Probably there was a Jewish reformist called Yeshua (a more approximated way to represent the name) that lived around the sec. I.
There were many on that time, as many as different evangelical denominations.
And probably the histories of many of those reformists were attributed in this Yeshua because he was popular.
If you say that crazy eyes Simon did something has no weight, but if That Yeshua guy did it then it might be serious.
Then... the legend got way bigger than the real man.

Yeah, so what? If he was a historical person, he is dead. It is your right to believe whatever you want. Just don't force me to believe it.

Zero evidence. Also don't multi-post

Possibly

so, i don't know, but Jesus (actually “Joshua” ) was the most common male name then, and rabbis tend to speak in a kind of code, hence Jesus of Nazareth might well work out to “John Doe, from Nowhere,” which the appropriation of all of the Caesar’s ( and pharaoh’s) titles, King of kings, messiah, savior, etc might also suggest; a literary play is being made, iow

and the roman religion, cult of sol invictus was the dominant religion at the time, wherein ppl thought that they might attain the Elysian Fields with the help of Apollos; so, the bible might be interpreted differently, but rest assured any false interpretations are addressed elsewhere in it somewhere,
No son of man may die for another’s sins
All go to the same place
No one has ever gone up to heaven…
etc

@Walkerman2020: please read what you wrote, and then tell us what it means.

You are welcome to believe whatever you wish.

But if you claim that you have proof, then that is a whole different matter. Jesus may have been a historical figure whose real contributions may have been somewhat overstated, second he may be a combination of several historical figures brought together under one name, typical of myth making, third he may be a just fictional creation, only existing on paper as a deception, fourth or he may be a fictional creation intended as a metaphor, five he may be just a name attached to some older legends, and finally he may, most probably, be a combination of several of those things working together.

What however is certain, is that the existing evidence is so doubtful, and often contradictory, that anyone who says that they can prove any of the above, is just blowing hot air.

I believe that in those times you couldn't swing a dead cat around your head without hitting two or three people claiming to be the son of god and jesus.

There's a great book by Reza Aslan, in which the theologian describes that there was a figure by that name, who led a social movement. The name was very common and, at the time, the social, political, and religious were all intertwined. The book is called Zealot: the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. For a while Fox News liked to have this guy on to bash on the Muslims, but then they realized he gave equal treatment to Christianity and quit inviting him.

The Bible could have the words "Based On A True Story" plastered all over the cover with the fine print down the bottom saying "The Historical Accuracy In This Book Contains Artistic Interpretations Intended For Entertainment Purposes Only".
There was a guy named Jesus who had his own ideas about his Jewish faith and was a preacher. The rest of the book is "artistic interpretations".

You are probaby not wrong. I think there are contemporaneous Roman writings that mention Jesus, or at least describe someone with his attributes and activities operating in Galilee.

Yeah your probably wrong. Most likely based off of more than one person from those times, similar to Robin Hood. I definitely don't believe in the walk on water or turning water into wine B.S.

There were so many would be, wanta be messiah's back then, I'm sure that one of them could of been named Jesus. Why not.

Ohfepetessake.

If Jesus was a historical figure, I believe we actually know nothing about him. The Gospels were all written by anonymous sources decades after he would have died, and the myth making that happens with certain figures begins even before they are gone (I draw on my Mormon experience learning about Smith, Young, and certain other Mormon figures). Jesus wrote nothing himself about anything and anything we could possibly know comes from people who wouldn't have known him. I am willing to accept that Jesus was historical, but not willing to take anything written about him as "Gospel truth".

I read once there were a couple prophet characters named Yeshua written about in the Talmud who seem to have some parallels with Jesus from the Bible. They also have some stark differences. One would be the timing of the birth which was at least 2 decades different than when Jesus was said to have been born. The Talmud was apparently written much later than the Gospels (like a century or two) so more details could have been confused with oral traditions passing them on. As I recall, one of these prophets was conceived from an adulterous affair between a married Jewish woman and a Roman soldier. Her husband turned her out into the street when he discovered it. These Yeshua prophets both healed the sick, performed miracles, and had some other similarities with Jesus, and both were crucified.

Centuries later, certain Christians noticed certain similarities between these Yeshua prophets from the Talmud and Jesus from the Bible. An early inquisitioner decided to make an issue of it and demanded to know if the Characters in the Talmud were the same as Jesus. Of course, the Rabbis denied any a connection between the two. How could they do anything else? Claiming these characters were at all the same would be cause to accuse all Jews of heresy and Jews were already living with the threat of Christians persecuting them. So the denial has apparently been perpetuated and the connection dismissed. I am not saying that the Talmud proves anything about Jesus, but I found it an interesting addition to the discussion of whether Jesus was a historical figure.

I don’t know. We have proof of a lot of historical figures. I’d peg Jesus as proof of a historical book.
That’s just me.

What evidence do you have jesus existed?

Most likely. IMHO.

Yes.