Is Jesus Real Or Was He Made Up?????

Question

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?
Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred,why didn't anyone write about it?

Answer 1

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.

Answer 2

You're imagining a world then that is like this one today. Some things are the same: philosophers and such would be competing for public attention and adoration - they're not going to mention the competition, are they?

If the writers you mentioned had written about Jesus you would possibly find them in the bible on in related scriptures. Rome did a fine job of twisting the truth for the last 2,000 years. It's only about 60 years since the Nag Hamadi scriptures were found.

You may not like the fact that Jesus existed, maybe it irritates you.
The Dalai Lama is probably the most universally respected spiritual leader but do you think in 2,000 years time the public will find his writings about George Bush who is one of the most unpopular men on the planet? Not everything that get's written down survives. A lot that does was lies in the first place. Historians were paid to write history to make their paymaster happy.

....Still, yes- He was real and he scares the hell out of people now more than he did then. So much so that people are STILL saying he must have had a wife etc. etc. Are you one of those people that blames Jesus for every evil thing that mankind (especially the church) have done?

Answer 3

Jesus is cited in the historical works of Josephus and many others of the period. Just because some do not doesn't mean that none do. It also might have taken more than a few years for things to reach those people, and it would take longer for people to realize just how important the news was. Philo, Seneca, and Pliny all died within a few decades of Jesus; how old were they when they wrote those works?

As for Herod, he was a wicked man who killed hundreds. He wrote in his will that upon his death, 100 honest men were to be put to death, because he wanted people to be crying when he died. The death of a few dozen babies at most wasn't anything remarkable or out of character enough to record.

Answer 4

Not likely, this guy doesn't seem to think so:

"Jesus has no History:

No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus."

You can read the rest here:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html

Answer 5

Regardless of whether the Bible says he was real or not, I still think there was probably a traveling mystic philosopher named Jesus who inspired at least a sizeable group of people back then. But does that mean that everything the Bible says about hm is true? Absoutely not!

Of course, the Gospels in the New Testament were written years after the fact, and probably represent a distorted view of the events. The Gospels certainly don't even agree with EACH OTHER about these events, no matter what believers would like you to believe...

Answer 6

Historically, Jesus was probably seen as just another rabble-rouser. The Jewish historian Josephus does mention someone with a name similar to Jesus'. Also, Jesus wasn't originally called 'the Christ' by very many. So, the historical Jesus was probably someone seen as too insignificant as someone to take much notice of by Seneca or Pliny or many others. It's a bit much to say that the founder of a world religion was made up. Was the Buddha made up? No, I don't think so.

Answer 7

Very interesting. I didn't think about that! I mean I believe he was real because it is in history books as being a real person but what this does lead me to believe is that he wasn't as important as the bible made him out to be. Especially when it comes to the slain babies. That should have been known to other people in surrounding areas and in their history. So did the writer of that part of the bible just exaggerate?or even lie? Thank you. Very good question!

Answer 8

I have done some research and soul searching on this. I believe that Jesus was a real man, however his true message has been distorted by the "church". I believe his intention was never to be looked at as a "Son of God" diety figure, but as a teacher. I do believe he was an actual man, and I believe his brother James is the true father of the christian church.

Answer 9

it is a large question that merits a genuine answer. Horus replace into infant Jesus son of isi, (Isis being the Greek spelling with the aid of the way.) Isis replace into the godess of childrens, her potential replace into to deliver the lifeless back to existence, the myth is going, Osiris her husband gets murdered on the final friday, 3 days later isis restores him and has a newborn they call horus(infant jesus) Horus gets violent and restores order to egypt and is going back up into the heavens to connect his family. Now in case you pull that tale, you besides could get look ahead to it ... Set killed Osiris his brother! Theres extra on wiki you may examine, individually im no longer one hundred% with wiki, in spite of the shown fact that it extra or much less says the comparable element in giza so i will inform you first hand its no longer so a techniques off to be erroneous. As for jesus historians say he did exist, yet I genuinely have yet to discover a historian keen to instruct any evidence of this declare, information written whilst christianity became rampant to me do no longer count variety, you may anticipate jesus to have made a brilliant consequence, it style of feels no longer. finding on the Egyptian myths, and the story of Christians its somewhat person-friendly to be sure sparkling connections, the fundamentals are all there resurrection, jesus being a healer - nicely he healed egypt, and the be conscious kristos is anoint an early scientific term, no longer a saviour term. understanding this its just about impossible for everyone to genuinely draw the different end than christianity is in user-friendly terms a rip of the egyptian myth, and without sturdy evidence of jesus himself which has an exciting twist. The Egyptians by no potential stated all of Jesus existence, Christians didnt the two, all of us understand the story as he replace right into a newborn then he seems back as a guy, it is yet another sturdy hyperlink to the story i understand there's a co-prevalence yet what proportion till finally you genuinely see theres no longer a twist of fate theres a right away connection its the comparable tale re-worked.

Answer 10

Well, I'm not good with the very confusing historical stuff and that's because I'm only 13. I know for sure and I will never doubt that Jesus is true! Thank you to all the people who also said that he is real!!! Please believe that he is real and died for you, for me, and for everybody! He loves you and wants you to come to him. John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that who ever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. Jesus Is Love!