Did he actually exist?

No, he didn't.

I believe Jesus did exist, for the following reasons:

1. it's part of my belief
2. it's in the Bible which is definitely true because the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Bible is true. Since what was found is a book of the Bible itself.

There's lots of evidence that Jesus was born.

Whether he was the savior is a completely different issue, but it's almost certain he was a real person.

A lot of evidence?

Have you ever actually looked for evidence? It's scarce, to say the least.

Of course he existed, no one really argues that he didn't. But I don't believe he was a wizard and can save me and shizzle, thats just stupid in my opinion.

Maybe not a lot of evidence, but at least an amount of evidence that we find sufficient for other things.

If you don't believe Jesus was a "wizard", then he couldn't have been born.

And yet there is a growing amount of historians who do not believe he existed.

A man we know as "Jesus Christ", who is considered by many to be god's son, lived in Israel during the reign of Caesar Tiberius. This is a fact. Whether or not he was the son of god or even holy at all is up to your beliefs.

That doesn't make sense. How can you say he exists, and then later with the same evidence say he doesn't? I doubt they've found any proof saying he doesn't exist.

There were many Jesus' at the time. All the bajillions of strands of what would become Jeudo-christianity couldn't decide on a single Messiah and each claimed theres was the real Jesus. As for why the messiah that is commonly recognised as the Jesus is recognised as such i know not. Theres no doubt in my mind there was a man named Jesus who vaguely resembles his depiction in the christian bible however the likelyhood of him being embellished is OVER 9000!!

I Know i just ruined a nice intellectual post, and i wonder why I'm generally disliked?

EDIT: Thats a really REALLY vague depiction of what happened I'de recommend looking into it because it's a prety interesting topic and doesn't require to much reading to understand.


Vera did a better job explaining it.

I never said he existed.

They haven't found proof he doesn't exist; you can't prove something doesn't exist. The point is, there is like no proof that he did exist.

Even without proof that Jesus existed exactly as we've been told (Jesus of Nazareth, 3BC-30AD), it is an undisputable fact that many men were followed as the "messiah" during this specific time period. Christianity did not invent Jesus, they based the stories on a real person. I'm pretty sure Jesus of Nazareth was real, but even if he wasn't, there still was a "messiah" Christianity is based on.

What? I just think Mary lied about not cheating on Joseph and Jesus happened to be pretty enigmatic. Doesn't make him mythical.

In Christianity, Jesus Christ is not God's son, they are one. So for Jesus to be born (virgin birth) he would have to be some kind of wizard. Unless your saying he had a father (which actually contributed to making him) in which case, just ignore this post. Lol.

I wasn't referring to you specifically, I meant the historians. My bad.

There must have been proof for them to believe it in the first place for there to be a

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the point is that Jesus probably existed, but as the son of a man, and not the son of god.

There is Flavius Josephus (I believe his name was) who wrote of Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews. Several other notable Roman historians around that time period did so as well. Also, how could Christianity occur if Jesus didn't exist to found it? And why are all these threads targetted at Christians? I haven't seen a thread on Mohammed and whether he existed or not, or Buddha, so that's a little strange, don't you think?

Christianity is the biggest religion in the world. Suck it up.

Apart from the Bible, there have only been three sources even mentioning Jesus, one proved to be faked in the 1960's. And the two remaining sources briefly mention his name, not even talking about him. I hardly consider several to be three with one faked.

And to add, It's also the one that's shoved down our throats the most and considering most of this forum is Western world based and considering most of the western world is Christian....

If you'd like to start a "was Buddha real" topic go right ahead.

You can't complain about a result until you've done everything possible to prevent that result.

^ I know i just thought that up now

Does it count as copypasta if I wrote it myself?

Tacitus (a Roman historian of the 7th century AD) states in The Annals, Book XV that "Christus, from whom the name ['Christian'] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..."

There is a controversial passage referring to Jesus by Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived from 37 AD to 100 AD. He records in Antiquities, Book XVIII that "...He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him..."
Many scholars believe this to be an alteration of the original text, but Josephus also refers to Jesus in Book XX, Chapter 9 in this passage:


The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars, as Wikipedia notes.

So yeah, there is secular proof of Jesus's existence, as well as his family, and your assertion that there ought to be more records if he really DID exist is frankly ridiculous. Do you know how many records we have ever found from the 1st century Middle East? Very, very few. The idea that having no preserved document written by Jesus (or one of his close friends) is a strike against His alleged existence is laughable.

@ Po last page: Pretty much everything attributed to Tacitus is assumed to be "legit" by most scholars; why single that passage out for illegitimacy?

Oh yes, I forgot. We always have to pick on the big guy. No matter what.


Josephus does indeed talk about him, as does Pliny and (as Emanick pointed out) Tacitus. Unless you can prove that one of these three was faked in 1960's, I would still consider these to be several.

Theres roman documents sir.

We shall never know...

How is three several? And one of the sources letter was proven to be faked.

Isn't it just a brief, vague passage? Hardly enough to call proof that Jesus existed. For a man who is so amazing as to start a religion, there sure isn't much talk about him. For example, one of the people everyone seems to throw out is Tacitus. Here's all that he wrote about Jesus:

auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat

Also notice he refers to him as Christus, coming from the Greek Χριστός, meaning "the anointed". Which is a title. Not a name. Christ did not come to be synonymous with Jesus until after Tacitus wrote his works.

So, Tacitus was only mentioning that "Christianity" was based around "the anointed one" who was persecuted by Tiberius. And even then, Tacitus was not a first hand witness, he was a historian. Who probably consulted the nearest Christian on the origins of "Christianity."


Jesus didn't found Christianity.


Because there's significant proof for those figures. Don't try and make this a personal argument, Finway.


Hopefully Blyaunte will come here soon. She has some very good points.



Please list the Roman documents, sir.

Jesus's birth and death isn't accurate, but it's more closer to 0-35AD.

Most of the bible was written before Jesus's birth, so they couldn't base it on a real person.
Jesus was a conformation of Christianity, along with dying for our sins, la de da.


As I said, Jesus couldn't have founded Christianity as a majority of the bible was written before his birth.
These aren't targetted at Christians, but most christians know the bible well, so they can give a bible perspective of it.

Just to quote Blyaunte from another similar topic (the same one Emanick copy/pasted his writing from).



I have done some basic research, and there seems to be a rather large debate as to whether or not Nazareth existed when Jesus was supposed to have lived there.
This is just one point as to why Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.
There is very scarce amounts of proof as to Jesus' existence besides the bible, so who knows if he existed at all.
Hell, we don't even know for sure when he was born, if he existed at all.

That's circular reasoning, resembling much "The Bible is true because The Bible says it's true".

Apart from if Jesus was real or not there are myths about him being a black man or Jewish.

To be fair I bet he was some merchant or a fable to tell the kids. I for one don't think he existed it's a way to sell the image of Christian to other people if Jesus was a real man people can relate to him and "support the church" as it were.

Jesus is product of the best chinese whispers game, ever.

If you mean a man named Jesus yes considering Jesus was like Matt or John back then a very common name at that time. If you are referring to the belief he was god's son that is up to personal belief.

There are written records in the old roman census proving Jesus Christ was alive.
my 400th post.

No, there's not.

You mean the same census as in Luke 2? Wasn't that done when Quirinus was governor of Syria (after 6 AD) and doesn't Luke 2 say that Jesus was born while Joseph registered for the census (we don't know if Jesus was born *before* or *after*)? And didn't Herod (who died in 4 BC) order the slaughter of the innocents so that he would have killed the to-be 'King of the Jews' (Matthew 2)? Where did those ten years go?

Just to be fair here, can we find exact proof of another individual in the Roman census? Remeber, there's been A LOT of alleged messiahs in Israel, and one of them, who may or may have not been "Jesus of Nazareth", is the son of god according to Christians. Would you seriously argue that nobody in Israel was followed as a messiah some time around 30AD?

I didn't say "no Jesus existed". I was merely refuting ibleed_green's claim that there is a census that proves it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And that's pretty much what I intended by the this debate. It's not so much a debate about whether or not Jesus existed, but rather a debate about the evidence that supports Jesus' existence.

I cannot prove that Jesus never existed. I can, however, try and dispel the myth that there is a ton of evidence that Jesus existed, and that his existence can be taken as fact.

The Argument
Yeah, Jesus existed. Fact. I doubt he was a messiah though, more a town loony. He started off sarcastically telling stories about feeding a fish to 200 guys (cut it up into 200 microscopic pieces and it did more harm than good to the guys) and walking across water (puddles). However as he went along he began believing these stories and wrote his autobiography which he never finished, under the working title 'The Bible'. A bunch of friends finished it off and even wrote a handy prelude!

Some of his favourite hobbies:
-Turning water into wine (although shoving grapes in water and leaving it to ferment it for years probably doesn't count.)
-Obviously walking over water (puddles) as I said earlier
-Fishing. How was he supposed to get the microscopic fish bits?
-Smoking weed. How was he supposed to make these stories up?

Notes:
-Jesus liked going out and getting smashed every Saturday night, and Nazareth nightclubs were a favourite haunt.
-He was named after Jesus Fernandez Saez, the youngster from the famous football squad, Liverpool FC.

Disclaimer:
This post is the truth, the truth, and nothing but the truth. I'm also prepared to put my hand on the bible to prove I'm not lieing!

I believe in wizard because it's in Harry Potter which is definitely true because the original manuscripts prove Harry Potter is true. Since what was found is a book of Harry Potter itself. O.o

I'm not denying his existence, but not supporting it.

Bro, if he really did argue down religious clerics of the time at the age of 12, his weed habits are doubtful at best.

Even if Jesus did exist, all the magic stuff is purely fiction. All the "I can turn wine into water" shizzle... Come on, it has to be obvious.

This "shizzle" happens to be a 2,000 year old philosophy that governs the morals and values of billions of people in one way or another. That including me. I absolutely hate it when people make blunt statements like that without thinking of both respect and acceptance for other people's beliefs. Whilst you have every right to make your views public, bear in mind that others may not accept such views and how people feel when the foundation of their conscience and sense of reasoning is trashed in such manner.

Just some Etiquette guys. It doesn't hurt when used once and awhile.

Ah yes, Tacitus ...

Ya know, it always amuses me that people always turn to Tacitus as "the" claim of historical proof of Christ's actual existence. But let's take a closer look at our old friend Tacitus, shall we?

First of all, Tacitus was, purportedly, a historian of the late 1st Century and early 2nd Century BCE -- which means that his texts are actually being written, if one is to lead to belief they are, in fact genuine, at roughly the conveniently coincidentally same time as the early drafts of the gospels.

Which means that, at the same time that Tacitus is supposedly writing his histories, the world is wrought with these myths about this "Jesus Christ" character. Even if Tacitus actually WROTE these texts, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that:

1. It's not an eye-witness accounting of the existence of "Jesus Christ" -- it's merely a point of reference to identifying who Christians were, and what they believed in; and

(b) It's written some 90+ years after the Jesus myth has already be perpetuated around the Roman empire, containing information that most people probably already knew about Jesus.

Calling this a proof that Jesus really existed is tantamount to calling Star Trek real by referencing written account of a Trekker convention.

Thing is, and here is the interesting bit, what do we actually, really KNOW about Tacitus? Indications from his own writings are that he was an individual of merit within Rome at the time, but, oddly enough Tacitus isn't actually mentioned by any of his fellow historians as being anyone, let alone a historian of merit in his own time, except Pliny who, conveniently is ALSO one of these so-called historical references of the Jesus Christ character.

Curious, isn't it?

Curious, too, is that Tacitus' actual works weren't even discovered until around the 14th century. True - little bits of information relating to his work peek out here and there, dating back as early as the 9th century -- but for some 800 years, there is no mention of his work, and then for some 600 years thereafter the grand body of his work (of which there appears to be many omissions) remains almost entirely unknown, until it "magically" appears on the mountain tops of Monte Cassino in the 14th century.

Frankly - I find it strangely odd that people who will deny scientific examination as proof of ANYTHING, so immediately jump upon the most obviously spuriously suspicious source as proof of Jesus' existence.

Indeed -- it's almost laughable ...

It was a joke bro.

-How else do I diss religion?

Wow man ur hilarious@@@@

Thanks man. I can always count on you to tell me something whenever I need the truth.

The fact that that is my belief means it's a little insulting that you're belittling it. I labled it a joke to get less flame!!!

I would consider three several (at least by my upbringing, several is more than two). And which one is faked?


Three different sources (Josephus, Tacitis, and Pliny) all cite a man named Christ (or even go as far as saying his name is "Jesus") as the origin of the Christian religion.


So, in other words, he said this:

He mentions the annointed one, Christ, which is what Jesus' title was. Unless, of course, Jesus' name was really Eggbert or something but history decided to change it to Jesus for a cooler sounding name. Honestly, how can you keep denying this evidence?


He is the centeral figure in Christianity, it's foundations are in him.


Can you provide significant proof of them? I'm not making this personal, I'm just tired of my religion being targeted by everyone.


And some nasty personal insults as well.

And to respond to Bylaunte -- Of course Tacitus didn't witness Jesus firsthand, nobody is claiming he did. But honestly, we base some 'facts' about Julius Ceasar from a play written in the fifteenth century.

I had to edit this post, so I couldn't quote.
Josephus didn't mention Nazareth when mapping Galilee, but it doesn't mean that Nazareth didn't exist, he missed many settlements. So him missing Nazareth may be insignificant.
Nathaneael said when he heard Jesus was from Nazareth "can anything good come from Nazareth?"
Which can be taken by many to mean that it was a very insignificant village.
In fact it was, it was only home to a dozen or so families at the time of Jesus. So it's not suprising there's no archaelogical evidence from that particular time.

Do I believe the man Jesus existed?
Sure.
Do I believe he was the Messiah?
No.