No Stupid Questions

That's not the real question though. The real question is rather are there any "real physical proof" that Jesus had literally anything special that is in itself being the "son of God" or anything related to religion.

Anybody (sadly) can be crucified, especially during a period where it is trendy. Anybody can walk through part of the desert. Anybody can organize a meal, give a speech, etc.

Even if it's done exceptionally well, that does not make it special in the sense of being the proof of anything religious. We all have friends with unique talents, and social media helped us discovered that there are so many more of those around the entire world, but nobody in their right mind would claim that because Eminem can sing words intelligibly faster than the vast majority of people he is the son of "God".

I also read a book about a decade ago (unfortunately didn't write down notes about it so can't find the name back) on the history of religion, from polytheism to monotheism, and it was quite interesting. If I remember correctly one way to interpret it was through the lens of religions maintaining themselves over time and space, which could include growing to a sufficient size in terms of devout adepts. The point being that veracity was not part of the equation.

There had to be multiple Rabbi rabblerousers in Roman occupied Judea. Pick one.

if you found a corpse it would cause a lot of problems for the religion.

No, and that is to even be expected.

He was a prophet whose movement had around 120 or so core disciples along with his apostles, plus thousands who followed him about and considered him a healer and revolutionary teacher.

There are people who have done similar things that are completely lost to history other than small records that vaguely outline the controversy surrounding them... We shouldn't really expect more in terms of proof...

But what is unique is the fact that we have an extremely well preserved corpus of text surrounding him. We also have some good idea that a lot of his followers were prosecuted and killed, and never recanted in the process, which might incline you to believe in the radical truth that they lived by.

Of course I am biased - I am a Christian - but it really does just seem pointlessly antagonistic to dismiss His Existence at all.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/1650

The answers here are absolutely crazy. Go find some credible biblical scholars (ones whose jobs are not dependent on statements of faith) like Bart ehrman and read what they say. My understanding is that most scholars agree that Jesus existed, and even that he was crucified. Don't trust lemmy, don't even trust me, go find the experts, read what they say, and decide for yourself.

The only physical proof you can have of a person that lived before photography is a body. So no, Jesus did not have a publically marked grave and we do not have his bones.

That being said, there is a difference between proving something historically and proving it in the court of law. Historical evidence points to Jesus having been a person that lived around that time.

There most likely were a bunch of people called Yeshua back then.

Yes there is, here is his mugshot shortly after he was booked. Looks like he spent the evening turning water into wine.

It seems like the consensus is that the stories probably stem from a real guy because that's deemed more likely than no person existing as a basis for the story, but no, there is not material evidence for jesus christ's existence