- 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
- 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; some Elijah; others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
- 15 He asked them, "But who do you say that I am?"
- 16 And Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
- 17 And Jesus responded, "Simon, son of Jonah, blessed are you, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but My Father which is in heaven."
Was He real? Scholars will note that the only major writings we have of Him are from accounts dating after His death. No one in the history of mankind has changed shaped the human race, not even Rome itself. Never has there been so many writings to prove anyone else' existence or non-existence in this case in all history. But why not contemporaries? They did not write about Him. But the same could be said of other figures like Muhammad, Buddha, and many others in history. It does not make them unreal.
First of all, how many people could write in 30 AD to begin with? None of His disciples were schooled men, except for maybe Levi (Matthew), and he did write a book. Others like Peter had friends to do some of the writing like Silas and Mark who only learned of Jesus after His death. The only ones who would have had the schooling in that area would have been Jewish Torah students. They would not have included something that they felt was blasphemous. Such as Saul. But when Saul converted to following Christ then even He started to write things down at a later date. Luke, a doctor, historian and friend of Paul investigated all circumstances. Roman scholars would not written of such events because it was only a three year period of which they considered no threat to their authority. And if it was a threat to their authority do we think Rome would have included it? But later once Christianity became a force inside Rome writers started to investigate. But of course, they have been disregarded or "debunked" by anti-theists. And yet, when Homer writes about history (one account) it is accepted as fact by the same people. So, He was real. Most historians (subjectively) would agree.