Was there truly ever historical evidence that a man named "Jesus" existed?

Question

Christians say there were roman records of Jesus. But I've never heard an atheist/agnostic say there were any roman records of Jesus.. Not saying who I think is wrong or right, because I don't know. But which is it? If somebody could truly prove that there were records of Jesus, that even then still doesn't prove he's the son of God. It just means a man named Jesus that the bible is based on existed.

Answer 1

YES~! He played with the METS .

Answer 2

Let’s start with some pagan sources. These were people who thought Jesus was a mere man, but certainly attested to the fact that He lived and was a real man in history.



Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56-117 A.D.), a well-known Roman historian, was writing in about 115 A.D. concerning the Great Fire of Rome which occurred in 64 A.D. It was rumored that Nero actually started the fire. Tacitus said, “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…” (Annales, Historiae, Chapter 15, paragraphs 54 and 55).



In about 110 A.D. Plinius Secundus (or Pliny the Younger, c. 61-113 A.D.) was sent by the Roman emperor Trajan to govern the region of Bithynia. From that region, Pliny corresponded with the emperor. In speaking of the Christians, in one letter, he said, “They also declare that the sum total of their guilt or error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds...” (Epistulae X.96). He used the term “Christ” three times in his letter to refer to the originator of Christianity.



Lucian of Samosata (c.120-180 A.D.) was a writer and rhetorician in the second century. In his work, The Passing of Peregrinus (or The Death of Peregrin), we find this: “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rights, and who was crucified on that account.” And after some more discussion on the poor deluded Christians, it says, “...and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are all converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”



There was a historian named Thallus who wrote a history (in the mid-first century) of the eastern Mediterranean world. And although Thallus’ work has been lost, he was quoted from time to time by other ancient writers. In about 220 A.D. a Christian historian named Julius Africanus (c. 160-240 A.D.) spoke of a reference in Thallus’ work of the darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus (which of course, we read about in the gospels). He said, “Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably, as it seems to me. For the Hebrews celebrate the Passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the Passover...” (A History of the World). And he went on to talk some more about that. But, Thallus’ first century writing takes for granted that there really was a Jesus who was crucified, and that there was darkness during that event.



You will notice that all of these pagan sources simply take the existence of Jesus for granted. And there are some others we could look at like Mara Bar-Serapion, Seutonius, and Celsus who also lived in the first and second centuries and did the same. And that is a lot considering how obscure a figure Jesus of Nazareth actually was—a country preacher from Galilee who only had a three year ministry before getting killed.



We can also look at some Jewish sources.



Scholars obviously argue about it (and you’d have to look at that), but is seems that Jesus is talked about a few times in the Talmudic writings. Some time after A.D. 70 the Jews began to write down their oral law traditions in what is known as the Talmud. Every one of the references to Jesus are hostile, of course, but they certainly leave the great impression that he was a real person of history. For instance, in one place it says of Jesus that He was hanged on Passover eve (He was crucified) for the reason that, “...he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy...” (Sanhedrin 43A). I find the sorcery comment to be very interesting—even His enemies admitted that He did marvelous deeds.



Flavius Josephus (37-c. 100 A.D.), the first century Jewish historian, in his Antiquities of the Jews had two references to Jesus. The first one is disputed and so I'll just ignore that. In Josephus’ second reference, he said, “As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned” (Antiquities 20.9.1).



Hostile testimony, like we have seen, is very important. These writers (both pagan and Jewish) were certainly not trying to further the cause of Christ in any way, and so we can appeal to them without the charge of any built-in bias.



As professor F. F. Bruce said in his book: “Whatever else may be thought of the evidence from early Jewish and Gentile writers . . . it does at least establish, for those who refuse the witness of Christian writings, the historical character of Jesus Himself. Some writers may toy with the fancy of a ‘Christ-myth’, but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence” (The New Testament Documents).



Even Bart Ehrman, who is a great critic of Christianity, wrote a book in 2013 called Did Jesus Exist? where he strongly defends the existence of Jesus.

Answer 3

Non-Christian sources which are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. The sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels, and are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.



Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.



There is a total of three references to the name 'Jesus' in Book 20, Chapter 9: "Jesus, who was called Christ" (i.e. ' Messiah'); "Jesus, son of Damneus", a Jewish High Priest (both in Paragraph 1); and "Jesus, son of Gamaliel", another Jewish High Priest (in Paragraph 4).



Roman historian Tacitus referred to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe.



The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion



I rest the case for the Christians please Prove me wrong with Fact and not Tall stories

Answer 4

Ok, I didn't read all other comments but the ones I saw didn't answer the question. There is historical records of Jesus. I'm sure if you do a internet search or go to your local library you can find source material. However you and other commenters are correct it's doesn't prove he is the son of God. That's a matter of faith.

Answer 5

The Problems with a "Mythic" Origin to the Jesus Story





The weaknesses of the Mythicist hypothesis multiply when its proponents turn to coming up with their own explanation as to how the Jesus stories did arise if there was no historical Jesus. Of course, many of them don't really bother much with presenting an alternative explanation and leave their ideas about exactly how this happened conveniently vague. But some realize that we have late first century stories that all claim there was an early first century person who lived within living memory and then make a series of claims about him. If there was no such person, the Mythicist does need to explain how the stories about his existence arose and took the form they do. And they need to do so in a way that accounts for the evidence better than the parsimonious idea that this was believed because there was such a person. This is where Mythicism really falls down.

Answer 6

No, and there is no historical records of any kind because he was not real and the NT is a complete lie. See the book Piso Christ, Amazon or bookstores.

Answer 7

not really

Answer 8

Personally I think the bigger problem/question is, how do you know that the supernatural claims actually happened. How can you prove or know that the supernatural is possible. Whether Jesus actually existed or not is not the core question to be asking, because you get mixed answers on all of that.

Answer 9

Yes, there is true historical evidence. People tend to ignore the forest trying to look for specific trees. As Godless Gazoo has correctly noted, we don't have to have a signed autobiography from Jesus himself, other sources from people that knew the people Jesus interacted with, and Roman sources detailing the affects of the sway he had on people, are ample evidence that he indeed was a real figure in history.

Answer 10

Ask if there ever WAS evidence is speculation because it is nearly impossible to know what evidence might have existed but no longer does. On the other hand there is some evidence that exists and we may eventually discover more, but at this point in time the evidence is not compelling and amongst historians that specialize in studying the historacy of Jesus there is no consensus and both camps have widely varying theories.



Basically there are no contemporary records, i.e. those written at the time or close to the time of Jesus even though there were contemporary historians that often wrote about religious leaders & movements like Christianity . The Romans often recorded the names of those crucified - they were rather "obsessed" with crucifixion, but the absence of a record of Jesus' crucifixion gives no support either way as it simply may have been lost. There are some writings that are taken to mention Jesus from the second and later centuries, but most of them talk about Christians, and not Jesus or are taken out of context. Josephus is probably the most well known but his mentions of Jesus are definitively later additions by an unknown author.

Answer 11

Did Jesus really exist?



The pagan Roman historian Tacitus makes mention of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at the hand of Pontius Pilate in Book XV, Chapter 44 of his Annals.



There's about as much evidence of Jesus existing as there is for Buddha or Muhammad. Even if, for the sake of argument, the person Jesus did not actually exist, there is very good reason to believe someone matching his description did. The religion did not simply spawn in a vacuum; they all drew their beliefs from someone.



The Pavement

The place where Jesus was tried before Pilate.

Once considered a myth because there was no record of it in Jewish or secular maps or history.



When Titus destroyed Jerusalem, he built barracks there. When these were abandoned and had crumbled, other buildings were built on top. Archaeologists had dug down to the barracks, but no further until recently. When they did go underneath, they found The Pavement.



People who hold your belief have been called “Jesus Mythers,” but this notion is widely rejected by scholarly historians.



Here is the opinion of several critical scholars who have rejected the miraculous elements of Christ's life:



"Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community." (Rudolf Bultmann)



"To doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all … was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worthwhile to enter here." (Günther Bornkamm)



"I am of the opinion (and it is an opinion shared by every serious historian) that the theory [“that Jesus never lived, that he was a purely mythical figure”] is historically untenable." (Willi Marxsen)





Addendum

Saturating all of Scripture, there is a gospel theme that showcases the suffering, Resurrection, and glory of the promised Savior, Jesus Christ. He is the central object of our faith and the fulfillment of all that the faithful who have preceded us down through the ages had believed in.



Of course, the atheist wants to destroy, subjugate and cast doubt on any mention of Jesus. Some skeptics claim that the idea of the Resurrection was simply a legend that grew for several decades before being written down. 1 Corinthians 15:1–9 smashes this objection. Not only is five years much too short a time for such a legend to develop, but Paul cites a bunch of eyewitnesses “most of whom [were] still alive” (1 Corinthians 15:6, ESV). Essentially, he told the Corinthians, “Hey, if you don’t believe me, then go ask one of these guys.”



So are the appearances by Jesus truly “infallible proofs” of the Resurrection? According to Luke they were, and he wasn’t alone. Paul told the Greek philosophers who gathered in the Areopagus in Athens that God had “furnished proof to all men by raising [Jesus] from the dead” (Acts 17:31). “Proof” is from the Greek πίστιν (pistin) and refers to “a token offered as a guarantee of something promised.” It is a “proof” or “pledge.” Another lexicon defines it as “that which causes something to be known as verified or confirmed—‘evidence, proof, convincing proof.’” Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. It carried similar meanings in other ancient Greek writings, such as a “sure sign or token,” a “proof,” or in the logic of Aristotle, a “demonstrative proof.” Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, with a revised supplement 1996 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1843, 1996), 1768.



In one of His debates with the Pharisees, Jesus said, “It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true” (John 8:17). This oft-repeated concept refers back to Deuteronomy 19:15—“by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.” This same idea is at the heart of the American judicial system. Witnesses appear in trials to help establish the truth of the matter. Prior to the use of modern forensic experts and recording devices, reliable eyewitnesses were essential. People believe in the historicity of many past events because of eyewitness testimony without ever seeing photographic evidence for those events.



This willful rejection of the truth is well illustrated by a series of quotations from atheist philosopher Michael Martin concerning the evidence for Christ’s Resurrection.



In an effort to escape the implications of the Resurrection, Martin is willing to reject one of the fundamental principles of scientific methodology: cause and effect. Instead of bowing the knee to His Creator, Martin would rather believe in a causeless effect by which, out of all the people who have ever lived, the one who just happened to come back to life for no reason at all was Jesus, the Man who had fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies, lived a sinless life, performed countless miracles, and predicted His own Resurrection (Matthew 20:18–19). This is special pleading at its worst.



Martin’s statement provides a great example of how a person usually interprets the data according to his worldview. As an atheist, Martin is prepared to believe just about anything on this matter except that God raised Jesus from the dead. When a person desires to remain in his skepticism, he will develop excuses to disbelieve the obvious. Although the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was proven by “many infallible proofs” and has been recorded in God’s Word, atheists like Michael Martin will continue to reject the free gift of God’s grace and cling to their irrational humanistic worldview.



While some people reject the infallible proofs, a study of the historical evidences for the Resurrection of Jesus has been a major factor in some people coming to faith in Christ, including apologists like C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and Sir William Ramsay.



Question answered with evidence in fact AND authority.



Also the count has risen to 524 people that saw Jesus after the resurrection. That's a lot of coincidences for the agnostic, random chances for the atheists, confirmed corroborated factual truth for everyone else by any known measure scientifically, philosophically, and logically. Eyewitness account satisfies burden of proof in any court.



How many times must the truth repeat itself before you believe it?



Did you come here simply to DENY truth and show your ignorance and egoic, vain emotional need for validation? That's pretty delusional.

Answer 12

trtrt

Answer 13

Nope. The Bible is the only source that "he" ever existed. No secondary credible info was ever found at the time "Jesus" was apparently there.

Answer 14

The historical evidence found in the Gospels demonstrates that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Persons in the first century, who were in position to question the witnesses and examine the evidence, accepted the historical information as authentic. They were so sure of its accuracy that they were willing to endure persecution and die on behalf of their faith based on that assured information.

Then there are the testimony abundant confirmation in references by ancient writers, among whom are Juvenal, Tacitus, Seneca, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Celsus, and the Jewish historian Josephus.

Answer 15

There were many records of a Great Healer in that area at that time. Even orders to kidnap him & bring him before other kings. Not just the Romans. Problem they do not use his name in them. So some one was in the area healing. Traveling as He said he was. Also the Temple vail was rent on his death. Earth quake recorded & other things. So some one was there.

Answer 16

All of it is theories at the moment. I believe that there could be a God, and that that God has many different interpretations. However I'm not a true believer so basically I really don't think so.

Answer 17

No, every religion is only a theory with no evidence. If there really was evidence then every single religious person would be shoving it in everyone's faces lol

Answer 18

I can't show you the stone marker on the tomb because I can only post one picture but the tomb bear his name some man in Israel named Jesus got burried in this tomb.





The Bible account describes this tomb.

Answer 19

I wish there really was records. There are records from that time, in that area, but no Jesus.

Answer 20

Yes, the bible, because long before Jesus was born, the Bible foretold the coming of the one whom God would send as the Messiah, or Christ. The titles “Messiah” (from a Hebrew word) and “Christ” (from a Greek word) both mean “Anointed One.” This promised One would be anointed, that is, appointed by God to a special position. Jesus is Jehovah’s most precious Son—and for good reason. He is called “the firstborn of all creation,” for he was God’s first creation. (Colossians 1:15) There is something else that makes this Son special. He is the “only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16) This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God. Jesus is also the only one whom God used when He created all other things. (Colossians 1:16) Then, too, Jesus is called “the Word.” (John 1:14) This tells us that he spoke for God, no doubt delivering messages and instructions to the Father’s other sons, both spirit and human.

Answer 21

Praise be to Allah



For Muslims It is enough that The Holy Quran has confirmed the existence of Jesus [pbuh] as a mighty prophet of Almighty Allah who was Born to the Virgin Mary [pbuh] with out male intervention.

and Allah Knows Best.

Answer 22

Bible is the only proof.

Answer 23

Search for yourself. Find out for yourself. Myself, it doesn't matter either way if there's proof he lived. Christians would still believe, Atheists would still doubt.



I'm a Baha'i, a member of the Baha'i Faith.

hearttoheart.net

Bahai.org

Answer 24

Try looking at these places:



Tacitus, “Annals”, xv. 44 or so



Suetonius, mentioning “Chrestus” which is a misspelling of Christ



The letters of Pliny and Trajan, specifically mentioning Christ and Christians



Lucian, who mentioned Christ as a “crucified sophist” who created “that new cult”



If you are truly interested—some are, but many are not; they’re just trolls and rabble-rousers who want to seem impressive on this forum—you could also look at more recent books like Josh McDowell’s classic “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” or any of Lee Strobel’s works.



At the very least, they were honest enough to search for the truth, which is something that seems to be increasingly rare on this forum.

Answer 25

“Was there truly ever historical evidence that a man named “Jesus” existed?”

No, there is not.



“Christians say there were roman [sic.] records of Jesus.”

Then let those Christians produce those Roman records.



“But I've never heard an atheist/agnostic say there were any roman [sic.] records of Jesus.. [sic.]”

You will not because there are no such records.



“But which is it?”

The records do not exist.



“… even then still doesn't prove he's the son of God. It just means a man named Jesus that the bible [sic.] is based on existed.”

That is absolutely spot on. There really is no valid argument to be had that the god-man Jesus the Christ existed. He most certainly did not. There is an ongoing argument about whether a mortal man, let us call him Jesus of Nazareth, lived in the early years of the first century CE in the area that is modern day Israel and who may have given rise to the stories of Jesus. On balance it would seem that the available evidence demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that no such man lived.



At the time the Romans were good administrators and kept excellent records. The Jews at that time also kept good records and Jewish history is well chronicled. I think any reasonable person might have expected to find in

Jewish and Roman writings that a rabble rouser existed, who claimed to be the son of god, who was arrested at the behest of the Jews, was tried and executed by the Roman authorities. If the gospel accounts were true I think what they describe might also have been noted and recorded in history.

Answer 26

Was there truly ever historical evidence that a man named "Jesus" existed?



- They made up the name and there were many "possible" people like that.

Answer 27

Not until the Romans got Christianized. Jesus is Latin and a Jew would never have had a Latin name. The name is immensely popular among some Christian populations especially Catholics.

Answer 28

so 20 people wrote about Him the bible, but thats not good enough.





but if some dipstick who was not a bible writer said something you would accept that





dumass

Answer 29

well....to be fair.....we know that SOMEBODY had to exist in order for a superstition of this magnitude to arise.



I personally believe that Jesus really did exist and even as portrayed in the bible.



Jesus was an ordinary man living on the fringes of society who unsuccessfully tried to make a career in various trades like carpentry, fishing and shepherding but luckily found his niche in preaching after inheriting a portion of a congregation led by John the Baptist who was beheaded by Herod.



He was somewhat of a drifter - moving from town to town and practiced what is known today as flim-flam - performing spurious miracles that managed to convince only 12 people - and alluding to, but never admitting, divine godship. He had a knack for getting punched and beaten but always managed to escape at the last moments. His luck finally ran out after messing with the Sanhedrin.



But all was not lost as Jesus had two very important friends - the first being a J.Aramithea who pleaded with Pilate for the body of Jesus just moments after losing consciousness - and a Nicodemus who arrives shortly after moving Jesus to a tomb in a garden and administers a peculiar mix of myrhh and aloe - a salve that stops mortal bleeding. But thats not the only thing that was peculiar. Approximately 100 pounds was used and he did it during the night of the Sabbath when no work is to be done. John 19:39.



His actual survival of crucifixion - unheard of in 1st century Rome - became the basis for the legend celebrated on Easter and influenced a great deal of people - one in particular named Paul of Tarsus who may have actually met Jesus in person on the road to Damascus - complete with holes in both hands and feet and a large gaping scar under his ribs.



While Jesus is often portrayed as a nice guy (I'm pretty sure he was), his efforts fell far too short for any global mission of divine proportions. For one, he didn't even mention the concept of Original Sin - an odd predicament if he were truly here to save everyone from it. And aside from his intentions of growing his congregation, his proselytizing parables only managed to cover a meager 150 sq. miles during his debut - excluding a huge portion of the world that would have to wait approximately 1,500 years to hear it - mostly by force.

Answer 30

Boring question...has been asked thousands of times..even earlier today..2 points



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20170512201438AAXRdV8

Answer 31

Yes. There were pagan sources as well as Christian sources and Jewish sources mentioning him. Then there were a growing following of people who were willing to be martyred, thrown to lions and gladiators, for his sake. There were a family in Glastonbury, England claiming descent from him even though they were the pagan priesthood of Avalon and had nothing to gain from claiming a Jewish connexion at all. Then there was a family in France, the Merovingians, claiming descent form Jesus, even though they may have had something politically to gain thereby. There is physical evidence in the form of ossuaries of his immediate family carved with his name and Mary's and Joseph's and his brothers' in a cave they owned. The actual tomb where he was in fact laid with a church built over it (The Holy Sepulchre). If an anthropologist like Mircea Eliade so much as wrote down an oral tradition from some purported Aborigine or Pygmy and it got into print in the Seventies, you would accept that because it was a native or indigenous people. But the entire Mediterranean world, with the Jewish and Roman civilisations has hundreds of eyewitnesses and accounts and buildings and oral traditions galore and you question it.

Answer 32

There is plenty. We just have to go out and find it and study it and understand it if we can. Plenty of people have done so. There are many studies. At least, if you do, you will know more than many who have not done so. Then you will be an authority on the subject too.

Answer 33

Perhaps he didn't write down his own words because he wanted to see if anyone would have faith or did he just trust others to do it because he was too busy trying to help those who were suffering and if anyone was to interfere in the return he has planned I would call them soulless

Answer 34

Scholars have a solid basis for believing that Jesus existed. Regarding the references made by first- and second-century historians to Jesus and the early Christians, the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”



In 2006, the book Jesus and Archaeology said: “No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings.”



The Bible portrays Jesus as a real person. It provides the names of his ancestors and immediate family. (Matthew 1:1; 13:55) It also gives the names of prominent rulers who were contemporaries of Jesus. (Luke 3:1, 2) Those details allow researchers to verify the accuracy of the Bible accounts.

Answer 35

yes.

Answer 36

God and the Bible were made up by humans to explain things they didn't understand. There was no science so they couldn't explain anything around them. They probably drove themselves crazy trying to figure it out. They knew we couldn't have just always been here so we needed a creator. When somebody came up with a reasonable explanation they all latched on to it to deal with their lives. They knew something had to create us, but they don't need to think like that with a God. They give the cop out answer of God being eternal, because they know they will go crazy if they really keep thinking about it. They would rather believe that some all knowing being has just always been there. They feel something had to create our universe or whatever came before it but with God they don't need to think. I wish I could be gullible enough to believe in a book written by the very people who murder, steal, and lie. The truth is there is no answer and never will be. There is no happily ever after.

Answer 37

There are secular historians who believe Jesus existed based on certain writings. However, once miracles are mentioned they quickly scatter.



I know my great grandmother existed despite having never met her. I see nothing illogical about her existence. But if my grandmother told me that her mother could move objects via telekinesis, I'd have serious reservations about such a claim even though I don't doubt she once existed.

Answer 38

The odds of there not being a historical Jesus are about 0.000000001% so the only people who are likely to say such a thing are either antagonistic liars or people with some form of delusional mental illness.

Answer 39

Here are the usual candidates, and why they can't be used as evidence. Josephus is our first reference in 95 AD, 65 years after Jesus allegedly died.



Regarding the James reference, Josephus allegedly talks about "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". The standard in those days was to mention the person being talked about first, followed by the relation (e.g., James the brother of Jesus). The special emphasis on Jesus reeks so much of Christian interpolation, probably before 248 AD, as Origen appears to reference this passage, albeit obliquely.



On Antiquities 18:3 (the Testimonium Flavianum), Josephus was a Jew, so he would not have called Jesus "the Christ". Partial or total Christian insertion, not mentioned by the Christians until after 300 AD. Most of the text is statistically Eusebian, as is the grammar, so is 4th century AD. Text analysis suggests the "wise man" section and Lukes Road to Emmaus passage are linked, so a Christian source.



Phlegon is talking about a solar eclipse in what is now north Turkey, in November 29 AD, that also began at noon. His report does not mention either Jesus or Jerusalem, of the 8 points he mentions, 7 match the eclipse in Turkey, 1 is a probable copyist error, 0 are against. Of these 8 points, 2 match the Biblical account of the crucifixion, but 6 are against this. This has nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. Here is the path of the eclipse itself - http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsearchmap.php?Ecl=00291124



Julius Africanus quotes Thallus as talking about a solar eclipse. As solar eclipses do not occur at Passover (full moon), this seems to be a mistaken reference to Jesus by Africanus. Thallus was possibly actually talking about an actual solar eclipse. If he was talking about the one in November, 29 AD, which began at noon (same time as Jesus being crucified), you can see where this mistake might occur. Even if he was talking about Jesus, we don't know where he got his information from, and is therefore historically useless. Eusebius, a fourth century Christian may have even quoted him, in which case he was not talking about Jesus, but quoting Phlegon on the 29 AD eclipse.



Pliny the Younger tells us in his letters that he got his information by interrogating the Christians themselves. Tacitus does not mention his sources, so is not guaranteed independent. He was good friends with Pliny, so could have got his information from him. Both are writing 80 years after the alleged event. Even more problematical, early Christian writers who read Tacitus didn't mention this event until over 300 years later. This increases the probability that it is a late Christian interpolation.



Suetonius, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus who caused a riot in Rome shortly before 40 AD. Valid Greek name (means good), so probably not Jesus. Note graffiti in Pompeii, "Methe, slave of Cominia, from Atella, loves Chrestus. May Pompeian Venus be dear to both of them and may they always live in harmony." Now I've had one idiot say this is just wishful thinking on my part because I can't prove this rebel named Chrestus existed. However, we know Chrestus is a Greek name, so any one arguing Seutonius really meant Jesus, such as the second century Tertullian, is the one doing the wishful thinking.



The Babylonian Talmud is first to fourth century AD. It contradicts the gospels (only 5 disciples, Jesus stoned before being hung, the 40 day proclamation that Jesus would be crucified, 100 years before Pilate, Jesus died in Lydda, 23 miles from Jerusalem, etc).



Lucian of Samosata, born second century records Christians beliefs, nothing independent.



Mara Bar-Serapion doesn't specifically mention Jesus or Christianity. Also, we don't know precisely when it was written (first to third century AD), or where it had it's information from. If it came from the bible itself, it is of NO use to us in corroborating Jesus.



The fact that you can almost reconstruct the gospels from the alleged external accounts is also an argument that they got their information from the bible, so is not really an argument. If the external witnesses got their information from Christians, or was written by Christians, it WOULD match the gospels.



According to the 9th century compiler Photius, Justus of Tiberias, the historian of first century Galilee whose writings are now lost, had never heard of Jesus.



And if Jesus was such a miracle performer, why did his contemporaries like Philo, Thrasyllus, Seneca, Appolonius of Tyana and Pliny the Elder not write about him? To argue Philo came from Alexandria, hence he would not have heard of Jesus seems bizarre considering what Jesus was meant to have done. Alexandria was the most important of the Egyptian Jewish diaspora, many of whom would have gone to Jerusalem at least 3 times a year, as their law commanded. The same with Pliny the Elder, who spent most of his spare time studying, writing or investigating natural and geographic phenomena from all over the Roman empire. Both wrote about the Essenes to the east of Jerusalem, and Philo tells us in "On Providence" that he travelled several times to Judea, yet no mention of the many alleged miracles of Jesus. How convenient.

Answer 40

You're thinking like the Muzlim think

out of thier books

now read the bible know that Jesus is alive

before you read the bible believe in him first

then he will help u under stand more clear.

accept Jesus in our chest know that he is alive.

he is the first born son of God. he is a Lord of Lord

meaning the lords on earth are not but Lord of some folks on earth.

Answer 41

Well, besides the Bible there is Josephus, 1st century historian.

If atheists admit Jesus existed, they would have to ask who he was.

It is well documented that he rose from the dead & appeared to 1000s.

Answer 42

h

Answer 43

Google it. There are records. He's a historical fact

Answer 44

The historian the cult leaders of Mythicism used to misquote as saying that the historical Jesus never existed, eventually found out about it, so in answer, Bart D. Ehrman wrote, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth; a heavy book full of evidence for Jesus' existence, and refutations of the pet fallacies of Mythicism. Suddenly, Mythicists didn't like Ehrman any more, and eventually they didn't even like calling themselves "Mythicists", any more.

Answer 45

No.



There are no Roman records of Jesus, and anyone who tells you different is trying to mislead you.



There are no Roman census records, no list of charges, no order of execution. There are no tax records or any other record of the Roman empire which shows Jesus existed. Moreover, the few writings which some Christians point to as "evidence" which do mention Jesus were written long after the fact, written by believers long after the fact, or were pretty clearly forged and tacked on to legitimate writings long, long after the fact.



I cannot conclude that Jesus didn't exist, but I think it is reasonable to conclude that there is ample reason to doubt.

Answer 46

Homer? Believe he existed.



Jews know.



And when we present it, you read, agree?



THINK! You're PREJUDICED, LIKE @weaks here



https://youtu.be/bUkr9Ez2fj8

Answer 47

So if you already have this all figured out in your head and already determined how you are going to think regarding it why are you asking?

Answer 48

If you really wanted to know, you would not be asking random idiots on Yahoo; you'd read an actual book by an actual scholar who knows what they're talking about.

Answer 49

https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources



http://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/





They have letters from His brother James.

Answer 50

No.

Christians are full of shít because there is no Roman record that Jesus existed. There is NO primary source documentation anywhere that Jesus existed.

Answer 51

yes; read vaspisian.& josealeas.

Answer 52

Yes it's called God's word. The Bible. Whatever non-biblical sources say (and there are some that reference him) I will stick to what the Bible says. He is the Son of God and always will be!

Answer 53

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlp63Lxrxi0&index=23&list=PL9243ACE34D3C7FE8

Answer 54

You fail to understand Jesus is the son of God in spirit form before he came down to earth to be incarnated into the body of Mary to be born as a human. Jesus' spirit is the son of God, Jesus flesh is the son of Mary (mankind)

Answer 55

yes alike Mercury like (Saint) Nick from BBC. Gabriel. ~Aizad&Emergency stuff.

Answer 56

YES THE BIBLE AND ANTIQUITIES OF JOSEPHUS.

Answer 57

today there is zero evidence any jesus existed



today there is zero evidence a jesus existed who was tried, crucified and was resurrected



Who knows what existed 2000 years ago



(got news for you "jill"



pick any fictional book you like -bet it has a story about a fictional character



How does the existence of that book prove that character existed,

Early 1st century reports of a jesus - They only exist in your imagination

Not one of the gospels were written until late 1st century earliest, and the latest at least mid 2nd century



So how did matthew and luke happen to be at the "birth" and be say 18 years old but manage to write about it 100 years later?

Could you explain WHY they were there? cos they dont say anything?

could you explain WHY the "3 wise men" yook all the time. trouble and expense to be there but not one of them bothered to keep a diary?

Could you explain HOW matthew got to hear of their visit to herod and WHY he was their in person, when all he does "write" about the visit, but zero mention of him actually being there or how he got to know about it?

Or do you think those "3 wise men" went looking for him so he could write down what happened?

in this case how the f//k would they know about him?



So people hear stories and write what they heard 150 years after the supposed events- what exactly does that prove?

It aint disbelievers who need to explain, its believers - but they need to get an explanation that makes chronological sense, and facts, not assumptions

Answer 58

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!



There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!



He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?



Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!



Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!



At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!



Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?



Christianity is an invention of the Italians and that is why it came from the Holy ROMAN Catholic church!



Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!



Josephus AD 37 – AD 100

Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120

Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD

Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD

Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD

Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.

Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD

Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD

Photius AD 877 – 886 AD



Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.



Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!



Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.



An ancient set of lead tablets found in Jordan in 2008 showing the earliest portrait of Jesus Christ have proved to be 2,000 years old and say that Jesus and the disciples tried to recreate a religion from the time of King David!

Answer 59

The census where Joseph n Mary went to Jerusalem to register... Christ was born on that day..

Answer 60

there is lots of evidence in historical facts just look at what bart erhman says ! he became an atheist, i dont advise believing what he believes but he does believe jesus did exist

https://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443

or this youtube link: https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=youtube%20did%20jesus%20exist&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-102&type=newtab

theres no doubt for me ! Jesus does exist. i stood in his presence as though i had been removed from my body and come to some spiritual realm.

Answer 61

Unlike fanciful legends, the Gospel writings reflect painstaking accuracy and attention to detail. For example, they abound with names of real places, many of which can be visited today. They tell about real people, whose existence has been corroborated by secular historians.—Luke 3:1, 2, 23





The seven public figures Luke names are well-known to historians. Jesus himself is mentioned by secular writers of the first and second centuries. His manner of death, as described in the Gospels, agrees with Roman executional methods of the time. Moreover, events are related in a factual and candid manner—even portraying some of Jesus’ disciples unfavorably. (Matthew 26:56; Luke 22:24-26; John 18:10, 11) All these factors strongly indicate that the Gospel writers were honest and accurate in what they wrote about Jesus.

Answer 62

Just look at the records found n in 1947, in caves, in Israel! Not only were loads of originals of the books in the Bible discovered! Tons more, including three Dozens books confirming the Bible!

It is the religion Atheism that by 2007 Science had tested and discovered/proved All that he Atheists have used are ALL FAKES!

Can you or any Atheists state how even one part of your Big Bang Theory/dream could have developed into the next part? Nope!

Answer 63

ZERO EVIDENCE EXISTS.



jesus in an imaginary cult creature. nothing more!

Answer 64

A fella named Jesus used to be my gardener, then he banged my wife and i had to let him go. Did me a favor the old scoundrel after all she was just a gold digging wh0re.

Answer 65

There is ZERO contemporary evidence of this supposed man. None. There is not a single contemporary eyewitness account. None. The Christians can lie all they want. It won't change the facts.

Answer 66

Nope.