Jesus Christ

Is there real proof that Jesus Christ really existed?

User Avatar
Wiki User
2016-06-26 23:00:21

Yes, there is good evidence that he was what is known as a

"Hebrew Mystic". Although he was a rabbi, his teachings put him in

the fringe of Jewish teachings. But recognize that above all, he

was Jewish and that he would have never done or said anything to

deny his heritage or beliefs.

The writings of Josephus as well as many of the other writings

of the time all verify that there was a real man named Jesus

Christ, who had a strong following, and a relatively small but

devout group of Jews who were loyal to his teachings following his

death who continued to cause trouble for the Roman leadership. But

many of the common modern traditions about Jesus have their genesis

in the reign of Constantine. Until Constantine, nobody had been

able to unite Europe. He accomplished this by including a little of

each of the older European religions and incorporating them into

his new "universal" religion. Understand that "Catholic" is roughly

translated to mean "universal".

There is no question that the man Jesus did in fact exist and

that his followers were loyal and that he was killed in much the

way described, but there is much myth and exaggeration associated

with Christian dogma. Let's make it simplerIf there are no

empirical proof on Jesus' existence, how about providing evidence

on any of the 12 original Apostles. Prove any one is real and you

prove that the Bible is Historical, in a sense. If you really want

proof of his current existence, do what it takes to get yourself to

the Wesak Festival. It is a yearly conference, for lack of a better

word, about the guidance of humanity.

He is one of the key participants. You will need to rise above

the physical to go.

The Bible and how people walk on this earth is proof. Jesus is

God in human form. Jesus said blessed are those who have not seen

yet believe. Consider Other SourcesIt is a mistake to base an

answer on just source of information. People usually answer that

the evidence is in the Bible. Others, as happened above simply

quote from Josephus. But when looking beyond the spiritual for

'real proof' we need to consider various sources to get an overall

picture.

First, let's say that the autheniticty of Josephus is usually

challenged simply because the surviving scraps of his text have

down to us from church hands - thus in our times of conspiracy

theories everyone immediately assumes it is a fake. Yes, many

copies were made from 1100 onwards and the wording is similar to

that given above. But the validity of his work seems to be only

questioned in relation to his reference to Jesus.

A further problem with Josephus is that early Christians make no

mention of it. Except that is for one in-direct reference by Origen

in 240 AD which interestingly predates all known Josephus

manuscripts. Origen make two references to Josephus. First he

mentions the lesser known reference by Josephus as Jesus being the

Brother of James but significantly goes on to note that Josephus

did not accept Jesus as Christ. It is important here to remember

that Christians were still seen as enemies of Rome at that time so

wouldn't have the resources needed to undertake such widespred

forgery of an existing work. Therefore, it is clear that even if

the church later embellished copies (perhaps converting Josephus to

a christian) there must have been two references to Jesus in the

original work by Josephus - how else could Origen have referred to

them?

Next, we need to go even further back to consider the one of the

earliest Christian documents - the Didache. This contains the early

basic instructions, teaching and practice of the Christians. It is

generally believed to be authentic, possibly written by the

original Apostles and is usually dated between 50 - 120AD. This

remarkable document not only mentions Jesus but states that baptism

must be "into the name of the Father, and of the son,

and of the holy Spirit." And remember that this is quite possibly a

first generation christian document.

Also, consider the accounts of the apologists. Take the case of

Tertullian born 155/160 AD. Tertullian is widely accepted as being

a Roman citizen, well educated and well versed in the law and his

text is considered genuine. In a written defense of his faith to

the senate he stated, ' At His own free-will, He with a word

dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner's work.

In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun

at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not

aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought

it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent

still in your archives.

But, lo, on the third day there a was a sudden shock of

earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulchre was rolled

away, and the guard fled off in terror: without a single disciple

near, the grave was found empty....

All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a

Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the

reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius.'

Tertullian is clearly identifying Jesus, His death, His

resurrection and the darkness that fell upon the earth, and stating

that a written report was submitted to the emperor by Pilate. It

should also be pointed that there is not (as far as I'm aware)not

one single early Roman document or reference to one in which Rome

ever denied it had crucified Jesus - given the problems it faced

with Christians had there been no Jesus and no crucifixion Rome

would have certainly have said so.

In this regard Julian the apostate (331-363 AD), the last Roman

Emperor to oppose Christianity, referred to the records of Jesus'

being put to death. These records must have still been available in

his day. He was a firm and thorough opponent of the faith he once

professed to follow and had every interest in refuting and

defeating the spread of the Christian faith. Had there been no

knowledge or record of Jesus' existence or execution, he

undoubtedly would have mentioned this. In fact, the reverse is the

case.

Outside the Bible and the forgery that was inserted in Josephus

writings The antiquities of the Jews Book 18, Chap. 3, sec. 3,

there are no verifiable proof that Jesus ever existed. His

stepbrother, James, actually existed as his tomb was found.

Allegedly, his tomb was identified by being said to hold the

half-brother (son of Joseph and Mary, not the Holy Spirit and Mary)

of Jesus.

Also, Herod, the one who tried to take the Messiah out as a kid,

has been proved by archaeologists to have actually existed, as well

as many others. Yes. If Jesus wasn't ever alive, how could a world

wide religion come out of it? There are historical records when

Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate. If you think this entire

thing could have been made up by a folklore specialist just at the

time that Christianity began, when B.C. turned into A.D., think

again. I'm Christian and I believe Jesus Christ is real. But there

is no proof that Jesus Christ was alive. It's called belief. If you

believe he was real and you except him in your heart, then you will

be 'reborn' and will be sent to heaven. If don't except him in your

heart, then you will be thrown into the 'Lake of Fire.' Believe it

if you want, but you don't have to. Remember, it's all about

belief! Jesus is real, just by believing. By simply believing in

Jesus and God, makes them exist. The Bible was not a book, it was a

bunch of diaries. Which means He must have existed, or people would

have been writing about someone they knew, but didn't exist. That

makes no sense. He must have existed. AnswerThe fact that Herod and

various others existed does not mean that Jesus himself was real.

Saying that a collection of books written by various people

centuries apart just proves that many people knew about Jesus, not

whether he was real (by that token, any longrunning series can be

construed as evidence for the existence of that series' major and

minor characters). There is no current evidence - no trial records,

no death records, no census records - that Jesus, the person

believed to be the incarnate Son of God in Christianity, was a real

person. No. There are many reasons why people believe he existed,

the biggest one is faith. Faith does not take into account facts.

To this day there has been no hard evidence found that Jesus Christ

even exisited. There's no evidence that Nazareth even existed at

the time that people claim Jesus did. There are 133 different years

that people have claimed he was born and every month of the year

has been claimed to be the month he was born at one time or

another. The Gospel of Mark, The Gospel of Luke, The Gospel of John

and The Gospel of Matthew are the first writings that were ever

discovered (in the Bible) about Jesus and they were written at

least 70 years after Jesus was said to have died. If you want to

consider that evidence you can, but science and history won't. I

have done my research and I have sincerely found no evidence that

Jesus ever existed.

No historian who lived in or around the Mediterranean at the

time jesus christ supposedly did never cited him as a historical

figure

User Avatar
Wiki User
2015-11-13 05:52:32

There is some scholarly debate as to whether Jesus was a real,

historical person, with no clear-cut outcome. Some of the evidence

against the historicity of Jesus is circumstantial. For example, no

first century epistle, even when discussing Christian baptism, ever

mentioned the baptism of Jesus, or even John the Baptist. Moreover,

neither Paul nor any other first century Christian author expressed

any desire to see the birthplace of Jesus, visit Nazareth, or

Calvary where Jesus was supposed to have died to save humanity, or

to see the tomb where he was buried and rose from the dead. It was

as if they knew only a spiritual Jesus, not a historical Jesus.

Until Mark's Gospel, written decades later, there is a silence that

suggests that mid-first century Christians did not know of the

momentous events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. He was never

mentioned by any contemporary Jewish or pagan writer, even those

who could be expected to have written of him.

Nor is there any archaeological evidence to support the existence

of Jesus. The one possible clue was an ossuary (bone box) with the

inscription, "James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus,"

allegedly found in Egypt and potentially providing circumstantial

evidence for Jesus. One limitation on its value as evidence would

be that Jesus, James and Joseph were all particularly common first

century names, another is that the text was not clear as to whether

James was the brother of Jesus or whether Joseph was. However, a

committee appointed by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) to

examine the ossuary declared the inscription to be a forgery. The

ossuary was indeed ancient, but the inscription was added in modern

times.


Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.