Jesus Christ

Matthew's Gospel, which is now known to have been based on Mark, resolves this by never referring to Levi, speaking instead of the disciple and former tax collector as Matthew. As Matthew's Gospel is derivative, the author must have found a clue in Mark that he believed pointed to Levi and Matthew as the same person, yet no such clue seems to exist. It would even seem more likely that Levi, son of Alphaeus, and James, son of Alphaeus, could be the same person. At the very least they appear to have the same father. Luke's Gospel, in copying from Mark, retains Levi as the tax collector in the parallel passage.

Matthew's Gospel does not equate Matthew with Levi, but simply replaces Levi by Matthew. Because of this decision by its author, most modern Christians assume that Levi was another name for Matthew.

The coming of the Messiah was predicted in the Old Testament by the prophets (see Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15-18 and Isaiah 7:14). The first actual announcement of the imminent birth was by the Angel Gabriel to the virgin mother Mary:

Luke 1:26-32New King James Version (NKJV)

26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!"

29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.

Jesus called him Abba-or Father.

However Jesus DID indirectly refer to God's name. In John's gospel Jesus uses the term 'I am' frequently (eg 'before Abraham was... I am',' I am the way the truth and the life'.... I am the Good Sheperh' etc). This 'I am' refers to the name of God as revealed to Moses by God himself on Mount Sinai. 'I am' in Hebrew is YHWH or YahWeh - or, in its anglicised version - Jehovah.

When Thomas heard about Jesus resurrection from other disciples, he said: "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."- John 20:25

But when he saw the Lord, he said: " My Lord and my God"- John 20:28

Being naked in front of a spouse can not be called a sin. Being naked in front of your sexual partner, whoever that is, is not in itself a sin, although many would say that having a sexual partner outside marriage is itself a sin. Being naked at a nudist/naturalist colony is not a sin, nor is posing naked for artistic purposes.

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

It's God's law (Genesis 17).

The origin of Jewish circumcision is in the Torah, which is the foundation of Judaism. God told Abraham "every male among you shall be circumcised" as part of the covenant between God and the Jewish people (Genesis ch.17). Since that time, virtually all Jews have observed the command of circumcision for close to four millennia, even in times of religious persecution under the Greeks, Romans, Spaniards, and Soviets. Circumcision is the indelible sign of God's covenant and is just as important as Yom Kippur in terms of the stringency which the Torah places upon it. And similar to Yom Kippur, it is one of the observances which are common to Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews alike.
It may be noted that while we do not keep God's commands because of physical benefits, it is still interesting that circumcision has been known to offer virtually complete protection from penile cancer. According to a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, none of the more than 1,600 persons studied with this cancer had been circumcised in infancy. In the words of researchers Cochen and McCurdy, the incidence of penile cancer in the U.S. is "essentially zero" among circumcised men. Also, research at Johns Hopkins University Medical School in Baltimore have shown that circumcised men are six to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Researchers believe that protection is due to the removal of the foreskin, which contains cells that have HIV receptors which scientists suspect are the primary entry point for the HIV virus (Reuters, March 25, 2004).
Several studies reported that circumcised boys were between 10 to 39 times less likely to develop urinary tract infections during infancy than uncircumcised boys. In addition, circumcision protects against bacterial, fungal, and parasitic infections and a variety of other conditions related to hygiene.
The extremely low rate of cervical cancer in Jewish women (9 to 22 times less than among non-Jewish women) is thought to be related to their husbands' being circumcised. As a result of studies like these, a number of prestigious medical organizations such as the California Medical Association have recognized the benefits of circumcision.
As an operation, circumcision has an extremely small complication rate. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine (1990) reported a complication rate of 0.19 percent when circumcision is performed by a physician. When performed by a trained mohel, the rate falls to 0.13 percent or about 1 in 800. When a complication occurs, it is usually due to the bleeding, which is easily correctable. No other surgical procedure can boast such figures for complication-free operations.
One reason why there are so few complications involving bleeding may be that the major clotting agents, prothrombin and vitamin K, do not reach peak levels in the blood until the eighth day after a baby is born. Prothrombin levels are normal at birth, drop to a lower level in the next few days, and return to normal at the end of the first week. One study showed that by the eighth day, prothrombin levels reach 110 percent of normal. In the words of Dr. Armand J. Quick, author of several works on the control of bleeding, "It hardly seems accidental that the rite of circumcision was postponed until the eighth day by the Mosaic law."

The Bible calls the Bed/Crib where He lay as a baby a Manger.

It was basically an animal feeding trough.

Let Christ Speak for Himself concerning this subject which you will find written in these verses:

Matthew 3, 16, 22

Mark 12

Luke 20

Acts 4, 5, 23

Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew 16:1-12

The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.

Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.