Proof that Jesus existed.

reply to post by The Endtime Warrior


I'm sorry Endtime , but I feel I need to comment on the following.

They are far more intelligent and have spent more time in schools than you did.
For the same reason people who do not understand science shouldn't be debating it is the same reason that people who don't understand ancient history should not talk ignorantly of things they do not understand.

It's a big assumption to say "they spend more time in school " Even bigger regarding intelligence. Especially because an expertise does not make one intelligent, and the lack of it does not make one stupid or less intelligent... At all.

If one does not understand something, how can the develop an interest and learn to understand when they should not debate about it ?
I do agree one should not act narrow minded and accept an experts opinion.

We are trying to deny ignorance here, it doesn't hurt to look in a mirror once in a while...No offense.

Erm a 3000+ page book (something like that).(the bible) was pretty much dedicated to him! lol nobody put that much effort into harry potter....

reply to post by TedHodgson


Tell me more, where is the proof in the bible that Jesus existed?

reply to post by NonKonphormist


Heh, I love these sorts of threads, but doesn't this belong in Conspiracies in Religion? 2 billion people worshiping a purely fictional character would be kind of a big conspiracy.

Anyway, to address the thread:

I'll nip anyone who said "There's more evidence for Jesus than Caesar" in the bud, we have writings in Caesar's hand and coins that bear his likeness that are contemporaneous.

As for Jesus, we have no account of him that is contemporaneous, and the earliest account of him is 70 AD. He supposedly died in 25-35 AD, which makes that account 35-45 years late.

reply to post by NonKonphormist


I've studied a tad into this. And the fact is that -using the same methods we use to decide if other historical figures around jesus' time period that were not royalty , etc, existed- its pretty safe to assume the guy existed, regardless of his divinity. People who ask for proof should be more specific about what 'proof' they're looking for.

1.The immediacy of the growing christian cult
2. The lack of an argument against the growing cult on the grounds that 'he never existed' which would have been the easiest argument to make, and even record- yet none exist. This argument is especially salient in light of the factions in judaism at the time, which pitted sect against sect often.
3. Writings by the non-christian historian Josephus in his works on the Jews
4.The prevalence of men like Jesus who we accept as 'existing' with no greater evidence then the evidence we have for jesus
5. Jewish sources that expound a little more on the missing elements of the trial of Jesus, and what they believe he was tried for.

All of these things are facts, and for a guy who lived 2000 years ago, they're pretty good evidence of his existence. Nobody would have or could have taken the guy's picture. Extensive records weren't kept back then, at least not available to us. All and all the case is pretty good. His divinity is another matter, but as far as his existence, there's far more reason to believe in it then to doubt it.

Jesus' ministry was short lived. He was not rich, and he preached mostly to the kind of people who would be illiterate. There are not works in his hand or images of him, because, first, he didn't teach through writing, and second, until his supposed death and resurrection, there was nothing particularly remarkable about Jesus in that time or place.

One thing's for certain, the immediate growth of the religion following his death, with no corresponding records of arguments being made his non-existence (in that political/religous environment), is about as contemporaneous as you get for a person who lived the life Jesus allegedly lived. Again, there's more reason to believe then to doubt. There's much better arguments to be made against religion then "this person, who probably existed didn't exist!! doesn't that p*** you off? na na na na na na."

But anything can be doubted if the doubter wants to doubt.

Theres more proof Jesus existed then there is of shakespear existing.

Originally posted by FermiFlux

Originally posted by faceoff85
reply to post by NonKonphormist

 

Isn't the proof of Jesus existing as good as any other historical figure having existed? There are NO eyewitness reports on ANYTHING dating back more then a hundred years. I can guess where this thread is going but unless you've SEEN Adolf Hitler, what can make you believe the man is real? Historical written works are the only way to go for our current generation.
What happens is that humans tend to accept whatever seems plausible and reject anything that seems farfetched or doesn't fit into their view of reality.

NOBODY can convince you that Jesus exists. You've already made up your mind on that. Just like you've already accepted that Adolf Hitler DID exist.

Well we've actually got pics and videos of Hitler

But works on Hitler were not written long after he died, unlike Jesus.

The first works on Jesus were written within 20 years of his death. Now, by today's standards that is extemly slow. But, that was probably pretty common for poor people over two thousand years ago.

Also, there are several independent historians of the era that talk about Jesus. These records do not state that Jesus was divine, and not all of them can be themselves be verified, but the evidence that a man named Jesus did exsist is overwhelming.

Almost no historian or scientist question his exsistance, they only question his divinity.

Here are a few links you may find interesting

books.google.com... FouIbs&hl=en&ei=bb_qTJXGDIP7lwft7pjGCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

dmc.members.sonic.net...

I'll give you a very simple "proof" that Jesus did in fact, exist. - That proof is time itself.

"Dictionary definition : A.D.

An abbreviation used with a date, indicating how many years have passed since the birth of Jesus. The abbreviation may appear before the date (a.d. 1988), or it may appear after the date (1988 a.d.). It stands for anno Domini, a Latin phrase meaning “in the year of our Lord.”"

So - In other words, to relate to your thread, since the beginning of our calender - when it was decided to start counting the years they (The Romans) have based the starting point from the birth of Jesus. - If Jesus did not indeed exist - there would be people saying, "Emm, hang on a minute - We're counting from the birth of who?" - and it would not have been accepted - but it HAS been accepted - so therefore - Jesus must have existed.

For the record, I'm agnostic.

reply to post by faceoff85


well there is video footage available of hitler.....theres no video evidence of jesus.

reply to post by russ212


there were probably many people called jesus in that time....was and still is a popular name. so really that proves nothing.

reply to post by russ212


20 years is 20 years by anyone's standard, and correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the people that wrote about him actually knew him?

reply to post by TedHodgson


harry potter got 6 books written about him

reply to post by NonKonphormist


Fine, I am correcting you, you are wrong. Matthew, Mark, John, and Peter wrote about Jesus and knew him. And the reason I say 20 years, is how long did it take to write an entire book by hand.

I also state that 20 years was different because we are guessing about dates that were not accurately kept over 2000 years ago. Sure the rich and elite had great calenders, but did the poor people. From what I understand people in America did not know how old they were only 200 years ago.

The poor back then probably had the same problems. So maybe it was written the day it happened, we just don't know. It is like guessing dinosaurs lived 500 million years ago, give or take a few hundred thousand years.

Originally posted by anonymousanonymous
I'll give you a very simple "proof" that Jesus did in fact, exist. - That proof is time itself.

"Dictionary definition : A.D.

An abbreviation used with a date, indicating how many years have passed since the birth of Jesus. The abbreviation may appear before the date (a.d. 1988), or it may appear after the date (1988 a.d.). It stands for anno Domini, a Latin phrase meaning “in the year of our Lord.”"

So - In other words, to relate to your thread, since the beginning of our calender - when it was decided to start counting the years they (The Romans) have based the starting point from the birth of Jesus. - If Jesus did not indeed exist - there would be people saying, "Emm, hang on a minute - We're counting from the birth of who?" - and it would not have been accepted - but it HAS been accepted - so therefore - Jesus must have existed.

For the record, I'm agnostic.

For the record, you're a something

The gregorian calender started in 1582 and is a bit more complex than your description.

reply to post by NWOnoworldorder


Actually, it proves a lot. There were a lot of people named Jesus, but how many of them lived a life similar to the one described in the bible.

(some people just refuse to believe the sky is blue)

This thread is not whether he was divine, but whether someone with that name lived, and whether or not Christianity can be attributed to that person.

And yes, someone did, and yes they can. It is like saying dinosaurs didn't exsist.

A great wisdom book where jesus is mentioned is the Kolbrin bible. In it he is portrayed as a man like you and me, instead of a guy who rose from the dead etc. The book is a great read with some interesting things in it and I recommend it to anybody. Unlike the bible it is a more logical explanation of the ancients without the god told me to do this and that with it.

Originally posted by russ212
reply to post by NonKonphormist

 

Fine, I am correcting you, you are wrong. Matthew, Mark, John, and Peter wrote about Jesus and knew him. And the reason I say 20 years, is how long did it take to write an entire book by hand.

I also state that 20 years was different because we are guessing about dates that were not accurately kept over 2000 years ago. Sure the rich and elite had great calenders, but did the poor people. From what I understand people in America did not know how old they were only 200 years ago.

The poor back then probably had the same problems. So maybe it was written the day it happened, we just don't know. It is like guessing dinosaurs lived 500 million years ago, give or take a few hundred thousand years.

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existed during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels, 1995]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider that the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and very few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occurred at about the same time as the alleged Jesus, and wrote their gospels in their old age, that would put Mark at least 70 years old, and John at over 110.

www.nobeliefs.com...

as far as physical evidence goes there are several sets of footprints made by Him when He carried the cross to His death. the weight of the cross and His body weight made His feet sink into the soft clay and was preseved. there is one set in rome and one in jerusalem.
there are also splinters of the actual crucifix said to be tainted with blood dna.
now depending on who you believe, he was switched with another man before his death and is said to have fathered children with mary magdeline and has a bloodline to this day.

and as for the shroud of turin, after 3 dna tests and carbon testing its not even close to 1 A.D.

footprints are from wiki
cross fragments are here:www.rosaryworkshop.com...
bloodline is researched by dan brown
shroud of turin is wiki

reply to post by colonelblake


How could anyone know who's footprints they were, and how can anyone prove a DNA sample if you don't have the original to reference it against.?

Originally posted by NonKonphormist

Originally posted by anonymousanonymous
I'll give you a very simple "proof" that Jesus did in fact, exist. - That proof is time itself.

"Dictionary definition : A.D.

An abbreviation used with a date, indicating how many years have passed since the birth of Jesus. The abbreviation may appear before the date (a.d. 1988), or it may appear after the date (1988 a.d.). It stands for anno Domini, a Latin phrase meaning “in the year of our Lord.”"

So - In other words, to relate to your thread, since the beginning of our calender - when it was decided to start counting the years they (The Romans) have based the starting point from the birth of Jesus. - If Jesus did not indeed exist - there would be people saying, "Emm, hang on a minute - We're counting from the birth of who?" - and it would not have been accepted - but it HAS been accepted - so therefore - Jesus must have existed.

For the record, I'm agnostic.

For the record, you're a something

The gregorian calender started in 1582 and is a bit more complex than your description.

So did they just pluck 1582 out of thin air?

Ah yes, I see, they all sat around a table and said.. "Right throw some numbers at me guys! Yeah!! Yeahhh!! THAT'S IT!! YEAH!! 1390!! 2479!!! Ohh yeahh.. 1582!! Yeah, that sounds good, we'll start at 1582 baby!"