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
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.
There are many historical records of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
The tomb is there , the inn and manger to are there.
Historians usually accept that a person mentioned in ancient texts really did exist, unless there is good reason to believe otherwise. Jesus is mentioned in the gospels, so most historians accept by default that he existed, although there is no actual proof of his existence. Nevertheless, a growing minority of historians are beginning to question the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
We can't identify if really Jesus Christ was left handed or not. There is no proof, but for sure that does not matter. Jesus loves everyone whether he/she is left handed or right handed.
Yes there is plenty of proof about Jesus. He is mentioned in many books and even the Holy Quran. He will be back on Earth just before Doomsday.
Proof that the issue have existed in the story og magindano pearls
There is no proof outside the Bible that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.Some scholars suggest that the gospels could be based on a wandering preacher named Jesus (Joshua) who may have lived during the early part of the first century, or even earlier, but that this person did not perform miracles and was not the Jesus we see described in the gospels.
No, because Islam was founded after the death of Christ.
I don't think Jesus Christ is on Earth today. If somebody claims that He is, then that is probably based on a belief that such-and-such a person is the return of Jesus. Such a belief is hard to prove, or to disprove for that matter.
There is not much proof but Yes
Thomas, who was not there when Jesus appeared to all His disciples. He said that He wouldn't believe Jesus was back unless he touched His wounds.
They don't .... In fact there is no physical proof that ANY gods really exist. Belief in God is a matter of faith not proof, that is why it is so hard.
Jesus Christ was 'catholic', ( meaning "universal"), but not Catholic (usually taken as being Roman Catholic, meaning according to the rites of the church at Rome). Jesus could not have been Catholic because Roman Catholicism only began a couple of centuries after Christ died. There is no proof otherwise.
The Bible tells us that Jesus was alive, performing miracles, and giving speeches to the multitude. Yet, not one person mentioned his name during his lifetime (0-33 AD). Christians have searched for 2000 years for any proof that Christ existed. They have found none. In 100 AD, Bible stories began to be produced by Monks in their monasteries. That is when Christ was born, in the imagination of the Monks.
No physical proof exists. Only 3 mentions of Jesus christ in the first century in any writings. All of these occurred after the earliest writings of Paul which are considered by historians to be the first writings regarding Jesus. Paul claimed to have seen a Jesus only after he had died.
There are different beliefs as to whether or not Jesus actually existed. Some say that the recordings in the bible are proof that he did exist, while others believe that these stories were written well after the time he was to have been in existance and they might just be stories.
yes......they existed but,it depends upon the category.
A:We have no proof that Jesus Christ was really the son of God, or that he was God. In fact we have no proof that Jesus even existed as a historical person. People could be praying to someone who never existed or who, if he did exist, was only a wandering preacher. The first-century Jews who would have known him, and should have been impressed by his miracles and his teachings, seem to have made little effort to convert to Christianity. The apostle Paul seems to have been unaware that Jesus was a man who had lived in Palestine in the very recent past. For objective evidence of the existence of Jesus, there is none. His epistles could as easily have described a heavenly Jesus, similar to the High Priest in heaven that the Book of Hebrews portrays, and when Paul spoke of the resurrection, it either took place entirely in heaven or seems to have been the same event as the ascension to heaven.Even the gospels are not sure. Mark's Gospel tells us that Jesus was the adopted by God as his son, and even has Jesus deny being God (Mark 10:18: "Why call me good. There is none good but God." Matthew and Luke say that he was the son of God from his conception, while John says that Jesus was fully divine and pre-existing form the time of creation.
Jesus Christ was not real Jesue was real. He was a man. He may not be your religious Christ but he did exist. There is historical proof.---------------------------------------------I believe in free speech, that is the only reason that i think that the previous poster should not be banned.Answer:The Nazis created a false reality that said that Jesus was not a Jew, but a displaced Aryan.
if tou can answer the question, then there is no proof of your finding and know that The almighty God, Our Lord Jesus Christ Is coming, be ready....
They found fossils
Yes Jesus was a real person . Both History and the bible say so. In fact the calender of A.D also is another proof.
No. There is proof that they existed over 400 years ago and that they are disbanded.
The proof is in the Bible and in History. People have tried to prove that question wrong. * He died on the cross for you and me to make a way for us to have eternal life in Christ Jesus * he was born of a virgin * ** which is not impossible! ** no matter who says it is * he was beaten, nailed to a cross, put into a tomb and rose again three days latter