I DO NOT want any Bible freaks answering this,ONLY historians please?

Question

Can anyone show me any actual CONCRETE PROOF of Jesus' existence?OR proof that he didn't exist?Or tell me WHAT PROOF exists if any either way?Thank you.

Answer 1

There were several non-biblical references to Jesus. here's a website for you that lists them. Hope this is what you're looking for.

http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

Answer 2

this is tricky one was do you mean by contrete proof obvious jesus is not long around today so he is historical personage so you cannot meet. Hence you cannot actually see him and as he not been alive for 100 years so we cannot meet anyone who actually meet him. So we force back on historical evidence which is never concreate! This is doubly trick as this is 2000 years ago and much that existed then is now lost, but it is remarkable how much evidence we for him which is better than almost any other ancient figure. We the 4 gospel thought to be written from 60 to 100AD the acts the letters of Paul maybe 40 - 60AD. Though we are no sure all these authentic then we have mention Josephus (jewish historian )CE 75 along john the baptist, a mention for christian in suetonis and tactius (roman historican) ce 110AD Clement early letter C80Ad though I maybe I am bit out here another thing going for Christ is that fact much mancript evidence in increable early fagrement from 150AD and whole new testment from 300AD now this may not seem much but consider the earliest manscript reference julius ceasar a pretty major figure is about 1500AD the references to Jesus is classical literature by the second century become to numerous to mention but pliny the younger 115AD letter Tagian is a another good example finally there is the existance of church. Now some claim the paul more or less made this and true there is much debate about 'historical jesus but be honest this make a much sense claiming there could be lenin without a marx i.e load balomy. I hope this satified so summarise to concreate proof but hell of lot circumstancial evidence though I suspect you come skepical turn of mind keep at least an open one

Answer 3

In the words of the late Professor Joad, 'have you ever reflected on what proof is? What do you mean by a proof? And what would you accept as a proof if it was offered?'

What concrete proof have you got that the world was not created 5 seconds ago with a whole set of false memories? What concrete proof have you got that George Washington ever existed? What concrete proof have you got that slavery ever existed in the United States? You see how relative a term 'proof' is, particularly when you qualify it with another adjective, 'concrete.'

As it happens, I am a historian, my most recent book having just won the historical biography of the month award from the Good Book Guide. With regard to Jesus, there are disputed references in some versions of Josephus, but more 'concrete' evidence is shown by the earliest written versions of the Gospels, only codified some thirty years after his death, and Paul's Epistles, only codified twenty years later. There is also the fact that the very anti-Christian Roman historian Tacitus refers to 'Chrestus' as the founder of a sect called Christians. Tacitus does not like Christians at all and he is also quite rude about 'Chrestus.' He was one of the greatest historians of his time and had access to all the public records on the matter. He wrote his comments around 80 AD, only some 50 years after Jesus' death.

Whether or not Jesus was the Son of God is a matter for theologians to debate and believers or unbelievers to dispute. That he was a real person who actually preached as a Rabbi in Palestine and was crucified by the Romans is however beyond serious dispute. It is more irrational not to believe in his historical existence than to believe in it.

Answer 4

Two independent historians of the period mention Jesus - one is Josephus, a Jewish historian, and the other is Tacitus, a Roman. Neither of them were sympathetic to him and both of them were conscientious about sources. They are the principle independent evidence that Jesus was annoying both the Romans and elements of the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem. Their relevant works are available as Penguin Classics.

Jesus did exist, nobody doubts that. The problem is that the Bible is not a very reliable guide to what he actually did, or what he really believed. The gospels in the New Testament were all written after he was dead, by people who had almost certainly never known him personally, but who had either collected oral tradition about him or were copying each other. Serious Bible scholars have been agreed about this since the 19th century at least. The Jesus of the Bible is contradictory enough (since the gospels fail to agree on what he did and said); the Jesus of history is even more enigmatic. But someone of that name was preaching in Palestine at the time, attracting followers, and like many others he ended up getting crucified. The rest is more or less myth.

Answer 5

I do not specialize in this era but I have read Tacitus' annals and contrarily to popular legend. He does not mention Jesus.
I am not sure where the idea comes from, many people always point to Tacitus when speaking of Jesus. But there is no actual mention of the man. Josephus mentions a Jesus, but the only thing he says about him is that he has a brother James. Jesus was a popular name in those days.
I can also vouch that neither Suetonius nor Pliny mention him.
What is interesting is that Justus a famous historian in the area did not mention Jesus either. That of course does not prove that Jesus did not exist. However it is surprising that he does not taking into consideration where he lived and how famous Jesus was supposed to be in the area. One would have expected that them to meet.

None of this proves anything of course. Those were only a few of the main historians. We must have also lost a lot of the written records of the time.
However I would guess that there was no record of him anywhere. Otherwise people who tried and try now to prove his existence would not try to use the names of historians who have not written about him, they would instead mention real sources.

Answer 6

Oh for goodness sake. Let's look for proof of the existence of Jesus but without mentioning the Bible? The Gospels are documentary proof of the existence of Jesus. Josephus, the Jewish/Roman historian who recorded the destruction of Jerusalem recorded the existence of Christians too and recorded their beliefs. The fact that the church ever came about is proof of the existence of Jesus. You can argue about whether he was a misguided lunatic but it's simply madness to suggest that he didn't exist. Consider, for example, The Conquest of Gaul. The only evidence that exists for Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain in 55BC is in that book - and he wrote it himself. But the invasion is simply accepted as a historical fact - on his say so!
The story behind the foundation of the Christian Church is mad enough. If you were planning on starting a world movement, you would probably try to come up with a better tale than that but why on earth would you start with imagining a bloke who didn't exist in the first place?

Answer 7

Are you looking for concrete proof the Jesus existed as a person or as the Son of God?

Historically it is likely that Jesus was a real walking talking person. Take a look at Laurence Gardner's 'The Magdalene Legacy' or 'The Bloodline of the Holy Grail' for his anaylsis of the histroical evidence in the bible. Basically he argues that Jesus existed as a mortal and had on hell of a PR and Publicity Machine that deliberatly presented him as the Saviour and the Son of God. 'Holy Blood Holy Grail' is also another good one to look at (well the last couple of chapters any way) I am not a bible freak or a conspiracy buff, just a person with a real interest in Ancient History.

As for Chirst as the Son of God? That is a matter of Faith and Belief. And as for the Turin shroud as proof? That has not even been confirmed as being of the same period. Never forget that the Gospels were edited as soon as they were written and not one of them is contemporary.

Answer 8

Jesus most likely did not exist. You said do not use the bible but I think that offers some of the best proofs. The first apostles wrote of Jesus as more of a spiritual entity instead of a physical being. This along with the fact that religions with the same types of saviour figures where abundant at the time, Mythraism being a prime example (and much older). Furthermore, no first hand witness evidence at all of his existence. So, evidence against it, starts adding up. You cant say for sure but without any proof it's better just to believe the most likely fact that he was invented by the religion.

Answer 9

Here you go mate:

Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.

Here som more info:

Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead!

i hope that this helps

Answer 10

For my degree i specialised in the Dead Sea Scrolls and early Christianity, and there is proof for the existance of a historical prophet called Jesus. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus refers to him (although the text has been greatly embellished by later christian monks, the reference itself is probably original). What's interesting is that in this period of time numerous prophets cropped up (in this respect Jesus was nothing unusual), and one of these (who Josephus seems to see as far more important than Jesus, devoting far much more space to) was also John the Baptist.

In short, there is evidence for a 'historical' Jesus (who must have commanded great charisma judging from the fervour of his disciples), but of course the 'spiritual' Jesus of the gospels is a matter of belief, although many historians, Jewish, Christian and atheist, have acknowledged such a figure probably existed. There's no adequate reason to suppose such a figure did not exist.

By the way, the idea that the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to Jesus is complete bull, spread by so-called 'historians' out to make money through conspiracy theories. The scrolls never refer to anyone called 'Jesus' or who could be identified as him, quite blatantly reflect a Jewish community, not a proto-Christian one and time-wise don't fit in with the period of Jesus' ministry. They cannot be used as evidence for the existance of Jesus.

Answer 11

The best evidence outside of the Bible for the existence of Jesus Christ can be found in the writings of both Josephus and Pliny the Younger which clearly make numerous references to a man called Jesus.

Flavius Josephus (37-100AD) was a 1st century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.

Pliny the Younger (63-113AD), was a lawyer, an author and a natural philosopher of Ancient Rome.