How many people of non-christian faiths believe in a historical Jesus?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I'd just like to know your guesses.

[John Dibble]

Islam certainly, seeing as he's still an important prophet for them. Mormons as well of course, provided you don't consider them to be Christians.

Outside of that though I don't think other religions necessarily have an official stance on the subject. And that makes sense - if Jesus isn't really a relevant part of your religion, I don't see any reason to have an official stance. So I imagine it varies among individuals, and I think given how widespread Christianity is most would be inclined to think there may have been a historical Jesus of some sort.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Odd question. I would assume that most people who aren't Christians (religiously or culturally) that have heard of Jesus would assume that he existed, just that they don't think he was divine.

[2952-0-0]

The Cao Dai religion in Vietnam is a mix between Christianity, Buddhism, and the Confucian and Taoist philosophies. It preaches that Jesus is a Buddha and the true Son of God.

[anvi]

My guess is that the historicity of Jesus is not questioned at all in Islam or Sikhism and is rarely questioned in Judaism.  A lot of Hindus certainly believe that Jesus was a historical person, and some quarters of Hinduism claim that Jesus was an avatar.  I don't think other religious traditions would have any particular reason to question that Jesus was a historical person either.  Indeed, I think the vast majority of academic historians, whether they are religious or not, would say that Jesus was a real historical person (a small, fanatical minority reject it).

There will, of course, be major disagreements among all these groups regarding what Jesus said and did, and what the significance of his life was.  But, I would guess a vast majority of practically all non-Christians believe that Jesus was a historical person.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

why would anyone, religious or nonreligious, question the historicity of Jesus?  there is no way the book of Acts and the four major epistles of Paul were not authentic and written by eyewitnesses in the mid first century.  obviously, the recipients of those letters did not live in a vacuum and the historicity of Jesus was well know to them.

Even non-Christian sources like Josephus mention the historicity of Jesus.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

referring to "faiths" as discrete entities of equal significance that can be measured by "percentage" is absurd

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

referring to "faiths" as discrete entities of equal significance that can be measured by "percentage" is absurd

I worded it wrong. I ment people of non-christian faiths.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think most believe that the figure of Jesus existed... there is an emerging school of thought that "he" is a composite of a few people, but that is pretty shaky.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Odd question. I would assume that most people who aren't Christians (religiously or culturally) that have heard of Jesus would assume that he existed, just that they don't think he was divine.

I think Al hit it on the head........

[Kaine for Senate '18]

why would anyone, religious or nonreligious, question the historicity of Jesus?  there is no way the book of Acts and the four major epistles of Paul were not authentic and written by eyewitnesses in the mid first century.  obviously, the recipients of those letters did not live in a vacuum and the historicity of Jesus was well know to them.

LOL.  Paul didn't know Jesus, and the authorship of those books, like every other book in the Bible, can be questioned.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

why would anyone, religious or nonreligious, question the historicity of Jesus?  there is no way the book of Acts and the four major epistles of Paul were not authentic and written by eyewitnesses in the mid first century.  obviously, the recipients of those letters did not live in a vacuum and the historicity of Jesus was well know to them.

LOL.  Paul didn't know Jesus, and the authorship of those books, like every other book in the Bible, can be questioned.

Questioned?! Questioned?! - heretic!!! eternal hellfire awaits!!!!

[J. J.]

referring to "faiths" as discrete entities of equal significance that can be measured by "percentage" is absurd

I worded it wrong. I ment people of non-christian faiths.

I think most would acknowledge that there was a person named Jesus, though many might regard him as a philosopher.  I think the number that acknowledge that Jesus existed at one point, at least would be in the billions.

[feeblepizza]

Um...100%. History backs up the fact that there was a man named Jesus, born to Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem. Everything else is foggy, but Jesus was indeed a person.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Um...100%. History backs up the fact that there was a man named Jesus, born to Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem. Everything else is foggy, but Jesus was indeed a person.

Actually.. yes mostly, A Bethlehem, since in ancient Judea there was in fact 2 Bethlehems, the present Bethlehem near Jerusalem and the other was closer to Galilee.

[anvi]

Um...100%. History backs up the fact that there was a man named Jesus, born to Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem. Everything else is foggy, but Jesus was indeed a person.

I wouldn't go this far.  The only other first century texts to affirm the historical existence of Jesus outside of Christian literature were written by the Jewish historian Josephus.  But, even in this case, some scholars have suspected that the passages in Josephus affirming Jesus' existence were later interpolations.  But, I don't think the latter suspicion, even if true, matters much.  The development and flourishing of the Christian community in the first century really would not have been plausible if there weren't a real person who taught, healed, preached and was executed by Roman authorities and attracted so much attention and devotion.  In addition to this, I don't think the relative uniformity of Jesus' sayings, especially as they are recorded in the synoptic gospels, would exist had such sayings not been attributable to a real person.

Bottom line: I think doubting that Jesus was a real historical person is wildly unreasonable, and that is why his existence is not questioned by other religious traditions, and only questioned very rarely and very implausibly by even the most secular of historians.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In any case expecting there to be masses of written records about a carpenter who lived two thousand years ago is... um... yeah. Unreasonable is a good word to use.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Just as a note, people wrote about Alexander the Great almost a thousand years after everyone who could have known him died. The NT was written less than 30 years after Jesus left the picture.

[Storebought]

In any case expecting there to be masses of written records about a carpenter who lived two thousand years ago is... um... yeah. Unreasonable is a good word to use.

It's shocking how little we know about the mass of humanity who weren't warlords. The same as now.

[John Dibble]

Just as a note, people wrote about Alexander the Great almost a thousand years after everyone who could have known him died. The NT was written less than 30 years after Jesus left the picture.

What? I'm pretty sure that our earliest available historical records and other artifacts of Alexander the Great are far closer to his actual lifespan than a thousand years. Heck, I'm pretty sure there are some from when he was still alive. Yeah, people were writing about him well after that, but their writings were based on and can be traced back to the prior, original accounts, just like those who write about Jesus today, almost 2000 years after the time he was supposed to have been alive, would base their writings primarily if not entirely off of the New Testament.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Oooh, sorry about that. I remember reading something like that once. But I just found out that it was not 1000 years, but 400 years. Still, compared to Jesus, who was first written about when plently of people who knew him were still alive, that says something.

Of course, there could have been manuscripts about Alexander from eariler that were destroyed, but who knows.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Oooh, sorry about that. I remember reading something like that once. But I just found out that it was not 1000 years, but 400 years. Still, compared to Jesus, who was first written about when plently of people who knew him were still alive, that says something.

Of course, there could have been manuscripts about Alexander from eariler that were destroyed, but who knows.

From what I've heard, the main reason the Gospels were written in the first place was that the Apostles were dying off, distortions were creeping in, and the end of the world wasn't coming as quickly as they'd assumed.

[The Mikado]

Oooh, sorry about that. I remember reading something like that once. But I just found out that it was not 1000 years, but 400 years. Still, compared to Jesus, who was first written about when plently of people who knew him were still alive, that says something.

Of course, there could have been manuscripts about Alexander from eariler that were destroyed, but who knows.

Plutarch et al. were basing all the stuff they wrote on previously existing books about Alexander.  Is Plutarch 100% trustworthy?  No, nor is any classical historian, but he's a lot better than most.

Plus, quite a bit of stuff about Alexander (more so than just about anyone else from that period) can be verified by archaeology.  Notably, the fact that Tyre is now a peninsula and used to be an island.  (The most impressive of Alexander's accomplishments, IMO)  Not to mention the nearly dozen cities popping up with the name Alexandria.  Or the new Greek dynasties in Egypt and the Near East (the Ptolemies and the Seleucids).  Or the bizarre fact of the existence of the kingdom of Greco-Bactria.  Alexander left a lot of evidence of his actions.