Did Jesus (the man) actually exist?

[shadow2k]

What's the proof?

I will say up front that many historians accept Jesus' existence as historical fact. However, acceptance and proof are two different things.

If you believe he exists, please do not just cite a bible verse. Obviously, I don't believe that it's entirely accurate. While the text has historical context, that in and of itself is proof of nothing.

The bible is a source of the debate, considering how the gospels contradict each other when discussing the specifics. What's interesting to me is how not one historical text written during the time of Jesus (or in the few years right after) mentions him at all. It's not like we don't have any texts at all from this period. They just don't mention Jesus. Not until 40yrs later was he written about, by Gospels who, if were born the same year as Jesus (which is disputed by even them) would have been as old as 110yrs while writing it?

So honestly...what proof is there? Don't ask me to disprove his existence, I won't even bother responding. And please don't cite how many people believe or follow him. It's not proof of anything. I can show you a lot of people who believe in Shiva too.

The fact that his existence is widely accepted even by historians simply means it's accepted. Not that there is proof. Which is what I'd like to see.

 

[homeyg]

 

[cairo140]

I swear I once heard of something to the tune of execution records for Jesus, but that's not my proof. Here it is:

Proof By Sheer Logic:

A) Hundreds of people in Rome at the time were freely going around declaring themselves the messiah. There is no reason that a recount would recount someone who didn't exist when there were so many others who too claimed to be the messiah. If I were writing a story about how a coin in my wallet started levitating all of a sudden, I would write it about a quarter, or a nickel, or a dime, or a loonie, but I would not write it about a 87 cent coin.

Hmm... while I was writing, I got distracted by an MSN conversation, so I forgot my other premises, but I will add them when I think of them until then...

Because of A), therefore Jesus of Nazareth must have existed.

 

[cairo140]

THE JESUS REINCARNATE HAS ARRIVED!!!!!!!

 

[bgast1]

Are you serious? What do you need for proof? Can you prove I exist? There are plenty of extra Biblical accounts that testify to Jesus, and His crucifixion. Did Abraham Lincoln exist? What about Alexander the Great? or Napoleon?

 

[North King]

Yes he did.

There's too much historical and archaeological evidence to back it up to reasonably doubt that.

 

[cairo140]

Are you serious? What do you need for proof? Can you prove I exist? There are plenty of extra Biblical accounts that testify to Jesus, and His crucifixion. Did Abraham Lincoln exist? What about Alexander the Great? or Napoleon?

Let's not turn this into an overly philosophical argument. But if you say so.

Proof that bgast1 exists by cairo140:

bgast1 was capable of coming up with the witty response which turned a historical question into a philosphical question; therefore, he must have the ability to think. The ability to think represents the ability to exert control over thoughts, and to be able to exert control suggests superiority. The only field in which it is possible for one thing to be superior to another is in relativistic existence. Therefore, bgast1 exists.

 

[Zarn]

Using your eyesight to prove someone exists is a bad idea, since you senses can be deceiving. That is basic philosophy. You really can only prove yourself to exist.

 

[shadow2k]

Yes he did.

There's too much historical and archaeological evidence to back it up to reasonably doubt that.

What archaeological evidence is there to prove his existence? Obviously we know where many biblical cities were. Spots were he was "allegedly" entombed, crucified, etc... But what actual proof is there that he was actually at any of these spots?

 

[cairo140]

Using your eyesight to prove someone exists is a bad idea, since you senses can be deceiving. That is basic philosophy. You really can only prove yourself to exist.

Gee, by that logic, I can't even prove that I exist. All senses are relative to the master of all senses - sight. I can't verify my sight of this forum, just as I cannot validate the sight of myself. I think, therefore I may or may not exist.

 

[Ansar]

I think he did...but thats just me.

 

[RameNoodle]

Just because the Bible's accounts of Jesus' life differ based on the Gospels, doesn't mean that He (yes, He) didn't exist. The Bible is a perfectly plausible historical writing, even if you don't believe that it has any spiritual meaning, or if some of the religious events described didn't occur.

 

[shadow2k]

Are you serious? What do you need for proof? Can you prove I exist? There are plenty of extra Biblical accounts that testify to Jesus, and His crucifixion. Did Abraham Lincoln exist? What about Alexander the Great? or Napoleon?

Name me one account of Jesus written before the gospels were written, which were all written at least 40yrs after Jesus allegedly lived.

Why are there no texts from when Jesus became so famous (as alleged in the bible) that mention him...or even in the next four decades? Only after the gospels mention him do other texts begin to tell the story.

Why is it not probable that it could be a myth, just like many of the ones that bare a striking resemblence to his story?

Proof of your existence is as simple as you posting here. Obviously "scientific" proof would need much more scrutiny. But we can't be like that with ancient history.

Abe/Napoleon/Alexander - Writings, carvings, statues, portraits, etc...all FROM THEIR TIME. Not 40yrs after. Writings by historians. Not religious texts of faith.

Jesus depiction is of some long haired white skinned man. Pretty sure he'd be of ME descent, don't you think? And long hair? Corinthians 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

 

[shadow2k]

Just because the Bible's accounts of Jesus' life differ based on the Gospels, doesn't mean that He (yes, He) didn't exist. The Bible is a perfectly plausible historical writing, even if you don't believe that it has any spiritual meaning, or if some of the religious events described didn't occur.

Seeing the Bible as "historical" is a matter of faith. If faith is your reason for believing that Jesus existed, that's fine. But that's not really what I'm asking about.

I'm just wondering what "proof" there was that he even existed. Multiple stories/letters written 40yrs after the fact just don't do it for me.

If one of the numerous texts written by historians who lived during the time of Jesus even so much as mentioned him, I'd accept that as plausible proof that he did, in fact, exist. None of them mention anything about him. If you think about the gospels themselves, if they were born at 0 AD, that would make one of them around 110yrs old when his gospel was written. I think it was John, can't remember right now. I think Mark would have been what, like 70? Pretty sure these guys weren't living to those ripe old ages in that day and age.

 

[cairo140]

Name me one account of Jesus written before the gospels were written, which were all written at least 40yrs after Jesus allegedly lived.

Why are there no texts from when Jesus became so famous (as alleged in the bible) that mention him...or even in the next four decades? Only after the gospels mention him do other texts begin to tell the story.

Abe/Napoleon/Alexander - Writings, carvings, statues, portraits, etc...all FROM THEIR TIME. Not 40yrs after. Writings by historians. Not religious texts of faith.

Abe/Napoleon/Alexander all happened to be pretty famous during their lifetimes. Most of Jesus' fame came posthumously. If I recall correctly, then the book of Acts (which is likely among the few more reputable sections of the New Testament) details the rise of Christinaity saying that St. Peter and Saul are the main "popular" figures, whereas the long dead Jesus really was not. I hardly see how my logic proof is all that fallible though.

A Secondary Question Open to Anyone: Does it even MATTER whether or not Jesus existed? So many people were claiming to be messiah at the time that even if Jesus did not exist, the references made to him in the beginning of the church and even today could have refered to any other person claiming to be messiah or even to an imaginary person, and it wouldn't have made a difference. So is the question of Jesus' existence important after all?

 

[Arcadian83]

*typical reply based entirely on wikipedia*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Non-Christian_writings

You asked for it

 

[Xenocrates]

There are two parts to the question:

1) Did a bloke called Jesus exist?
2) Was this bloke as described by modern Christians?

The answer to the first question is obviously no.

Yeshua is the original Hebrew proper name for Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish Rabbi (and more) who lived from about 6 B.C.E. to 27 C.E. (A.D.) In other words, Yeshua was the name His mother called Him when shall called Him for supper.

Jesus is a mis-transliteration of the Greek mis-transliteration, Yeysu. (Some say the name Jesus probably developed from the name of the pagan god Zeus, but there is little or no evidence for this.) It is true that Emporer Constantine mistook Jesus for the Greek god Apollo, but that is another story.

The answer to the second question is again obviously no. The stories in the bible are myths based on a mixture of pre-existing Mithraism and Egyptian, Babylonian and Roman/Greek cults. Even the face of Jesus that we all recognise is really that of Apollo. I really don't get why people believe this myth.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I will say up front that many historians accept Jesus' existence as historical fact. However, acceptance and proof are two different things.

The bible is a source of the debate, considering how the gospels contradict each other when discussing the specifics. What's interesting to me is how not one historical text written during the time of Jesus (or in the few years right after) mentions him at all. It's not like we don't have any texts at all from this period. They just don't mention Jesus. Not until 40yrs later was he written about, by Gospels who, if were born the same year as Jesus (which is disputed by even them) would have been as old as 110yrs while writing it?

Your question is not a simple one. I think you actually mean to ask two questions:Was the founder of Christianity a man named Jesus who lived in the first century AD.? and, Can his actual existence be proven in the same way that people like Hannibal or Julius Caesar can be shown to have existed?

Other questions you point at include:

How accurately do the books of the new testament portay his life and teaching?

Why did it take 40 years or more to get any written texts?

Was the founder of Christianity a man named Jesus who lived in the first century AD.? This question is a bit like the question of who wrote Shakespeare's plays? Until someone can show conclusively that the plays were written by someone else, Shakespeare is the obvoious answer. If and when enough evidence is put forth to tip the scale to someone else, then that person will get the credit. The same goes for the Illiad; was it written by Homer? We do not have any clear evidence to the contrary or another candidate, so the best answer is that Homer did.

The same goes for Jesus. All existing evidence (cannonical and non cannonical books of the period) points to a man named Jesus as the founder of Christianity; there are no other candidates proposed for the credit. The best default answer is Jesus

Can his actual existence be proven in the same way that people like Hannibal or Julius Caesar can be shown to have existed? This is really an attempt to disguise the real agenda which is all about trying to set the stage that Christianity was a "fraud religion" made up by some group of people to deceive others for some reason. The thinking goes that if Jesus cannot be "proven" to be real, then his religion must also be fake.

There isn't any evidence to prove Jesus lived, but not having other supporting evidence beyond the bibilcal tests does not disprove that Jesus existed. It does leave the door wide open to propose an alternative with its own supporting evidence. What is your theory about how christianity got started and show us your evidence.

Like Shakespeare, it's OK to deny he wrote the plays, but you need a reasonable explanation for how they got written then. Jesus and Christianity are no different.

I may deal with the other questions later.

 

[azzaman333]

There probably was a 'Jesus'. Whether he had super-awesome powers or not, I dont think he did.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Name me one account of Jesus written before the gospels were written, which were all written at least 40yrs after Jesus allegedly lived.

How about the letters of Paul? Those were written before Mark.

The epistle to the Thessalonians is certainly one of the most ancient Christian documents in existence. It is typically dated c. 50/51 CE. It is universally assented to be an authentic letter of Paul.

Why are there no texts from when Jesus became so famous (as alleged in the bible) that mention him...or even in the next four decades? Only after the gospels mention him do other texts begin to tell the story.

Jesus was never famous while he lived. There are no short answers to this, I will try to write a proper one tomorrow.

Why is it not probable that it could be a myth, just like many of the ones that bare a striking resemblence to his story?

You are mixing up two ideas: one that Jesus lived and founded Christiantiy and two, that the stories told in the new testament are 100% accurate.

Jesus depiction is of some long haired white skinned man. Pretty sure he'd be of ME descent, don't you think? And long hair? Corinthians 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Jesus has been depicted in many different ways. So you don't like a white European version of Jesus, some people do. Get over it. How he may have looked is not relevant to the question of whether or not he ever lived.