Is there a difference between the biblical Jesus vs the historical Jesus?


Is there a difference between the historical Jesus vs the biblical Jesus? People say that he was just an ordinary man but was built up into a divine being. just curious about other thought on this. thx


That false dichotomy is just a bunch of squid hooey. :rolleyes:

Jesus was a man, yes. Did he really do miralcles? Yes!! Was he also God?? Yes!!!


There better not be any difference between the biblical Jesus and the “historical” Jesus! It’s the whole basis of our faith! There’s only one Jesus, and the New Testament is history, except to those who choose not to believe.


People say he was an ordinary man? What people? Anti-Christian people? What evidence do they have other than their own beliefs, or lack thereof? Why are their beliefs more valid than those who actually knew Christ?


No. You can use the “demythologizing” techniques of the modernist biblical scholars all you like, and you never get to a non-supernatural, “historical” Jesus. The only way to affirm the “historical Jesus” over just Jesus is an anti-supernaturalist presupposition, or some silly argument like Bart Ehrman uses that “historians can’t talk about the supernatural because they don’t have access to it”, which is just the same shell game of David Hume’s long-refuted “argument against miracles” applied to history.

Some people say that C.S. Lewis’ argument to the effect that we have to say Jesus was either a “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” should also contain “Legend”, but I disagree. There is no basis for affirming Jesus as just some legend other than an anti-supernatural presupposition, not from any historical evidence.


You mean people like Bart Ehrman? Then you ought to read books by Gary Habermas such as his “The Historical Jesus” and judge the historical evidence for Jesus.

Except for the so called self - proclaimed God status such as the Pharoahs of Egypt and possibly Emperors of Ancient China, not many of their citizens worship them as gods in reality, lip service actually. When they are dead, they are forgotten. None of them are worshiped today. Unlike Jesus. Someone with such low social status, how can he be God if he is not truly God? 2000 years later, he is still God. None of the founders of other religions claim Godhood.

What other people say is not important. It is what you believe.


If I may offer a different perspective…I am NOT anti-christian, in fact I love you guys, and sometimes wish I had your faith.

I believe Jesus was an important historical figure, if not THE most important historical figure.
But, in my opinion, he was a man… nothing more.
I don’t need to be anti religious to believe that, I only need to not believe what you do.

I know that historically this view has been corrupted by regimes like the Nazi party with their ‘‘Positive Christianity’’… but as an atheist, the divine aspects of Jesus’ life, are not supported by either science of logic.


Jesus said He was our God and our Savior and the only way to heaven. If there is no supernatural, then Jesus is a complete whack-job. How does a whack-job become the most important person in history? Couldn’t people at the time see He was nuts? I don’t think people back then were brain-dead. The thing that makes Him the most important person in history is the supernatural. He was no ordinary man. People still have supernatural encounters with Him. I personally know two people who have seen Him in an apparition. Peace.


It’s been speculated that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a family. I don’t believe this, but speaking of her, wasn’t she the woman who washed His feet with her tears and dried them with her hair? There is not anything definite known about her, but I have read a few novels based on different fictionalized versions of her life, and I’m considering writing a short story of her. She is the most significant woman associated with Jesus, aside from His Mother Mary, of course.


Since you have already accepted that (a) Jesus was a true historical figure, and (b) it is a true historical fact that his followers believed him to be divine, why do you selectively accept part (a) and not (b)? Is this kind of cafeteria selection logical? Isn’t it logical that Christianity grew because there was something in it that people believed to be true? Yes, I would agree that it would be illogical to believe and die for something that you know to be false. But the evidence is to the contrary. If you believe in statistics as most atheists do, then there is strong statistical support for Christianity. Millions and millions of them. If you believe that life can arise from non-life no matter how remotely improbable (which happens to defy science and logic) , why do you not believe what others 2000 years ago have experienced and eyewitnessed and documented? If you believed that Jesus is a true historical figure, then you must either believe that either he is a liar, mad or God. Is it logical to believe, follow the ways of a liar/mad man for 2000 yrs if it is false?


The biblical Jesus was revealed by God:

[FONT=Georgia]26* But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; 27* and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning.

John 15:26-27

The historical Jesus is the creation of historians



Are you sure about that? :slight_smile:

Let’s take another look. The Christian religion was begun by disciples of Jesus who spread the belief that He was God. They proclaimed that they had PERSONALLY knew Him, and witnessed Him dying by execution, and they PERSONALLY witnessed Him alive again 3 days later.

For this testimony, they were tortured and executed in horrific fashion. And what happened? They happily held to their testimony. Now does this stack up as reasonable? Have you EVER known someone who was willing to be tortured and executed in a vicious manner over what they claim to have PERSONALLY witnessed?!?! You might be able to find one person who would do so, maybe. You wouldn’t find dozens or hundreds.

(And just for argument’s sake, no, they couldn’t have all been mentally insane. First, NONE of their writings give any hint or impression of mental illness. Second, for cults involving those who are mentally ill, they revolve around one mentally ill person who is the driver of the cult, and the cult disappears when that person dies. This is not the case for the Christian religion)

I would be interested in your perspective on these facts and how they fit into a rational and reasonable manner without a supernatural explanation.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit