In searching for Truth and to complete an un-doubtful series of proves of Christianity's initiators, I need solid proves of the existence of Jesus. Till now, after several years of research, I have not found one, thus I am addressing to you this question; you are my last resource! Thank you!
2006-06-07 23:42:42 · 5 answers · asked by soubassakis 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
What do you regard as proof?
Written material:
To my knowledge, there are no Roman reports on death sentences in Palestine from the period. Neither tax records.
Not quite contemporary reports survived as the various gospels, only four of which made it through the scrutiny of the Nicean Council in the 4th century. Textual analysis of the oldest of these might help give clues, though no solid evidence. Look for gospels of non-orthodox, eastern christians, e.g. koptic ones.
Archaeological evidence:
None decisive. Finding the body sort of would contradict the gospels, too. The Turin cloth appears to be of later origin, so does the lance in the Habsburg regalia.
2006-06-07 23:57:05 · answer #1 · answered by jorganos 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you are a historian, as I certainly am then I am very surprised you are looking for 'solid [proof]' of the existence of Jesus. If you have in fact been studying the subject for several years and have read high quality articles on the subject, then you will know that there is a very high likelihood that he was a real man. Contemporary Christian sources sited are the original gospels of Mark, Mattew and Luke. If you're looking for Non Christian sources then try The Letters of Herod and Pilate, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus.
Ps People take a Historian a lot more seriously if they can spell and don't use Yahoo answers as anything more than homework help. I look up my own primary sources and handle the originals, however ancient and valuable. I'd advise you to do the same if you are what you say you are.
2006-06-09 10:59:34 · answer #2 · answered by samanthajanecaroline 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Romans were usually very good record keepers, however on this one they have let us down. We can only assume his, (Jesus that is), existence. There are several alternative sources other than the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls for one. We are unfortunately stuck with a translation of the codex of the Gospels by St Jerome, who worked for the Holy Roman Empire (East), a good man in a lot of ways, but he had a christian spin on events, so he would argue in favour of existence. The Bible also contains a lot of Roman propaganda, the victors view of History if you like. So unfortunately between the Romans and St Jerome we are left with supposition, speculation and half truth.
2006-06-08 00:38:05 · answer #3 · answered by djoldgeezer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The preponderance of the evidence seems to indicate that Jesus actually existed. What his significance was and who he was are still being debated, but I think most scholars would agree that he existed.
Several people who claim to have known Jesus directly or indirectly are known to have existed.
Here is one example: Paul definitely existed. Paul wrote of meeting Peter who claimed to have known Jesus personally. Incidentally Galatians is one of the the letters of Paul "universally accepted as authentic". (See citation below).
So if Jesus did not exist at all that means Peter, Stephen, and other disciples let themselves be martyred for someone whose existence they made up, which would be absurd.
I don't think even a madman would let themselves be martyred for someone they knew to be a fictional character.
2006-06-08 05:10:20 · answer #4 · answered by at_window 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as far as I know, his name appears on a roman census. (remember, that's why Jozef and Maria had to go to Bethlehem...)
2006-06-08 17:16:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋