60 years of his lifetime (just a few paragraphs in a history book, later censored by Xians), and no NT texts within 100 years. The most prolific author in the NT even admits to never having met Jesus. Most of the early "manuscripts" of the NT are scraps the size of your hand or smaller, full manuscripts don't appear until the 400s. They're also FULL of disagreements and textual errors. The manuscripts of each gospel conflict themselves, and the gospels also often conflict each other. Like, a LOT. So often. I would say "you could write a book about how much they conflict," but I'm sure someone has.
These aren't even wild anti-Christian claims, they're all just historical facts. You can look them up.
So... in that sense, it's really difficult to say anything concrete about the historical Jesus at all.
Did he really claim to be G-d? Yeah, actually, according to the text of the gospels, he sure did. But can we say he ACTUALLY DID SAY those things, or, like other core doctrines, were those just added by authors or even transcribers and translators? No one can say. Xians love to trap you into the web of "well, if he said he was G-d, he was either lying, crazy, or G-d," but I reject the whole "if" premise. Show me the reliable texts. (Oh, you don't have them? Whoops. No logic game to play then.)
Did the original gospels describe him raising from the dead? Well, we know that Mark for sure didn't. We aren't sure about the others. What we do know is that for Jesus to be the Messiah, he MUST rise from the dead and return - NOT because that's what the Messiah does, but because he LITERALLY DID NOT DO ANYTHING THE MESSIAH IS SUPPOSED TO DO before he died. So, unless there's a way for him to do it AFTER he died, he couldn't be the Messiah. But people had already decided he was, so... they would have had to admit they were wrong... or they could come up with a supernatural loophole and stay in denial. (Guess which one they chose.)
Do we know if he really believed he was part of a trinity with G-d and the holy spirit? We know that no such IDEA even existed until over 300 years later, when it was conveniently added to the Latin version of the NT just after Official Christian Club II decided to agree on it. Very convenient.
Was he, in fact, born in Bethlehem? Super unlikely. The whole "everyone had to go to their traditional home city from hundreds of years ago to be counted and taxed" story is total myth, not mentioned in ANY other writings EVER. You know what tends to be written down? Taxes. It's literally why we invented writing. The thing is that the Messiah has to be born in Bethlehem according to some minor prophecies. Jesus was almost certainly born in Nazareth. (The whole "Herod killing all the baby boys" thing? Also made up, not found in ANY other sources. Genocides tend to be recorded and also, he wouldnt have has the authority to do that, because Rome handled all executions. Coventry Carol is still a bop tho.)
Do we even know if Jesus said all the antisemitic things the NT claims he did? Nope. No idea. They might totally have been added to his story by his later followers, who picked a massive fight with the rest of Judaism, took their toys, and went home. (In that they then turned against Judaism, allied with Rome, and immediately espoused blatant antisemitic policies and theologies from "Israel means Us and Only Us Now" to "everyone has to eat pork to keep the Jews out" and more that I wont get into because there's just too much.
Here's what we can say though.
Christianity is a mixture of some Jewish texts and theology with Greek philosophy and religion. It's an inevitable result of Hellenism. It's was a way for Jews to be more Greek, and for Greeks to be Jew-ish. That's why Xianity so willingly synchronized with pagan religions and rituals - it is inherently a syncretism of paganism and Judaism, after the Hellenic and Roman model.
Christianity (who's texts don't appear until the 2nd century) has an AWFUL LOT in common with the Roman Mithras cult. Worship in caves, began in 1st Century, death and resurrection, bread and wine ceremony.
Christianity split from Judaism quickly and became the state religion of Rome (Byzantium). Rome did not like Jews, and Xians did not like Jews. Together, they treated Jews worse than ever. The narrative of Xians being persecuted in WESTERN Rome is only part of the story. In EASTERN Rome, Christians quickly became powerful AF.
Jews have never viewed Christianity as a valid, non-heretical sect of Judaism. A man cannot be G-d, G-d cannot be triune, and Jesus did not fulfil the basic job requirements for the Messiah (who we don't think will be divine anyway).
A version of Xianity where people still practiced Jewish rituals did not survive the end of the 1st Century, IF that. Modern "Messianics" are appropriating modern Judaism and mixing it with modern Xianity.
Incidentally, when it comes to Jesus's "real name," there isn't a real answer, but it probably wasn't Yeshua. There's a girl on here right now who's spouting the canon Messianic rhetoric that "Yeshu is a derogatory name invented by The Rabbis™, his REAL name was Yeshua." No. Yeshu isn't a derogatory name. It's a common name for the period, and there are multiple Rabbis in the Talmud called Yeshu. It is the most LIKELY "real name," because of how many other documents it appears in from the same time. "Yeshua" is more prefered because it is closer to the Jewish word for "salvation" and that's just too juicy to pass up. Other candidates for "real name" include Yehoshua, Yahashua, etc. But really no one knows, and these were all invented in the ~70s for the Hebrew roots movement. (Incidentally, Yeshu also makes the most sense etymologically. Greeks changed Y to J, just like all names, they don't have a SH sound so it changed to S, and they added an S on the end because all masculine names gotta end in a consonant.)
You will probably be interested in these videos about the historical Jesus from R Tovia Singer. He explores some of the same themes, if you're a visual or audio learned this will help a lot.
Was John the Baptist a Real Figure
If Jesus Was Not the Messiah, Who Was He
Does the NT Skew Jesus's Life
What Does the Talmud Say About Jesus
Contradictory Infancy Stories of Jesus
When Did Jesus Become G-d
These opinions are brought to you not by a Jew, but by someone who was raised as a Christian and went to an intense Christian private school all my life. The views and facts in this post are mostly things I learned AS A YOUNG CHRISTIAN, but obviously with the accepted party line and spin.
However, I sure am a whole Jew now, and therefore:
I will not be tolerating proselytizing on this post. Absolutely ZERO missionary outreach, good news sharing, message of the gospel, etc. This post is to answer anon's question about a hypothetical historical Jesus. That is all. Conversation is limited to the hypothetical historical Jesus and the evidence (or lack of evidence) for who that Jesus was. Also, and I can't believe I have to say this explicitly, DO NOT private message me to proselytize.
I also will not be tolerating "well actually the Bible says" on this post. The entire point of this discussion is that the Christian Bible (New Testament) is not a reliable source on this issue, due to implicit bias, conflicting manuscripts, later additions to the text to support theological points, implicit bias, censorship of other texts about Jesus, and IMPLICT BIAS. I myself and anon who asked the question are not interested in "well actually the Bible says." Literally WE KNOW. Everyone knows. You are the most populous religion on the planet, it is not news. We know. This is a post to look beyond that.
Have fun kids, play nice.
