Is there any evidence that Jesus existed?
454386
Actually, there is abundant evidence that the historical Jesus existed that is entirely apart from the records of the apostolic-era Christian community.  Much of the best evidence comes from detractors of the new Christian sect of Judaism, such as the Roman Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. \n\nIt seems clear that the historical Jesus definitely existed.  The degree to which this historical figure bears any resemblance to the very different portrayals of Jesus in different Christian traditions is a matter of personal belief.  \n\nYou may want to read books about the "historical Jesus," such as the famous classic by Massey.
707252
I found this ,it may answer some of your questions.(these or not my writings)\n\nA would-be historian and wannabe scholar by the name of Hugh Schonfield who did a book titled something like, “In Search of Historic Jesus.” It didn’t take long to realize that this man was out to prove that the divine Jesus, the Son of God, didn’t exist, and that he – Schonfield – had an anti-God, anti-Faith agenda behind his writings. He made the outrageous supposition that “the early Church fathers may have rewritten some of the New Testament books and influenced others to rewrite the story of Jesus” despite a total absence of any historical or documentary proof to support such a thesis.\n\nAnother wannabe historian, Gary R. Habermas, took it even a step father with his claim that “the Gospels represent the teachings of the early church and not those of Jesus himself.” These kinds of spurious claims are johnny-come-lately efforts of liberals and leftists who neither know, nor have a relationship with Jesus Christ, nor have they ever even made an effort to personally put Jesus’ claims to the test.\n\nThat said, let’s examine some of the historical evidence that does exist. \n\nMany years ago, my father made reference to a volume of historical documents he had looked at when he was studying in Bible College. He later obtained a copy and sent it to me. The book was titled, The Archko Volume, and represented the culmination of many years of effort of two eminent scholars, Drs. McIntosh and Twyman of the Antiquarian Lodge in Genoa, Italy. Published in 1887, the work provided copies of writings and works taken from the Talmud and the Sanhedrin contemporary to the time of Christ, along with a copy of “Acta Pilati,” which was a report sent by Pontius Pilate – the Roman procurator or governor of Judaea – to Caesar detailing the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Some of the other documents included Gamaliel’s interview with Joseph and Mary concerning Jesus. Gamaliel, you may remember, was the Pharisee at whose feet Paul the apostle sat while he was yet a Pharisee, being instructed in the ways of the sect.\n\nThe Archko Volume also includes some documented reports of Caiaphas, the High Priest who presided over the Jewish trial and judgment of Jesus prior to His being brought before Pilate, as well as his report to the Sanhedrin concerning the resurrection of Jesus.\n\nAccording to the testimony of the two researchers and archeologists who came up with the documents, the sources of these documents were ancient libraries in Constantinople and the Senatorial Docket in Rome.\n\nWhen you read these documents, it provides an interesting perspective and an otherwise not-considered view of others who either participated in or observed events and people who were involved in some way with Jesus Christ.\n\nOne of the things often overlooked by those who seek to authenticate the historical Jesus is the fact that what we now refer to as the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written as personal testimonies of men who walked and talked with Jesus. These were eyewitness accounts. What makes them all the more intriguing is the fact that they were written at different times, in different places, and in three different languages (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic), and yet they agree with each other. Each of the writers has a distinct personality and a perspective that differs from the others; and that personality comes through in the writing style. Nevertheless, there is synoptic agreement between Matthew, Mark and Luke. \n\nJohn writes from a totally different perspective as Jesus’ best friend, and the majority of what he writes details the final week of Jesus’ life and what He taught before He was crucified.\n\nBut, let’s step away from the accepted canon for a moment and look at the works of historians who were contemporary to the time.\n\nPhilo Judaeus of Alexandria, Egypt was a contemporary of both Jesus and the apostle
647529
The only possible way to prove it was used on any particular person would be to have the DNA of that person and match it to DNA on the cloth. If that happened, it would prove it was not used on Jesus, or that Jesus was not resurrected and zoomed off to heaven.\n\nAs it stands, there is no objectively verifiable evidence proving Jesus (as depicted in the bible) even existed, much less was buried in a piece of cloth.\n\nThe Turin shroud is totally irrelevant except as a way for the Catholic church to get free publicity.
371661
The "Dead Sea Scrolls" don't prove that the Jesus of the Bible was a real person, nor do they prove that such a person performed the miracles attributed to him. \n\n"Noah's Ark" has never been found. That was a hoax and has been well-documented. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax.html\n\nJust like all the other gospels, Judas' gospel proves nothing. The gospels in the Christian bible as we have it today, were written by anonymous authors, decades after Jesus' alleged death, with numerous contradictions, and they weren't eyewitness accounts.\n\nLaws aren't based on Christian principles. The idea of not killing one another, and treating others as you'd have them treat you, have been around much longer than Christianity has. In fact, the so-called "golden rule" was taught by Buddha hundreds of years before the Jesus story popped up.\n\nIf you want to look at Christian principles, let's see what Jesus allegedly said:\n\nLuke 14:26\nIf any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (The word "hate" in that verse is "miseo", the Greek word. The same one from which we get other words that indicate hatred, like "misogynist." It definitely means HATE.)\n\nMatthew 10:35-36\nI am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.\n\nLuke 19:27\nBut those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (This one is a parable, but read it and make no mistake: who do you think the king is?)\n\nMark 14:3-7\nYe have the poor with you always. (Here, expensive oil is used on Jesus. Instead of using the oil to sell to provide money for the poor, this was his response: "You'll always have the poor." How compassionate.)\n\nThe fact that the Christian religion is supposed to fulfill Judaism, yet completely contradicts it should be more than enough evidence to undermine Christianity, but the ignorance of Christians when it comes to the origins of their own religion prevents them from looking beyond what they're taught at church.\n\nChristianity is supposed to be the "fulfillment" of the "Old Testament" - if so, the Jewish Bible is what must be used to determine what such fulfillment will consist of. Using the Jewish Bible, it can be shown that to date, no one has come who has fulfilled the requirements of the Jewish Messiah. Furthermore, the Messiah was only ever for the Jews - not the Gentiles - so even if Jesus *had* been the Messiah, it wouldn't concern a non-Jew, anyway.\n\nOutside of the Christian bible, which was written by a combination of anonymous authors and Paul (a self-confessed liar), there is nothing to support the existence of an historical Jesus whatsoever. There is nothing that is both historical and contemporary to show that there ever was a Jesus of the Christian bible at all. The so-called Josephus passage that is often cited, was not contemporary (Josephus never saw Jesus, let alone met him), and that single passage is agreed by the majority of historians to be a forgery. After all, if he truly believed Jesus to be "the Christ", why was only ONE sentence devoted to Jesus in all his writings, and why did Josephus himself remain a Jew? Not very convincing.\n\nExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I, too, was once a wide-eyed believer. I truly believed with every fibre of my being that Jesus was Lord. Then I saw the light.\n\nI strongly recommend you research your claims and your supposed evidence a little more thoroughly. They're the same pieces of "evidence" that I once believed existed as well.\n\nGood luck on your journey.
771524
The answer to your question is a resounding, yes, and He still does.  He is NOT dead.  He is Resurrected from the dead.  No other human that has ever existed throughout all history can claim this act.  This is what differentiates Jesus as the True Messiah, as truly Divine, while all others are fakes, imposters and mere men.  \n\nAlso, since He now exists, you have the privilege to call upon His Name, and He will audibly answer you.  If you desire in your heart an actual relationship with Christ, He says, "Knock and I will answer," for he is the Door.\n\nIt amazes me how people today are so skeptical and jaded that they are actually preventing themselves from acquiring "wholeness" in Christ.  That was the whole purpose behind His Redemptive Deed upon the Cross, to reconcile us (our fallen sin nature) back to the Father.  He is our Salvation.  His resurrection created a Door through which we may re-attain in us what was lost by the Great Primordial Fall when we became divorced from God (the Great Divorce).  The process of accepting Christ Yeshua (Jesus) as your personal Savior is a “Rebirth” where you are spiritually “rewired” and “reconnected” back to the Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit through Christ’s ultimate act of Love, the giving up of His mortal life for your sins.\n\nFollowing is the proof of Christ’s existence and divinity:\n\nWhy believe in Christianity over all other religions? \n\n         Critics often ask why Christianity is any better than any other religion in the world.  After all, of all the religions that exist how can it be that only Christianity is true?  If God exists, why can't God use different religions?  Don't all paths lead to God? These kinds of questions are asked all the time of Christians and unfortunately the answers aren't always very good ones particularly when dealing with people who have a relativistic truth base and don't believe in absolutes.\n     Therefore, in an attempt to demonstrate why Christianity is true and all other religious systems are false, I've prepared the following list of reasons for Christianity's superiority.    \nThere are such things as absolute truths \n     If truth is relative, then the statement that truth is relative is an absolute truth and would be self defeating statement by proving that truth is not relative.  But, if truth is absolute, then the statement "truth is absolute" is true and not self defeating.  It is true that truth exists.  It is true that truth will not contradict itself as we have just seen.  In fact, it is absolutely true that you are reading this paper.\n     If we can see that there is such a thing as truth in the world, then we could also see that there can be spiritual truth as well.  It is not absurd to believe in spiritual absolutes anymore than physical or logical absolutes.  Even the statement that all religions lead to God is a statement held to be a spiritual absolute by many people.  This simply demonstrates that people do believe in spiritual truth.  Why?  Because truth exists.  However, not all that is believed to be true actually is true.  Therefore, all belief systems cannot be true since they often contradict each other in profound ways. \nReligions contradict each other; therefore, they cannot all be true. \n     Mormonism teaches that there are many gods in existence and that you can become a god.  Christianity teaches that there is only one God and you cannot become a god.  Islam teaches that Jesus is not God in flesh where Christianity does.  Jesus cannot be both God and not God at the same time.  Some religions teach that we reincarnate while others do not.  Some teach there is a hell and others do not. They cannot all be true.  If they cannot all be true, it cannot be true that all religions lead to God.  Furthermore, it means that some religions are, at the very least, false in their claims to reveal the true God (or gods).  Remember, truth does
166327
Well, since the Bible is referenced in historical texts, more than any other book, and the story of Jesus is told in the Bible, I think that is considered historical proof. These stories are not new. The concept of Jesus' existance is harder for the modern day person to believe because we are 2000 years removed from that time. However, several texts, scrolls, letters, etc. were written soon after the death and resurection of Christ. Also, do not forget that zealous Jewish priests were persecuting Christians in order to try and get them to deny the message of Christ. This went on for a long time, and yet, the message has survived until now...2000 years later. Is it possible that it is all made up? I suppose there is no 100% evidence that it existed. But then, can you 100% proove that your great (time 5) grandfather existed? If you never met him and no one alive on this earth ever met him, how can you "proove" he existed. The simple fact is, you can't. But you believe because 1) you have faith. and 2) all the evidence presented supports that he did exist. All the evidence supports the existance of Christ. \n\nI suggest you pick up a copy of the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroble. This presents the stories in a very "judicial" method. Giving the evidence and the opposing sides views and why the evidence supports the message of Christ.
460066
You don't need historical evidence to belieive in God. Its a matter of your level of faith, you either believe in him or you don't. Sure, there may not be a lot of proof, but I know he is there, I know he exists, without him where do you think you came from?
1181661
miracles, no.  Jesus, I believe several people (not just apostles) have written of him.  From what I understand though, few imply the possibility that he's the son of God.
1081825
Allowing that one does not accept the prophecy from the Old Testament as proof, many of his time refer to his actual existence.  Among these are Josephus, the Jewish Historian, Pliny the younger, Tacitus, Lucian and Hadrian.\nIn all fairness, none of these knew the historical Jesus.  In addition, none of the writers of the 4 gospels directly knew Jesus either.  Paul, however, relates the story of how Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus three times in the Book of Acts.  Despite several of these sources, in addition to the Babylonian Talmud, providing reasonable evidence to Jesus' existence, there is no intellectual exercise which will provide this, IMHO, nor do I think it should.  Each is only heuristic, rather than definitive, in its essence.\nNeither will the issue of faith alone provide any proof, as much as some would have it so; faith, by itself proves nothing except that one believes.  One may have faith alone in all sorts of absurdities.\n\nThe difficulty comes when we undeniably understand that we have both a material and spiritual component as human beings.  If we didn't, however, then this whole discussion would just be neurons bumping into one another and would be meaningless.\nThe spiritual component is very difficult to explain in any sense of materialism.  Philosophy treats any ventures into the realm of the spiritual as fantasy, at least that which cannot be verified.\nHowever, if faith in Jesus Christ created a real bond, then this bond would have to be created not only by the believer, but the respondent.  The respondent, in addition, would have to prove that he was God. The difficulty comes as to whether this is possible. How does one verify that God exists?\nBriefly, the Bible teaches us that each one of us who comes to Him must love Him because he loved us first.  In 2 Timothy 3:7, we read about those who seek to learn but never come to the truth.  Paul teaches us that we must love God if we want to know him. (Also see Ephesians 3:17; Philippians 1:9; Colossians 2:2; and also 1 John 2:5.) If we want knowledge without love, it isn’t enough.  We first see Him "as through a glass darkly"(1 Corinthians 13:12) but through our trials and efforts for Him, we come to see more clearly.  \nI suggest that the truth of Jesus lies not in any intellectual sense but in a personal relationship which must be individual: you can't believe because someone else believes and you can't discover it because someone else knows.  Intellectual truth leads to skepticism and denial.  While it is good to be skeptical of things, even Jesus' existence and association with the resurrection mysteries you cite, the real proof comes in the consistency of God's promise.  Be forewarned: new believers usually suffer persecutions.  In fact, persecutions are promised to all believers (2 Timothy 3:12.)  Not everyone wants you to believe in the truth of Jesus Christ.
541841
No, they simply add proof to the fact that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. His ability to perform miracles was only due to the power that came from his Father and God, Jehovah. Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 both clearly show that Jesus is a created being, in fact the very first creation by God. The recorded Bible prophecies that the Bible contains that were written hundreds and thousands of years in advance of Jesus' human existance, and how Jesus fulfilled each one exactly as written is proof....not that he is God, because he certainly isn't, but is proof that he was the Messiah, or God's anointed one. The fact that he was unable to raise himself from the dead is further proof that he isn't God. It was God who raised him, thus showing that God is a being totally separate and distinct from Jesus. \n\nColossians 1:15 - Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation"\n\nRevelation 3:14 - Jesus is "the beginning of the creatiobn by God"\n\nJohn 14:28 - Jesus plainly states "the father is greater than I am" - thus acknowledging that he is neither God, but is less than God. \n\n1 Corinthians 11:3 - as the man is the head of the woman, "in turn the head of the Christ is God". Thus, Jesus himself answers to a higher or superior being, his Father and God. \n\nJohn 7:16 - Jesus' message didn't originate from himself, but "belongs to him that sent me", namely his Father.
333941
Jesus certainly existed - no serious historian doubts this (the handful of pop religion books on the topic notwithstanding.) There is plenty of evidence, written and otherwise - from the still extant ruins of Peter's house in Capernaum (Jesus' home base), to his mention (the second mention is not interpolation) in Josephus' "Antiquities", and Tacitus' reference to him.\n\nAs to the second coming of Jesus, none knows the hour, or the way. None of us should be confident we'll see it whether  we live five years or five hundred. It happens when it happens, in the way that it happens. "Stay awake", we are told, live an exemplary life. Every day is to be lived as though it were the dawn of the day of the Lord.\n\nAs Mother Theresa said, "Yesterday is past, and tomorrow is not yet come. We have only today. Let us begin."
1008625
We are saying that the story of Jesus was probably embellished alot down the line. Perhaps he did not claim to be the son of god, maybe he was just a prophet or political activist who gained people's admiration - and ended up being persecuted by the politicians of the time for spreading his political message.
284698
Having read the four gospels several times, I'm fairly confident that he did exist as a person. As an atheist, however, I feel certain that he was not the son of God and that many of the events described in the gospels are metaphorical. I do strongly believe that he was an extremely charismatic individual who was a positive force in the world. Of course, many of his teachings (Love thy neighbor, for example) came from Judaism.
356966
First, I don't think anybody can definitively "prove" Jesus' existence.  But, I do know that I admire the mythology of Jesus and his teachings.  I also admire other great humans from antiquity.  Whether you choose to believe in Jesus or not, don't disregard the wonderful parables and teachings of the man.  You can choose to learn from a variety of sources without having to be a Christian or Muslim or Atheist.  There is good knowledge out there.  Seek it.
638
Gnosticism was long thought to be a corruption of Christianity but more current thinking is that its roots are pre-Christian. It is highly unlikely, though not absolutely proveable that Jesus was not a Gnostic. The Essenes were a splinter Jewish sect so that was around during Jesus' life. There are some who believe that Jesus was an Essene. Others believe he spent some of his wilderness time with Essenes. Still others think that he never encountered yhe Essenes. Most who compare the recorded thoughts of Jesus with the recorded Essene tracts believe that they are incompatible. It is very unlikely, though not absolutely proveable, that Jesus was ever an Essene.
531562
If there was any truth behind Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) then it would be reasonable to assume that we would all be able to discern it, so we would all have the same beliefs.  Since there are in fact hundreds or thousands of different beliefs, there's no reason to suppose there is any underlying truth in any of it, including 'Jesus'.  So, the answer is 'No'.
189064
I think that's a great question that most of these other answers should think about a little more.\n\nDo I believe that he exsisted? Yes, it has been proven that a man named Jesus was crucified by the Romans as depicted in the bible.\n\nDo I believe he was "the Christ"? Tough one. I like the "idea" of what He stood for. (the new covenant)\n\nNobody can be certain (at least while alive) if this is at all the truth, however, like I said, I like the thought of it, so I try to act in accordance with His beliefs.\n\nAll I can do is the best I can do.