NationStates Jolt Archive

I am curious as to whether anyone knows of any sources (besides the New Testament) that give evidence that the person who became known as Jesus Christ actually existed.

It is my belief that he MAY have existed, but, to be honest, I'm really not sure, since I have yet to find any reliable contemporary evidence demonstrating this to be a fact. I personally don't consider the NT to be a reliable source of information, hence my question.

Thanks much.

Aside from the New Testament, there is proof, that as a human, he did exist. Whether or not he performed miracles, is not known, but, he did exist historically as a person.

Aside from the New Testament, there is proof, that as a human, he did exist. Whether or not he performed miracles, is not known, but, he did exist historically as a person.

Really? I didn't know that. Can you give me a source?

Aside from the New Testament, there is proof, that as a human, he did exist. Whether or not he performed miracles, is not known, but, he did exist historically as a person.

Really? I didn't know that. Can you give me a source?

I'd have to take some time to look it up. Your best bet is to run an onlin search.

I think Pliny the Younger wrote some things about Him around 110 AD. I know hw wrote about Christianity, which was very young at the time. The Gospels were supposedly written from around 60-90 AD, or starting about 30 years after Jesus' death.

There's not really much evidence one way or the other; it's pretty hard to prove someone in particular existed back then, barring royalty. I'd say it's pretty certain Jesus existed, if only because I don't think anyone would make the whole story up.

Yeah, it does seem rather strange that someone who never existed could have had and continues to have such a profound effect on the world.

I did some looking online, the problem is that so far I can only find bible-beater sites and diehard atheist sites.

Will keep looking, though.

Yeah, it does seem rather strange that someone who never existed could have had and continues to have such a profound effect on the world.

Well, I'd say it's the IDEAS and beliefs perpetrated by his followers that had the impact, not him himself.

He is central to those beliefs. Christianity, remember.

Yeah, it does seem rather strange that someone who never existed could have had and continues to have such a profound effect on the world.

Well, I'd say it's the IDEAS and beliefs perpetrated by his followers that had the impact, not him himself.

I dunno... the romans were pretty good at keeping track of these kinds of things, you'd think the'd have busted out the records to prove he never existed once the xians started getting bothersome.

He is central to those beliefs. Christianity, remember.

Obviously. But again, it was his disciples and their beliefs ABOUT him that affected and impacted the world, since he died before he could do all that much.

Yeah, it does seem rather strange that someone who never existed could have had and continues to have such a profound effect on the world.

Well, I'd say it's the IDEAS and beliefs perpetrated by his followers that had the impact, not him himself.

I dunno... the romans were pretty good at keeping track of these kinds of things, you'd think the'd have busted out the records to prove he never existed once the xians started getting bothersome.

True, but the same argument can be used in the opposite direction. Are there any contemporary records that show he in fact existed?

You really should learn something about the religion, my friend. Christ accomplished so much because he died. That's the whole point. He died for our sins so we don't have to. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

True, but the same argument can be used in the opposite direction. Are there any contemporary records that show he in fact existed?

No, but I don't think we've found very many contemporary records. At the time it would've fairly easy, now it would be looking for a needle in a haystack, only we wouldn't know if the needle was still there.

You really should learn something about the religion, my friend. Christ accomplished so much because he died. That's the whole point. He died for our sins so we don't have to. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

BUT without the disciples spreading the story around, no one would have heard about it in the first place, because no one would have been Christian! In which case, him dying for people's sins would be irrelevent, because no one would know about it!

Anyway, I don't want to argue about Jesus' importance or unimportance in relation to Christianity's influence- just find out if anyone has in fact heard of any sources I could take a look at.

Thanks.

Honestly, does it really matter? Some people will say He did exist, some people will say He didn't. If you truly believe He did, nothing can or should shake that faith. Same for if you think the whole thing's myth. A person's faith is a personal thing, and not subject to the beliefs of others. And true faith, by its very nature, is powerful. It doesn't need validation from outside sources. It validates itself.

While I have not read them for myself. I have heard the Jesus Christ is mentioned in other religious writtings, along with some accounts of his miracles.

I suppose we get to find out when we die.

Honestly, does it really matter? Some people will say He did exist, some people will say He didn't. If you truly believe He did, nothing can or should shake that faith. Same for if you think the whole thing's myth. A person's faith is a personal thing, and not subject to the beliefs of others. And true faith, by its very nature, is powerful. It doesn't need validation from outside sources. It validates itself.

But it's ridiculous to just "create" an opinion or belief without getting informed about it first. I was raised in an atheistic household with some minor culturally Jewish influences Before I started reading about Judaism, I thought the Messiah was an entirely Christian concept. If you had asked me what I "believed" at age twelve, I would have told you "nothing". So "faith" is not always the best litmus test.

In this case, I am attempting to find out WHAT to believe: should I believe he was a historical person or not? I intend to come to this belief based on what evidence I find.

You really should learn something about the religion, my friend. Christ accomplished so much because he died. That's the whole point. He died for our sins so we don't have to. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

From my standpoint, all Christ accomplished was pissing off the already frustrated Romans and give them one more excuse to smack down Jews and use the eastern shores of the Mediterranean as the dumping ground for politicians who fell out of favor with Emperors.

If I was looking for a role model who actually accomplished what Christ tried to do (free his people from the Romans), I'd look at the Germanic tribes and their heroes. They resisted Rome longer than just about any other ancient culture, and eventually took down Rome once and for all. If Christianity was so good, why did Christian Rome fall to the one group of heathens that they fought more than anyone else...

Hell, even some of the Gallic/Celtic heroes like Vercinogix (I'm sure I butchered the spelling) are more impressive than Christ ever was; stout resistance, real principles that represented the values of their people, and they still got to die a martyr's death to Roman legionaires, eventually.

If I was looking for a role model who actually accomplished what Christ tried to do (free his people from the Romans)

Christ's goal was to be a sacrifice for the sins on humainity. He never tried to oppose the Romans. In fact, he told his followers to continue paying taxes to the Roman empereor. ("Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give to God what is belongs to God")

If I was looking for a role model who actually accomplished what Christ tried to do (free his people from the Romans)

Christ's goal was to be a sacrifice for the sins on humainity. He never tried to oppose the Romans. In fact, he told his followers to continue paying taxes to the Roman empereor. ("Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give to God what is belongs to God")

Getting off-topic.

Honestly, does it really matter? Some people will say He did exist, some people will say He didn't. If you truly believe He did, nothing can or should shake that faith. Same for if you think the whole thing's myth. A person's faith is a personal thing, and not subject to the beliefs of others. And true faith, by its very nature, is powerful. It doesn't need validation from outside sources. It validates itself.

But it's ridiculous to just "create" an opinion or belief without getting informed about it first. I'm trying to find out whether I SHOULD believe he was a historical person or not, based on what evidence I find to support this.

I think you may be missing my point. It doesn't matter if He was a real person or not. If someone really, truly believes in their heart that He did, all the 'proof' in the world wouldn't change that. Faith is not something defined by logic--in fact, it is belief where logic fails. You have to have faith to believe in ANY sort of higher power, and that kind of belief doesn't just simply go away when facts seem to contradict it. It's stronger than that.

Honestly, does it really matter? Some people will say He did exist, some people will say He didn't. If you truly believe He did, nothing can or should shake that faith. Same for if you think the whole thing's myth. A person's faith is a personal thing, and not subject to the beliefs of others. And true faith, by its very nature, is powerful. It doesn't need validation from outside sources. It validates itself.

But it's ridiculous to just "create" an opinion or belief without getting informed about it first. I'm trying to find out whether I SHOULD believe he was a historical person or not, based on what evidence I find to support this.

I think you may be missing my point. It doesn't matter if He was a real person or not. If someone really, truly believes in their heart that He did, all the 'proof' in the world wouldn't change that. Faith is not something defined by logic--in fact, it is belief where logic fails. You have to have faith to believe in ANY sort of higher power, and that kind of belief doesn't just simply go away when facts seem to contradict it. It's stronger than that.

But, in my case, I have no belief about him one way or the other. (Aside from him not being the person the NT claims.) So the "faith" issue is irrelevant.

It seems that we're talking about two different things...

Honestly, does it really matter? Some people will say He did exist, some people will say He didn't. If you truly believe He did, nothing can or should shake that faith. Same for if you think the whole thing's myth. A person's faith is a personal thing, and not subject to the beliefs of others. And true faith, by its very nature, is powerful. It doesn't need validation from outside sources. It validates itself.

But it's ridiculous to just "create" an opinion or belief without getting informed about it first. I'm trying to find out whether I SHOULD believe he was a historical person or not, based on what evidence I find to support this.

I think you may be missing my point. It doesn't matter if He was a real person or not. If someone really, truly believes in their heart that He did, all the 'proof' in the world wouldn't change that. Faith is not something defined by logic--in fact, it is belief where logic fails. You have to have faith to believe in ANY sort of higher power, and that kind of belief doesn't just simply go away when facts seem to contradict it. It's stronger than that.

But, in my case, I have no belief about him one way or the other. (Aside from him not being the person the NT claims.) So the "faith" issue is irrelevant.

It seems that we're talking about two different things...

*shrug* What I'm saying is, you believe He existed or you don't. No one's truly ambivalent about the matter.

Honestly, does it really matter? Some people will say He did exist, some people will say He didn't. If you truly believe He did, nothing can or should shake that faith. Same for if you think the whole thing's myth. A person's faith is a personal thing, and not subject to the beliefs of others. And true faith, by its very nature, is powerful. It doesn't need validation from outside sources. It validates itself.

But it's ridiculous to just "create" an opinion or belief without getting informed about it first. I'm trying to find out whether I SHOULD believe he was a historical person or not, based on what evidence I find to support this.

I think you may be missing my point. It doesn't matter if He was a real person or not. If someone really, truly believes in their heart that He did, all the 'proof' in the world wouldn't change that. Faith is not something defined by logic--in fact, it is belief where logic fails. You have to have faith to believe in ANY sort of higher power, and that kind of belief doesn't just simply go away when facts seem to contradict it. It's stronger than that.

But, in my case, I have no belief about him one way or the other. (Aside from him not being the person the NT claims.) So the "faith" issue is irrelevant.

It seems that we're talking about two different things...

*shrug* What I'm saying is, you believe He existed or you don't. No one's truly ambivalent about the matter.

And I'm saying that that's incorrect. I don't "believe" he existed or not; I believe that I don't know. That's not ambivalence, it's an admission of ignorance. I'm currently trying to find out whether there's any reason to change THAT belief.

There is little, or no, doubt that a historical Jesus Christ actually existed, based on records of the time (more often referring to his followers than to him,. but with sufficient references to establish his existence).

What is impossible to tell from this point is how well the historical figure compares to the figure presented in the Gospels (particularly seeing only some of them are recognised, and have been re-interpreted for years. See, for example the Gospel of Thomas).

Ive asked the same question myself.
I havent found a single piece of evidence that is non-secular in origin.
ive heard that the Romans kept records and that Jesus's name appears in them...tbut I have never seen these records, and no one can say for sure that they even exist.

I think its likely that a man named Jesus , who was a cult leader, probably gained some fame..and was killed for it.

Thats about it.

I think its likely that a man named Jesus , who was a cult leader, probably gained some fame..and was killed for it.

Bloody do-gooder.

i would have to ask which one?
people have been named jesus both before and after the incident in roman palastine for thousands of years.

most euroamericans probably don't realize this but that's a little like asking if there is any proof there was ever anyone named smith

=^^=
.../\...

i would have to ask which one?
people have been named jesus both before and after the incident in roman palastine for thousands of years.

most euroamericans probably don't realize this but that's a little like asking if there is any proof there was ever anyone named smith

No, because I didn't ask, "did ANYONE named Jesus ever exist?" I am specifically asking about the man alleged to have been a Jewish reformer from Galilee, with a substantial group of disciples, who challenged the Jewish authorities and was killed by Roman soldiers. In other words, the Jesus the Gospels allege to talk about. I'm wondering if there are any other sources that talk about this "same" Jesus.

An interesting topic QJ, shame it got sidetracked.

My flatmate is an athiest writing a paper titled "Jesus: The First Middle Eastern Terrorist". He believes that Jesus was a historically accurate figure and the leader of a Guerilla resistance force against the Romans and Jewish collaborators which somehow morphed into what we today call Christianity. I will ask him for his sources, as I would assume they encompass secular evidence (If it doesn't then, he's just guilty of writing a pretentious attention seeking piece :wink: )

There is other evidence that 'Jesus' did exsist and was around for that era but there is no evidence who or what he was.

Its a difficult question to ask as how do we truely know that Hitler exsisted. It could be an elaborate fairy story.

Its a difficult question to ask as how do we truely know that Hitler exsisted. It could be an elaborate fairy story.

We have visual evidence of Hitler's existence!

Jesus is quite likely to have been a real historical "person". There is mention by Pliney and Josephus in their histories. The recently discovered ossuary (bone box) of James inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" gives some credence to Jesus actual life.

There's an older book written by Robert Graves titled, "King Jesus" that is quite an interesting fictional history laced with real history. What with Mel Gibson's "Passion" being so emotive, Graves book gives the reader a good understanding of the politics of the era.

Aside from the New Testament, there is proof, that as a human, he did exist. Whether or not he performed miracles, is not known, but, he did exist historically as a person.

Really? I didn't know that. Can you give me a source?

Remember the part in the story of the birth of Jesus... where M & J went to Bethlehem to sign the Roman census, therefore Jesus is also on that census (which is probably preserved in Rome or something).

Here's a page: "Did Jesus Christ exist?" (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm)

I haven't read it myself (yet).

i would have to ask which one?
people have been named jesus both before and after the incident in roman palastine for thousands of years.

most euroamericans probably don't realize this but that's a little like asking if there is any proof there was ever anyone named smith

No, because I didn't ask, "did ANYONE named Jesus ever exist?" I am specifically asking about the man alleged to have been a Jewish reformer from Galilee, with a substantial group of disciples, who challenged the Jewish authorities and was killed by Roman soldiers. In other words, the Jesus the Gospels allege to talk about. I'm wondering if there are any other sources that talk about this "same" Jesus.


Hi QJ. You seem to be having problems with people not answering your question properly. There are a number of sources of corroborating evidence for the existence of Jesus the Galilean Jew called the Christ. Here’s just a sample…
In his Antiquities the Jewish historian Josephus mentions only Jesus' name and claimed identity as the Christ (see The Antiquities 20.200). Also in The Antiquities (18.63-64) Josephus writes:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him has still to this day not disappeared.”
There has been and still is much debate about the authenticity of this passage (some claim it has been doctored by Christian writers) but the consensus is that on the whole it is authentic with three phrases which seem uncharacteristic of Josephus style and which were probably inserted by Christian copyists in later times. These arguments are explored in the book The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. The three phrases considered to be later additions by Christian copyists are: “if indeed one ought to call him a man”; “He was the Christ”; “on the third day he appeared to them restored to life”.
Even with these phrases taken out this passage is a strong support of the gospel accounts.
There are other sources in Tacitus, Pliny the younger, the Talmud, and Ignatius. The letters of Paul the Apostle also provide corroboration for many things asserted about Jesus in the Gospels.
It would also be good to investigate the authenticity and reliability of the gospels themselves as these are the most complete biographies of Jesus.
Here are some other books to read. Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament. Habermas, Gary. The Historical Jesus. However I would recommend Lee Strobel’s The Case For Christ most strongly as it examines all the evidence for Jesus being who he claimed to be. Strobel is a legal journalist who, when his wife became a Christian, decided to find out the truth about Jesus. He interviews a number of scholars on various aspects of the evidence for Jesus as the Christ and puts to them as many objections as he can find. It is a thoroughly researched book. I found it a very even handed and straight forward account of the evidence. Logic rather than blind faith.

I have heard and read that other sources exist outside the realm of religious writings that confirm Christ's existence. The problem is that old Roman documents and the like are not exactly available for download on the internet, and even if they were few people would be able to read them, as the Roman's had a penchant for shorthand that would drive all but the most devoted Latin scholars crazy (and that's assuming that those documents would be in Latin, not Aramaic, which even fewer people know how to read). There are mentions of Christ in Pliny's writings, as well as in the writings of other early historians, but none of these men were contemporaries of Christ. The question I think that we all need to ask is "why would the early Christians fabricate the existence of a man when there were so many men claiming to be the Messiah and finding themselves killed as a result of it?" They could have adapted the teachings of any number of actual "Messiahs;" why would they need to make one up that didn't exist historically? (Note: I don't mean to imply that they necessarily did change Christ's actual teachings-- I merely offer this up as a hypothetical question.)

I have heard and read that other sources exist outside the realm of religious writings that confirm Christ's existence. The problem is that old Roman documents and the like are not exactly available for download on the internet, and even if they were few people would be able to read them, as the Roman's had a penchant for shorthand that would drive all but the most devoted Latin scholars crazy (and that's assuming that those documents would be in Latin, not Aramaic, which even fewer people know how to read). There are mentions of Christ in Pliny's writings, as well as in the writings of other early historians, but none of these men were contemporaries of Christ. The question I think that we all need to ask is "why would the early Christians fabricate the existence of a man when there were so many men claiming to be the Messiah and finding themselves killed as a result of it?" They could have adapted the teachings of any number of actual "Messiahs;" why would they need to make one up that didn't exist historically? (Note: I don't mean to imply that they necessarily did change Christ's actual teachings-- I merely offer this up as a hypothetical question.)

Translation of Latin is one of the more interesting aspects of Graves' book. He was quite an accomplished scholar, probably most widely recognized through the PBS drama series, "I Claudius". Graves' wrote the story of Jesus based on his own historical search and translations. I really don't think there's much doubt about the existence of Jesus, it's much more the case that there's doubt about just "who" Jesus was.

The recently discovered ossuary (bone box) of James inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" gives some credence to Jesus actual life.

Wasn't that box proven to be a hoax? And besides, Yaacov, Yosef and Yoshua were pretty common names (as someone else already pointed out).

Thanks for the other information, though. It's greatly appreciated.

Its a difficult question to ask as how do we truely know that Hitler exsisted. It could be an elaborate fairy story.

We have visual evidence of Hitler's existence!

some guy was auctioning off hitler's mummified penis last year...

Its a difficult question to ask as how do we truely know that Hitler exsisted. It could be an elaborate fairy story.

We have visual evidence of Hitler's existence!

some guy was auctioning off hitler's mummified penis last year...

I don't even want to know how he got that. :shock:


... Or how he's been... um... preserving it. :shock: :oops:

The Muslims also believed Jesus existed, but as a Prophet. And Islam has been around for a couple hundred years longer than Christianity. I am assuming that he was written about in some Islam texts.

The recently discovered ossuary (bone box) of James inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" gives some credence to Jesus actual life.

Wasn't that box proven to be a hoax? And besides, Yaacov, Yosef and Yoshua were pretty common names (as someone else already pointed out).

Thanks for the other information, though. It's greatly appreciated.

Biblical Archeology's editors have noted some flaws in the testing which claimed the ossuary "fake". It is believed to be authentic. As to the commonality of the names, yes that's true. But, what are the odds of the three being all together in the grouping as they were inscribed, and on a bone box that someone (or group) obviously kept safe for quite a long time.

Yeah, he is mentioned (for a chapter or two) in a history of the region written by Roman historian Josephus. He talks about a revolutionary that was killed by popular consent etc etc. There's no extra-biblical stuff that I know of that talks about his birth/childhood.

There are also some other 'gospels', similar to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that didn't make the cut when people were piecing the Bible together. These say some different things theologically, but they all talk about Jesus the Christ.


Actually, I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find a historian that doesn't believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure.

this book was mentioned earlier, and i have only partially read through it, it is so very thick with fact.
in the book, Josephus, a Jewish historian, is quoted to have spoken of Jesus in Testimonium Flavianum in a very controversial and much-debated passage. in another work of his, The Antiquities, he speaks of James, the brother of Jesus, in a passage which no scholar has ever succesfully disputed. i fully recommend reading Lee Strobel's book.

i do not know, but i believe that the romans kept very good records of those who recieved capital punishment, crucifixion, and that a Jesus who had claimed to be the king of the Jews was among them. also, many of the older documents from that time i think were lost in the burning of Rome.
and don't forget that we tell the years by Him - BC, before Christ, and AD, which is something latin that means "the year of our Lord"

as for the common-ness of the name Jesus, my nephew is named Joshua, which is an english adaptation of the hebrew yesheua(sp?), Jesus, which you will hear Jesus being called if you see Mel Gibson's The Passion.


TT

The recently discovered ossuary (bone box) of James inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" gives some credence to Jesus actual life.

Wasn't that box proven to be a hoax? And besides, Yaacov, Yosef and Yoshua were pretty common names (as someone else already pointed out).

Thanks for the other information, though. It's greatly appreciated.

Biblical Archeology's editors have noted some flaws in the testing which claimed the ossuary "fake". It is believed to be authentic. As to the commonality of the names, yes that's true. But, what are the odds of the three being all together in the grouping as they were inscribed, and on a bone box that someone (or group) obviously kept safe for quite a long time.

Well, according to CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/

"The ossuary is real. But the inscription is fake," the director of Israel's Antiquities Authority, Shuka Dorfman, told Reuters.

"What this means is that somebody took a real box and forged the writing on it, probably to give it a religious significance," Dorfman added.

The committee said another indication that the box was not all it was claimed to be was that the stone from which it was hewn was more likely to have originated in Cyprus or northern Syria than ancient Israel.

As far as the names- all three were very popular names at the time, and I am sure there were many thousands of Yaacovs son of Yosefs brothers of Yoshuas.

That aside, the fact that the inscription itself is forged kind of puts a kabosh on the whole deal, anyway.

The Muslims also believed Jesus existed, but as a Prophet. And Islam has been around for a couple hundred years longer than Christianity. I am assuming that he was written about in some Islam texts.

What rot.

Islam was founded by Muhammad, born around 570 AD.

In other words, nearly 600 years after Christ, and Christianity.

Which is how Islam can quote sections of the Gospels, and JC himself.

The recently discovered ossuary (bone box) of James inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" gives some credence to Jesus actual life.

Wasn't that box proven to be a hoax? And besides, Yaacov, Yosef and Yoshua were pretty common names (as someone else already pointed out).

Thanks for the other information, though. It's greatly appreciated.

Biblical Archeology's editors have noted some flaws in the testing which claimed the ossuary "fake". It is believed to be authentic. As to the commonality of the names, yes that's true. But, what are the odds of the three being all together in the grouping as they were inscribed, and on a bone box that someone (or group) obviously kept safe for quite a long time.

Well, according to CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/

"The ossuary is real. But the inscription is fake," the director of Israel's Antiquities Authority, Shuka Dorfman, told Reuters.

"What this means is that somebody took a real box and forged the writing on it, probably to give it a religious significance," Dorfman added.

The committee said another indication that the box was not all it was claimed to be was that the stone from which it was hewn was more likely to have originated in Cyprus or northern Syria than ancient Israel.

As far as the names- all three were very popular names at the time, and I am sure there were many thousands of Yaacovs son of Yosefs brothers of Yoshuas.

That aside, the fact that the inscription itself is forged kind of puts a kabosh on the whole deal, anyway.

That is not an up to date news story. The testing used to determine it was "fake" was, in the Biblical Archeology article that I read, lacking in some specific measures of chemical analysis. The current debate on the authenticity of the ossuary is still alive. It is not "proven" to be forged,... yet.

I heard that Jesus had many brothers.
He had a brother named Joses as well. (?) Heheh. And the book of James in the bible is supposedly written by Jesus's brother.

I heard that Jesus had many brothers.
He had a brother named Joses as well. (?) Heheh. And the book of James in the bible is supposedly written by Jesus's brother.

Jeez, is nothing sacred anymore? Anyways, I heard he had a bro by the name of James... They couldn't even come up with a cool hebrew new :(

I heard that Jesus had many brothers.
He had a brother named Joses as well. (?) Heheh. And the book of James in the bible is supposedly written by Jesus's brother.

Jeez, is nothing sacred anymore? Anyways, I heard he had a bro by the name of James... They couldn't even come up with a cool hebrew new :(

From what I've heard, James is an Anglicized version of "Yaacov", or Jacob. Just like Yosef = Joseph, and Yehoshua (Joshua) = Jesus.

... Funny... I don't think Jesus and Yehoshua really sound all that alike, but whatever.

there are several Roman historians who write about a man called Jesus, surname Chrestus [a common misspeling of Christus].

For example: Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, etc etc. They all mention JC and although they were for the most against Christianity and viewed it as a superstition. They could have left out any mention of the existence of Christ, but they are true to their art and relate everything that happened in the periods they write about.

That's just one example. Someone else aready mentioned about the census that Mary and Joseph trekked off to. Weren't those census records found, and the three names read? I'm pretty sure I saw that on Discovery or somewhere.

Dead Sea Scrolls

there are several Roman historians who write about a man called Jesus, surname Chrestus [a common misspeling of Christus].

For example: Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, etc etc. They all mention JC and although they were for the most against Christianity and viewed it as a superstition. They could have left out any mention of the existence of Christ, but they are true to their art and relate everything that happened in the periods they write about.

That's just one example. Someone else aready mentioned about the census that Mary and Joseph trekked off to. Weren't those census records found, and the three names read? I'm pretty sure I saw that on Discovery or somewhere.

Funny thing is that this Tacitus wrote during the 2nd centure A.D. That makes it hearsay :(

Suetonius birth occurred after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Pliny the Younger born in 62 C.E., unfortunately his birthday puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts as well, and all his reports are based on, you guessed it, hearsay!! :lol:

Dead Sea Scrolls

Do you have evidence of this? I ask because I heard the opposite.

Just in case anyone is thinking of mentioning the Shroud of Tourin as "evidence".....

Everytime its been carbon-dated....it comes up as being from the 13th century.

Most scholars agree, its likely the most elaborate hoax of all time.

Just in case anyone is thinking of mentioning the Shroud of Tourin as "evidence".....

Everytime its been carbon-dated....it comes up as being from the 13th century.

Most scholars agree, its likely the most elaborate hoax of all time.

Oh. i was just about to mention it.
perhaps it's evidence that Jesus really lived in the 13th century?

Just in case anyone is thinking of mentioning the Shroud of Tourin as "evidence".....

Everytime its been carbon-dated....it comes up as being from the 13th century.

Most scholars agree, its likely the most elaborate hoax of all time.

Oh. i was just about to mention it.
perhaps it's evidence that Jesus really lived in the 13th century?


Uhhhh.......sure.
why the hell not? 8)

All of history could be a hoax for all we know

All of history could be a hoax for all we know

Hmmm...deep.

Silly...but deep.

All of history could be a hoax for all we know

Hmmm...deep.

Silly...but deep.
Actually, there is a certain school of history inside the Russian Academy of sciences who claims that all dating methods used by modern historians are dead wrong. They base their claims on discrepancies between the accepted timelines and the cycles of nature and somehow came to the conclusion that the "civilized" history of the world was several centuries shorter than it is believed to be. They also raise some other doubts- about whether the Chinese Great wall is as long as the Chinese claim it is; whether the Chinese really have invented gunpowder or they have borrowed it from the Europeans; whether there was a Mongolian invasion into Asia and Russia and so on.

All of history could be a hoax for all we know

Hmmm...deep.

Silly...but deep.

:lol: :lol:

Silly!

THIS, coming from YOU? :lol:

All of history could be a hoax for all we know

Hmmm...deep.

Silly...but deep.

:lol: :lol:

Silly!

THIS, coming from YOU? :lol:

And at what point, Madame, did I claim I WASNT a hypocrite? :lol:

read FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS "bellum juaicum" - he was a jew and lived at the time when "jesus" was "killed" -> but there is not a word about "jesus"! he is just talking about:
#1 jesus sapphias - this is a roman general
#2 jesus gamalas - highpriest
#3 jesus saphatos - something like "robin hood"
#4 jesus thebuthi - priest
#5 jesus ananos - priest
he never heart about "christians" but about pilatus. you will not find texts about jesus accept of the bilble and even these texts are much younger (the oldest parts are written about anno90 that means 70 years after jesus lived - most people in that dark times died by the age of 35)
hope i helped you and now i have to go back to work!

And at what point, Madame, did I claim I WASNT a hypocrite? :lol:

:D

anyway, my point is that at one point people really, really believed the world had been created in seven days in 4004 BC or whatever it was and now we have a zillion years of geological history instead.
so that also could be wrong.

read FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS "bellum juaicum" - he was a jew and lived at the time when "jesus" was "killed" -> but there is not a word about "jesus"! he is just talking about:
#1 jesus sapphias - this is a roman general
#2 jesus gamalas - highpriest
#3 jesus saphatos - something like "robin hood"
#4 jesus thebuthi - priest
#5 jesus ananos - priest
he never heart about "christians" but about pilatus. you will not find texts about jesus accept of the bilble and even these texts are much younger (the oldest parts are written about anno90 that means 70 years after jesus lived - most people in that dark times died by the age of 35)
hope i helped you and now i have to go back to work!

So one person called Jesus never existed, he's just the most successful myth of all time with his roots in several different real people?

Dead Sea Scrolls

Do you have evidence of this? I ask because I heard the opposite.

What? That the scrolls exist or that they prove the existance of Jesus of Nazereth?

yes, no, just thought I'd chuck that in there to see what happens :)

Exactly how do they prove his existance, anyway?

read FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS "bellum juaicum" - he was a jew and lived at the time when "jesus" was "killed" -> but there is not a word about "jesus"! he is just talking about:
#1 jesus sapphias - this is a roman general
#2 jesus gamalas - highpriest
#3 jesus saphatos - something like "robin hood"
#4 jesus thebuthi - priest
#5 jesus ananos - priest
he never heart about "christians" but about pilatus. you will not find texts about jesus accept of the bilble and even these texts are much younger (the oldest parts are written about anno90 that means 70 years after jesus lived - most people in that dark times died by the age of 35)
hope i helped you and now i have to go back to work!

So one person called Jesus never existed, he's just the most successful myth of all time with his roots in several different real people?

I'd say Gilgemesh was pretty damn successfull....or Ra.....both which predate Jesus....

So one person called Jesus never existed, he's just the most successful myth of all time with his roots in several different real people?

I'd say Gilgemesh was pretty damn successfull....or Ra.....both which predate Jesus....

yes. but 'successful' isn't the same as 'oldest' - i think the Christian mythology is more widely spread today than is Giglamesh.

HEY DUMBASSES! There is not one single, secular, contemporary, source that even alludes to the fact that Jesus may have existed! Nil, nada, nunca, none! Roman, Jewish, Greek.....NEINE!

Want to know why???????????? Because he was just some really cool, egalitarian, pacifist dude who was ahead of his time in philosophical thought. Combine that with delusions of grandeur and you have a guy at odds with everybody at the time..thus ..................crucified! And that is just a guess...............

Hell..maybe its all made up............?

Nevertheless........ Jesus is not, was not, will not, cannot be a God! As there are no Gods! You people still believe in the Easter Bunny?? Grow Up!

That's just one example. Someone else aready mentioned about the census that Mary and Joseph trekked off to. Weren't those census records found, and the three names read?

I believe that archelogical records of the census carried out by Governor Quirinus of Syria (mentioned in the Gospel of Luke) have been found and that Quirinius is an accepted historical figure.

However the dating of that census places it too late for Christs birth. Possible theories for this (from a Christian so therefore biased opinion) is that either Luke got the dates wrong, not unlikely if he was an uneducated fisherman without access to library records. Others point to the old problem of the mistranslation of the Bibles, and that the original says Luke refers to the census that took place before the one carried out by Qurinius.

Given the fact that the Jews rebelled during the "second census" it is unlikely they would have been complacent during the alleged first one.

This is only a half remembered account. I've been researching on Qurinius but all my work is on my home computer.

Its a difficult question to ask as how do we truely know that Hitler exsisted. It could be an elaborate fairy story.

We have visual evidence of Hitler's existence!

some guy was auctioning off hitler's mummified penis last year...

I don't even want to know how he got that. :shock:


... Or how he's been... um... preserving it. :shock: :oops:

he got it as a family heirloom. the guy's father like found hitler after he killed himself... and took his penis as a souvenier.

I'd say Gilgemesh was pretty damn successfull....or Ra.....both which predate Jesus....

Ancient literature is not my forte but I read a theory once that suggested Moses nicked the Flood legend from reading about Gilgamesh in the Egyptian Court Library

The Muslims also believed Jesus existed, but as a Prophet. And Islam has been around for a couple hundred years longer than Christianity. I am assuming that he was written about in some Islam texts.

islam came after christianity. a couple hundred years after christianity.

The recently discovered ossuary (bone box) of James inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" gives some credence to Jesus actual life.

Wasn't that box proven to be a hoax? And besides, Yaacov, Yosef and Yoshua were pretty common names (as someone else already pointed out).

Thanks for the other information, though. It's greatly appreciated.

Biblical Archeology's editors have noted some flaws in the testing which claimed the ossuary "fake". It is believed to be authentic. As to the commonality of the names, yes that's true. But, what are the odds of the three being all together in the grouping as they were inscribed, and on a bone box that someone (or group) obviously kept safe for quite a long time.

Well, according to CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/

"The ossuary is real. But the inscription is fake," the director of Israel's Antiquities Authority, Shuka Dorfman, told Reuters.

"What this means is that somebody took a real box and forged the writing on it, probably to give it a religious significance," Dorfman added.

The committee said another indication that the box was not all it was claimed to be was that the stone from which it was hewn was more likely to have originated in Cyprus or northern Syria than ancient Israel.

As far as the names- all three were very popular names at the time, and I am sure there were many thousands of Yaacovs son of Yosefs brothers of Yoshuas.

That aside, the fact that the inscription itself is forged kind of puts a kabosh on the whole deal, anyway.

That is not an up to date news story. The testing used to determine it was "fake" was, in the Biblical Archeology article that I read, lacking in some specific measures of chemical analysis. The current debate on the authenticity of the ossuary is still alive. It is not "proven" to be forged,... yet.

the inscription cut through the patina. the patina is pretty much layers of junk that build up on an object over time. the inscription on the box went through that layer, thus was put on the box much after it was made. the inscription is indeed fake, there is no debate anout that.

Just in case anyone is thinking of mentioning the Shroud of Tourin as "evidence".....

Everytime its been carbon-dated....it comes up as being from the 13th century.

Most scholars agree, its likely the most elaborate hoax of all time.

Oh. i was just about to mention it.
perhaps it's evidence that Jesus really lived in the 13th century?

...and had paint for blood.

Er... what the heck is with you people saying, "No one doubts that Jesus existed, even if he didn't perform miracles"? Have you even looked this stuff up, or are you going on what Sister Mary told you? The evidence for Jesus' existence is astoundingly bad for someone who was supposed to have been such a constant pain in the side of the authorities. The authors you typically hear mentioned (Josephus, Flavius, etc.) did not author their works until decades after Jesus' supposed death, and even when the name comes up, it is typically given one or two lines (some of which are believed forged) mentioned in the vaguest possible manner. IIRC, one of the lines from Josephus simply refers to "the followers of Christus," as if that was proof that there was a living Christ.

Historians have traditionally believed that Jesus existed merely because they've been taught as much, not for evidential reasons. That's what happens when the Church gets a strangle-hold on education for a few centuries. As soon as you ask for something from a relatively objective source, there's some murmuring and then silence. Did someone named Jesus (or the language equivalent, rather) exist in roughly the same time period? Yes, dozens of people. Did any of them attract a cult of followers, challenge Roman and (old) Jewish authority, or perform miracles? If so, the evidence for it is certainly lacking.

Why would people "invent" Jesus? Who knows! Probably the same reasons they invent Beowulfs or Ramas or any other mythological characters. Or perhaps "Jesus" is an amalgamation of prophets rolled into one, or a greatly exaggerated account of a technically real person, a la King Arthur. In any case, it's ridiculous to think he must have been real because "people wouldn't make this stuff up." People have been making up stuff since the dawn of mankind! Take a class or do a little reading on mythology, and you'll realize just how easy it is. Hell, people are still doing it today.

So one person called Jesus never existed, he's just the most successful myth of all time with his roots in several different real people?

I'd say Gilgemesh was pretty damn successfull....or Ra.....both which predate Jesus....

yes. but 'successful' isn't the same as 'oldest' - i think the Christian mythology is more widely spread today than is Giglamesh.

mmm no. The idea of Monotheism does stem from Ra.....and the Hero myth as embodied within the Christ figure is traceable to Gilgamesh and other mythos.

damn....gotta split...

I am curious as to whether anyone knows of any sources (besides the New Testament) that give evidence that the person who became known as Jesus Christ actually existed.

It is my belief that he MAY have existed, but, to be honest, I'm really not sure, since I have yet to find any reliable contemporary evidence demonstrating this to be a fact. I personally don't consider the NT to be a reliable source of information, hence my question.

Thanks much.

Well, Jesus is referred to in the Koran as well. As for a contemporary source I guess that the Shroud of Tyrin (gosh how do ya spell that) is pretty conclusive. Also what is interesting is that the Jesus left open the possibility to have his entire message destroyed, all those who want to dissprove Jesus would have to do is fine his body.

I am curious as to whether anyone knows of any sources (besides the New Testament) that give evidence that the person who became known as Jesus Christ actually existed.

It is my belief that he MAY have existed, but, to be honest, I'm really not sure, since I have yet to find any reliable contemporary evidence demonstrating this to be a fact. I personally don't consider the NT to be a reliable source of information, hence my question.

Thanks much.

Well, Jesus is referred to in the Koran as well. As for a contemporary source I guess that the Shroud of Tyrin (gosh how do ya spell that) is pretty conclusive. Also what is interesting is that the Jesus left open the possibility to have his entire message destroyed, all those who want to dissprove Jesus would have to do is fine his body.

Good grief!!! Jesus is refered to in the Quaran...wow!! Thats like some 600 odd years after Christs death.

If you had bothered to read..oh 3 PAGES you might have found that the Turin Shroud has already been discissed and discounted as bollocks.

As for your statement Also what is interesting is that the Jesus left open the possibility to have his entire message destroyed, all those who want to dissprove Jesus would have to do is fine his body....I know millipedes with more intelligence than you!

What is it with you god squaders? Are you people even capable of rational thought? I mean I know that you have to be superstitious to believe this stuff in the first place but you lot....leave me speechless!

Religion IS bullshit.

Wait so we can prove that Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago but it is just too difficult to prove a person lived 1,400 years ago.

Dismissed by whom. Either way the fact is that that was the body of somebody that was crucified.


I'm glad somebody has mastered the ability to communicate with milipedes. If Jesus' body was found it would crush the entire Christian message and we wouldn't even have this debate. If scientists can assume what type of beans some neolithic man ate it shouldn't be all that hard to find the body of a person who traveled along a pretty small amount of land.

There is historical evidence of the existence of a man named Jesus. However whether or not you consider him a religious figure is more circumstancial . . .

Just in case anyone is thinking of mentioning the Shroud of Tourin as "evidence".....

Everytime its been carbon-dated....it comes up as being from the 13th century.

Most scholars agree, its likely the most elaborate hoax of all time.

The reason for that is it is a fraud or it was in a fire how that would change the dating don't ask me but that said to be a possibility.

Really however much people want to say Jesus didn't exist, we, sometimes on even less evidence, quite confidently speak about a bunch of historical people.

Wait so we can prove that Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago but it is just too difficult to prove a person lived 1,400 years ago.

Dismissed by whom. Either way the fact is that that was the body of somebody that was crucified.


I'm glad somebody has mastered the ability to communicate with milipedes. If Jesus' body was found it would crush the entire Christian message and we wouldn't even have this debate. If scientists can assume what type of beans some neolithic man ate it shouldn't be all that hard to find the body of a person who traveled along a pretty small amount of land.

the romans crucified everyone. from theives, murders, political insurgents.
the shroud of turin has been demonstrably shown to be painted with plant-based paints and dates back to the 13th century. it was not the body of anyone wrapped in a shroud. it was paint on a piece of linen.

and wait, it shouldn't be too hard to find a specific body? well for one, you would have to assume that this specific body was around in the first place. then you would have to find the burial site, i don't know how they'd make a positive identification...

Really however much people want to say Jesus didn't exist, we, sometimes on even less evidence, quite confidently speak about a bunch of historical people.

really, which historical people have less evidence than jesus, for whom no written records appeared in his lifetime, only decades afterwards?

There is historical evidence of the existence of a man named Jesus. However whether or not you consider him a religious figure is more circumstancial . . .

what historial evidence, i looked through this thread when it was started, no one has presented any reliable evidence... what evidence do you have?

Really however much people want to say Jesus didn't exist, we, sometimes on even less evidence, quite confidently speak about a bunch of historical people.

really, which historical people have less evidence than jesus, for whom no written records appeared in his lifetime, only decades afterwards?

Actually, quite a few people. From my book, Cambridge Latin, it gives info on a man named Salvius, who they believe was sort of a 2nd in command in the Roman Province of Britian. Basically, all they have are a few lines in some of Pliny's writings (after he died) and some rocks that they think were his tombstone.

Indeed the majority of non-Biblical evidence of Jesus comes later sources : Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, Babylonian Talmud, what have you. This is, however, not particularly suprising that no one wrote about Jesus while he was alive given that
1.) Very few people could read, let alone write, at the time,
2.) Judea was on the fringe of the empire,
3.) and Jesus was not a government official.

I am curious as to whether anyone knows of any sources (besides the New Testament) that give evidence that the person who became known as Jesus Christ actually existed.

It is my belief that he MAY have existed, but, to be honest, I'm really not sure, since I have yet to find any reliable contemporary evidence demonstrating this to be a fact. I personally don't consider the NT to be a reliable source of information, hence my question.

Thanks much.

Just curious, is there any reason other than it's religious applications that you don't find the New Testament to be reliable? Sofar to my knowledge, the Bible, both testaments, have been found to be historically accurate as far as times and kings and countries go, which is quite amazing considering how many people wrote it over so much time and it would remain that consistent. I don't see why it can't be taken as solid evidence that Jesus at least existed.

it shouldn't be all that hard to find the body of a person who traveled along a pretty small amount of land.

Assuming Jesus was the son of God, then he didn't leave a corpse behind!

Wait so we can prove that Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago but it is just too difficult to prove a person lived 1,400 years ago.

Dismissed by whom. Either way the fact is that that was the body of somebody that was crucified.


I'm glad somebody has mastered the ability to communicate with milipedes. If Jesus' body was found it would crush the entire Christian message and we wouldn't even have this debate. If scientists can assume what type of beans some neolithic man ate it shouldn't be all that hard to find the body of a person who traveled along a pretty small amount of land.

the romans crucified everyone. from theives, murders, political insurgents.
the shroud of turin has been demonstrably shown to be painted with plant-based paints and dates back to the 13th century. it was not the body of anyone wrapped in a shroud. it was paint on a piece of linen.

and wait, it shouldn't be too hard to find a specific body? well for one, you would have to assume that this specific body was around in the first place. then you would have to find the burial site, i don't know how they'd make a positive identification...

Your not neccesarily assuming the body was around, I mean even if Jesus was the biggest charlatan in the history of the world he was still written about and defended by men who repeatedly risked their lives, and if the message is all some big hoax why did the apostles risk their lives. True though a positive identification would be tough wouldn't it?

Er... what the heck is with you people saying, "No one doubts that Jesus existed, even if he didn't perform miracles"? Have you even looked this stuff up, or are you going on what Sister Mary told you? The evidence for Jesus' existence is astoundingly bad for someone who was supposed to have been such a constant pain in the side of the authorities. The authors you typically hear mentioned (Josephus, Flavius, etc.) did not author their works until decades after Jesus' supposed death, and even when the name comes up, it is typically given one or two lines (some of which are believed forged) mentioned in the vaguest possible manner. IIRC, one of the lines from Josephus simply refers to "the followers of Christus," as if that was proof that there was a living Christ.

Historians have traditionally believed that Jesus existed merely because they've been taught as much, not for evidential reasons. That's what happens when the Church gets a strangle-hold on education for a few centuries. As soon as you ask for something from a relatively objective source, there's some murmuring and then silence. Did someone named Jesus (or the language equivalent, rather) exist in roughly the same time period? Yes, dozens of people. Did any of them attract a cult of followers, challenge Roman and (old) Jewish authority, or perform miracles? If so, the evidence for it is certainly lacking.

Why would people "invent" Jesus? Who knows! Probably the same reasons they invent Beowulfs or Ramas or any other mythological characters. Or perhaps "Jesus" is an amalgamation of prophets rolled into one, or a greatly exaggerated account of a technically real person, a la King Arthur. In any case, it's ridiculous to think he must have been real because "people wouldn't make this stuff up." People have been making up stuff since the dawn of mankind! Take a class or do a little reading on mythology, and you'll realize just how easy it is. Hell, people are still doing it today.
Jesus existed for the Bible tells me so. And no one here can prove otherwise. Why are you trying to "un-invent" Him with your brand of mythology? Because you do not believe and/or do not want to believe that He existed does not make it true.

For His word to have survived this long is certainly a testament to His followers, and the faith they have upheld.

I know one thing, people will still be talking about Him long after you and I bite the dust.

Jesus existed for the Bible tells me so.

Which does the exact opposite of answering my opening question. Thanks.

And no one here can prove otherwise.

First, I don't think it's possible to prove a negative. Secondly, you cannot prove that he DID exist. It's a moot point. Which is why I wasn't asking people to "prove" anything- just give me some sources that SUPPORT that theory.

Why are you trying to "un-invent" Him with your brand of mythology? Because you do not believe and/or do not want to believe that He existed does not make it true.

What makes your beliefs any less mythological? And the exact same argument can be used for you- just because you believe he existed doesn't make it so. Which, once again, is why this thread specifically asked for SOURCES.

For His word to have survived this long is certainly a testament to His followers, and the faith they have upheld.

Which proves that they believed in their message, not necessarily that Jesus was a real person- or did or said everything ascribed to him.

I know one thing, people will still be talking about Him long after you and I bite the dust.

People are still talking about Sherlock Holmes, too. Does that make him a historical person? What about Hamlet? Since when does popularity or notoriety constitute proof of historicity?

Jesus existed for the Bible tells me so.

Which does the exact opposite of answering my opening question. Thanks.

And no one here can prove otherwise.

First, I don't think it's possible to prove a negative. Secondly, you cannot prove that he DID exist. It's a moot point. Which is why I wasn't asking people to "prove" anything- just give me some sources that SUPPORT that theory.

Why are you trying to "un-invent" Him with your brand of mythology? Because you do not believe and/or do not want to believe that He existed does not make it true.

What makes your beliefs any less mythological? And the exact same argument can be used for you- just because you believe he existed doesn't make it so. Which, once again, is why this thread specifically asked for SOURCES.

For His word to have survived this long is certainly a testament to His followers, and the faith they have upheld.

Which proves that they believed in their message, not necessarily that Jesus was a real person- or did or said everything ascribed to him.

I know one thing, people will still be talking about Him long after you and I bite the dust.

People are still talking about Sherlock Holmes, too. Does that make him a historical person? What about Hamlet? Since when does popularity or notoriety constitute proof of historicity?
Well since you do not want to believe that the Bible is a living testament that Jesus actually existed, then your first post is like an impossible quest. Perhaps when He returns you can ask Him personally. I sincerely do hope that you behave yourself in the meantime. :lol:

Well since you do not want to believe that the Bible is a living testament that Jesus actually existed, then your first post is like an impossible quest.

Um, no. My first post is specifically asking, what evidence, OUTSIDE of the New Testament, is there to support the theory that Jesus was a historical person? I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask. If you disagree, more power to you.

Perhaps when He returns you can ask Him personally.

I won't be holding my breath. Particularly since I don't think he was the Messiah- oh, and the fact that Judaism doesn't say anything about a second coming.

I sincerely do hope that you behave yourself in the meantime.

Thanks ? :?

Perhaps when He returns you can ask Him personally.

I won't be holding my breath. Particularly since I don't think he was the Messiah- oh, and the fact that Judaism doesn't say anything about a second coming.
Well the fact that you believe in Judaism rather than Christianity is ok. Both religions believe in God and an afterlife, and that there will be a worldwide peace on earth. In the meantime, all we can do is let the universe unfold as it should. Peace.

I'd like to clear up a few things. It is not "Yehoushua" (Spelled in hebrew equvalent Y-H-SH-A(note: I write 'a' it means silent letter)). It is "Yeshua" (Spelled in Hebrew Y-SH-A). "Yehoshua", a more accurate transliteration means 'Salvation' whereas "Yeshua" means savior. (Believe me. I studied hebrew with an Yisraeli native.) "Jesus" was simply a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew "Yeshua" Now that we have that cleared up. Yeshua was a factual figure in history. This is shown from certain records recorded by the Romans during that census (At His birth) and by Sanhedrin (Priests and Pharisees Council). The miracles are not secularly proven, I will admit, but there is proof He was crucified, the Holy of Holies in the temple in Yerushalayim was torn, darkness DID cover the sky, all recorded near the same time. Other evidence is that ELEVEN people were spreading the word. ALL were tortured and most killed for it. One of them surely would have admitted that it was all fake if it really were fake. It simply makes no real sense. EDIT: I can also point out things in the Haftarah (All OT books without first five) from the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah) that proves that judaism DOES say of the Messiah being "wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquites" disproving"(Isaiah 53), disproving theory of Warrior Messiah.

NOTE A: I Make these observations based on research of the time and records of the time linked with events shown in the New Testament, close hebrew study (I'm certified Bar Mitzvah). Some of these were from second and third-person sources.

NOTE B: I am a believer in the Messiah, so I am biased.

Well since you do not want to believe that the Bible is a living testament that Jesus actually existed, then your first post is like an impossible quest. Perhaps when He returns you can ask Him personally. I sincerely do hope that you behave yourself in the meantime. :lol:

Jesus already returned, and our modern society diagnosed him with a mental disorder and locked him away in an institution.

Well since you do not want to believe that the Bible is a living testament that Jesus actually existed, then your first post is like an impossible quest. Perhaps when He returns you can ask Him personally. I sincerely do hope that you behave yourself in the meantime. :lol:

Jesus already returned, and our modern society diagnosed him with a mental disorder and locked him away in an institution.
Oh many people have claimed that they were Christ and yeah perhaps they were not well. I am quite confident that we will all know when the true Saviour returns (Revelations), and that no one will be locking Him up in any mental institution.

I only read the first page [my server sucks on all the forums] but of course being a Christian I believe he existed. Proof, not much, one thing is no bones were found! But I think he'd have to exist since he's told about in other religions. Like Islam, they believe that Jesus was a strong prophet, coincidence he's in two beliefs and he was really made up? I think not.

Yeshua was a factual figure in history. This is shown from certain records recorded by the Romans during that census (At His birth) and by Sanhedrin (Priests and Pharisees Council).

Thank you. Can you cite a source or point me in the direction of where I could find some documentation of this?

The miracles are not secularly proven, I will admit, but there is proof He was crucified, the Holy of Holies in the temple in Yerushalayim was torn, darkness DID cover the sky, all recorded near the same time.

And what's your source?

Other evidence is that ELEVEN people were spreading the word. ALL were tortured and most killed for it. One of them surely would have admitted that it was all fake if it really were fake. It simply makes no real sense.

No, once again, this simply shows THEY believed in it. Not that it was necessarily "true".

EDIT: I can also point out things in the Haftarah (All OT books without first five) from the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah) that proves that judaism DOES say of the Messiah being "wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquites" disproving"(Isaiah 53), disproving theory of Warrior Messiah.

There are certainly many prophesies in the OT. It's not always clear, however, what they are prophesizing. For instance, I've read the normative Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 is that it refers to the nation/people Israel collectively.

NOTE A: I Make these observations based on research of the time and records of the time linked with events shown in the New Testament, close hebrew study (I'm certified Bar Mitzvah). Some of these were from second and third-person sources.

That's fine. I'd just like to know what they are so I can examine them and draw my own conclusions.

There is little real doubt that a historical Jesus existed, that he was crucified, and that the religion of Christianity sprang up not long after.

This, however, proves nothing beyond that.

The Buddha also existed as a historical figure, as did Confuscious (?sp).
The existence of Mohammed is not questioned.

For Isis, Zeus and Mithras the evidence of a historical character is far less compelling.

The existence of a historical character proves nothing beyond that existence.

I think it's one of those things that their never will be evidence for, you just have to believe... which is the point of faith.

The thing is, Judaism does not identify the Messiah by where he was born or by miracles he performed (which, by the way, is NOT one of the requirements for being a Messiah at all). Those are merely external identification signs, that can, theoretically, apply to more than one person. The Jewish Messiah can only be recognized by what he accomplishes during his lifetime- and that would be ALL, without exceptions, of the following:

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. they shall also follow My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Yaakov my servant, in which your fathers have dwelt and they shall dwell there, they and their children, and their children's children forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them, which I will give them; and I will multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be their G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst of them forevermore. (Ezekiel 37: 24-28)

Anyone who has not fulfilled these, or only fulfilled some of these, cannot be recognized as the Messiah. Even if we were to assume that Jesus did exist, that the concept of the second coming is valid under the OT and that Jesus is to come back and complete his work as a messiah, he cannot be granted the status of one until he DOES complete them.

There is little real doubt that a historical Jesus existed, that he was crucified, and that the religion of Christianity sprang up not long after.

...The existence of a historical character proves nothing beyond that existence.

I'm not disputing this. I just want to know what the sources are that have led so many people to conclude that "there is little real doubt".

There is little real doubt that a historical Jesus existed, that he was crucified, and that the religion of Christianity sprang up not long after.

...The existence of a historical character proves nothing beyond that existence.

I'm not disputing this. I just want to know what the sources are that have led so many people to conclude that "there is little real doubt".
It is called FAITH.

There is little real doubt that a historical Jesus existed, that he was crucified, and that the religion of Christianity sprang up not long after.

...The existence of a historical character proves nothing beyond that existence.

I'm not disputing this. I just want to know what the sources are that have led so many people to conclude that "there is little real doubt".
It is called FAITH.

Once again- doesn't answer my question. But thanks for playing.

There is little real doubt that a historical Jesus existed, that he was crucified, and that the religion of Christianity sprang up not long after.

...The existence of a historical character proves nothing beyond that existence.

I'm not disputing this. I just want to know what the sources are that have led so many people to conclude that "there is little real doubt".
It is called FAITH.

Once again- doesn't answer my question. But thanks for playing.
Well many people call it their truth, because they DO believe in something. The Bible gives us Jesus. Your flawed quest gives us nothing.

"Devils or possessed people always want to be told the TRUTH because it doesn't live in their heart."

I heard that Jesus had many brothers.
He had a brother named Joses as well. (?) Heheh. And the book of James in the bible is supposedly written by Jesus's brother.

Jeez, is nothing sacred anymore? Anyways, I heard he had a bro by the name of James... They couldn't even come up with a cool hebrew new :(

From what I've heard, James is an Anglicized version of "Yaacov", or Jacob. Just like Yosef = Joseph, and Yehoshua (Joshua) = Jesus.

... Funny... I don't think Jesus and Yehoshua really sound all that alike, but whatever.

Jesus is Yea-shu in hebrew as stated fairly clearly in the talmud with regard to the very brief discussions about him. An intresting side point- the talmud was written sevral hundred years after jesus's death and therefore is not a valid surce for the mans existance however it has been suggested that there were in fact 2 Ye-shu's discussed in the talmud and we are confused about which is which and if either is the Jesus we are discussing.

I heard that Jesus had many brothers.
He had a brother named Joses as well. (?) Heheh. And the book of James in the bible is supposedly written by Jesus's brother.

Jeez, is nothing sacred anymore? Anyways, I heard he had a bro by the name of James... They couldn't even come up with a cool hebrew new :(

From what I've heard, James is an Anglicized version of "Yaacov", or Jacob. Just like Yosef = Joseph, and Yehoshua (Joshua) = Jesus.

... Funny... I don't think Jesus and Yehoshua really sound all that alike, but whatever.

Jesus is Yea-shu in hebrew as stated fairly clearly in the talmud with regard to the very brief discussions about him. An intresting side point- the talmud was written sevral hundred years after jesus's death and therefore is not a valid surce for the mans existance however it has been suggested that there were in fact 2 Ye-shu's discussed in the talmud and we are confused about which is which and if either is the Jesus we are discussing.

In my view, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for someone to make up an entire person when they could take credit for everything themselves, but I could be wrong.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

In my view, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for someone to make up an entire person when they could take credit for everything themselves, but I could be wrong.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

There is little real doubt that a historical Jesus existed, that he was crucified, and that the religion of Christianity sprang up not long after.

...The existence of a historical character proves nothing beyond that existence.

I'm not disputing this. I just want to know what the sources are that have led so many people to conclude that "there is little real doubt".
It is called FAITH.

Once again- doesn't answer my question. But thanks for playing.
Well many people call it their truth, because they DO believe in something.

Which, again, doesn't have anything to do with my question. I'm not asking WHAT you believe, or even WHY you believe it. I don't CARE what you believe, as a Christian- it's irrelevant to my question.

My question was very specific, and, I thought, quite clear. If you're not going to answer it- and you've repeatedly indicated you won't and can't- I don't see why you're continuing to post in this thread.

The Bible gives us Jesus.

Again, a completely irrelevent tangent.

[Your flawed quest gives us nothing.

I didn't create this thread for YOUR benefit. I started it because I was curious as to the sources for the alleged historicity of Jesus. What do I care what you get out of it? I didn't realize that I wasn't allowed to start a discussion without checking first to see if it would "give" you something.

"Devils or possessed people always want to be told the TRUTH because it doesn't live in their heart."

Hey, another tangential (and insulting) statement which adds nothing to the discussion. How unexpected. :roll:

And I'd be interested in hearing how truth can "live" in someone's heart. But not in this thread.