Do you believe Jesus walked this earth?

Question

Do you believe Jesus was the Son Of The Living God?, A great prophet?, or just a figment of our imagination?
Please explain...

Preferably, I'd like you to pick one of the three choices, and explain why...

Do any non-christians believe that Jesus lived, not necessarily as the son of God, but just lived?

Answer 1

there is no doubt whatsoever among educated circles as to the historic existence of Jesus. as to your other questions, the best way to find out is to study his life, and what he said concerning himself.

ps. there are numerous historical references to jesus as a real person in real time - by non-christian historians. tacitus and josephus among them. it is simple-minded to the point of retardation to even attempt to discredit his historical existence - regardless of your stance on his divinity. please educate yourselves! jeez i am sick of rehashing this tired assertation by uninformed hacks! even when i was an avowed atheist, i was smart enough not to give credence to such a silly idea. but here - just to put a lid on all this tired old crapola...sometimes i wish i were still an atheist, just so i could post this stuff and not hear the tired old saw about what a "partisan" i am. trust me...if i could have disproven jesus historically, i would have done so. it is terribly inconvienient for me to be a believer - sort of put the kibosh on all my suicide plans. so by all means...try to prove me wrong...it will make me happy if you do. read up!


The Bible is historically accurate and authentic. But, if you want evidence outside the Scriptures:

Extrabiblical, Non-Christian Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d.
[Last update: 4/2/96...minor update in Dec/02]

The question often comes up as to "are there ANY evidence of or references to the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth OUTSIDE OF THE NT?" I plan to discuss the other possible witnessess to Jesus' existence in the first two centuries of the Christian Era. These vary in their historical trustworthiness, but are worthy of our examination. I will try to deal with ALL of the commonly advanced instances, but want to raise one or two others that are not commonly discussed (e.g. Celsus, Galen).

From a historiography standpoint, this is mostly an 'academic' exercise, since the 'existence' of Jesus of Nazareth could easily be established with only a tiny fraction of our New Testament documents. The mere existence of someone in history is (often) easily established on the basis of small textual samples (sometimes even single paragraphs). The amount of data (especially historically 'incidental') we have about Jesus in the New Testament--and the appearances that the authors were not collusive--gives us a very, very high level of assurance in this matter.

Again, professional and academic scholars of the period -- Christian, Jewish, Secular -- accept the New Testament as an adequate witness, both for historical 'existence' and for many pieces of historical detail about Jesus.

I should also mention at the outset that, in spite of the sporadic complaints on the Internet about the matter(!), the manuscript evidence in support of the iron-clad, "pre-accretions" reference to Jesus in Jospehus is strong, stable, and accepted by the mass of professional historians. Between the NT and Jospheus, there is no serious reason whatsover to doubt the historical 'existence' of the Jesus of Nazareth behind those references.

The internet debate about this subject (generally NOT participated in by the more historically-informed skeptics and Christians) is a very peculiar phenomenon. Graham Stanton is a New Testament scholar of a 'moderate' position. In the most recent edition of his excellent "The Gospels and Jesus" (Oxford:2002), Professor Stanton includes this section commenting on the debate [GAJ2, 143-145]:

"Many readers will be surprised to learn that the very existence of Jesus has been challenged. From time to time since the eighteenth century a number of writers have claimed that our gospels were written C. AD 100 (or later) and that only then did the early Christians 'invent' Jesus as a historical person. During the communist era Soviet encyclopaedias and reference books consistently made that claim. In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet.

"The most thoroughgoing and sophisticated statement of this theory has been set out in five books by G. A. Wells; the most recent is The Jesus Legend (1996). His case is quite simple: until the beginning of the second century AD Christians worshipped Jesus as a mythical 'Saviour' figure; only at that point did they make their 'Saviour' a historical person who lived and taught in Galilee.

"This intriguing theory rests on several pillars, all of which are shaky. Nonetheless it is worth taking it seriously, for it raises important issues for the student of the gospels.

"Wells argues that before C. AD 150 there is no independent non-Christian evidence for the existence of Jesus. The slender Jewish and pagan references to Jesus all echo Christian insistence that Jesus died under Pontius Pilate-and Christians began to make this claim only at the end of the first century. Why did Roman writers such as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny say hardly-anything about Jesus and his followers? As Wells himself concedes, from their point of view Jesus and earliest Christianity were no more important than the many other charismatic religious leaders and movements which were two a penny all over the Roman empire-and Palestine was a remote corner of the empire!

"Wells stresses that in the earlier New Testament letters there is a strange silence about the life of Jesus and his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. Wells notes (correctly) that the very earliest Christian credal statements and hymns quoted by Paul in his letters in the 50s do not mention either the crucifixion or Pilate, or in fact any events in the life of Jesus. But as every student of ancient history is aware, it is an elementary error to suppose that the unmentioned did not exist or was not accepted. Precise historical and chronological references are few and far between in the numerous Jewish writings discovered in the caves around the Dead Sea near Qumran. So we should hardlyexpect to find such references in very terse early creeds or hymns, or even in letters sent by Paul to individual Christian communities to deal with particular problems.

"Wells claims that the four gospels were written C. AD 100 and that the evangelists largely invented their traditions about the life of Jesus. But by this date Christianity was flourishing in many parts of the Roman Empire: it had hardly survived at all in Palestine and the four gospels were almost certainly not written there. If, as Wells claims, they were largely invented in a Roman and Hellenistic cultural setting, it becomes much harder than he supposes to account for the numerous details, many of which are purely incidental to the purposes of the evangelists, which do fit into our knowledge of first-century Palestine.

"As we have stressed repeatedly in the preceding chapters, traditions about Jesus were preserved and to a certain extent modified in the light of the convictions about his significance held by his followers in the period after Easter. But indications of modification do not (as Wells supposes) necessarily imply invention. If the gospel traditions were invented about AD 100 why is it far from easy (with the exception of John's gospel) to find in them traces of the convictions, emphases, and problems of the Christians of that period?

"Why would proclamation of Jesus as a historical person assist Christian evangelism more than proclamation of a mythical figure? If the historical existence of Jesus was invented only in about AD 100, why was it necessary to create so many detailed traditions?

"We have a good deal of information about the polemical and often bitter arguments Christians, Jews, and pagans had with one another in the early centuries. But the early Christians' opponents all accepted that Jesus existed, taught, had disciples, worked miracles, and was put to death on a Roman cross. As in our own day, debate and disagreement centred largely not on the story but on the significance of Jesus.

"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second-century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

(Also, it should be noted that I am MERELY dealing with the issue of evidences for Jesus' EXISTENCE--NOT for his character, words, deeds, etc.)

Introduction

Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). There are also sources (non-historians) writing about the Christians, in which possible mentions are made (e.g., Lucian, Galen).

Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus (discussed below), even though the main section in Tacitus covering the period 29-32ad is missing from the manuscript tradition. If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!).

Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.

In addition, there are three OTHER candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger) , one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus). [We can also include here the writings of Celsus, Galen, Lucian]

I would like to take these in probable historical order.

* (First, a methodological note about the issue of 'independent sources')

* Thallus (c. 50-75ad) [4/2/96]

* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93) [The best current discussion on this passage is in a skeptical piece by my friend Jeff Lowder.]


Let me also just mention something about the Josephus issue. Every now an then I get an email about someone abjectly 'dismissing' the data from Josephus, without even interacting with the data and the positions of solid scholars. This is inappropriate. By far and away, the bulk of modern scholarship accepts that Josephus makes two independent references to Jesus--to argue otherwise requires the objector to dismantle the historical consensus, and this requires argumentation instead of simple assertion (and disallowance of Josephus as a witness!). One of the leading scholars, translators, and commentators on Josephus is Steve Mason. In his book on Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson:1992), he discusses the two references to Jesus in Josephus' writings, and concludes that "if it were needed", they would provide independent testimony to the existence of Jesus. He writes:


"Taking all of these problems into consideration, a few scholars have argued that the entire passage (the testimonium) as it stands in Josephus is a Christian forgery. The Christian scribes who copied the Jewish historian's writings thought it intolerable that he should have said nothing about Jesus and spliced the paragraph in where it might logically have stood, in Josephus' account of Pilate's tenure. Some scholars have suggested that Eusebius himself was the forger, since he was the first to produce the passage…Most critics, however, have been reluctant to go so far. They have noted that, in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts. Nowhere else in all of Josephus' voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering. Christian copyists also transmitted the works of Philo, who said many things that might be elaborated in a Christian direction, but there is no evidence that in hundreds of years of transmission, the scribes inserted their own remarks into Philo's text. To be sure, many of the "pseudepigrapha" that exist now only in Christian form are thought to stem from Jewish originals, but in this instance it may reflect the thorough Christian rewriting of Jewish models, rather than scribal insertions. That discussion is ongoing among scholars. But in the cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity." (p.170-171)
"Finally, the existence of alternative versions of the testimonium has encouraged many scholars to think that Josephus must have written something close to what we find in them, which was later edited by Christian hands. if the laudatory version in Eusebius and our text of Josephus were the free creation of Christian scribes, who then created the more restrained versions found in Jerome, Agapius, and Michael? The version of Agapius is especially noteworthy because it eliminates, though perhaps too neatly, all of the major difficulties in the standard text of Josephus. (a) It is not reluctant to call Jesus a man. (b) It contains no reference to Jesus' miracles. (c) It has Pilate execute Jesus at his own discretion. (d) It presents Jesus' appearance after death as merely reported by the disciples, not as fact. (e) It has Josephus wonder about Jesus' messiahship, without explicit affirmation. And (f) it claims only that the prophets spoke about "the Messiah," whoever he might be, not that they spoke about Jesus. That shift also explains sufficiently the otherwise puzzling term "Messiah" for Josephus' readers. In short, Agapius' version of the testimonium sounds like something that a Jewish observer of the late first century could have written about Jesus and his followers." (p.172)
"It would be unwise, therefore, to lean heavily on Josephus' statements about Jesus' healing and teaching activity, or the circumstances of his trial. Nevertheless, since most of those who know the evidence agree that he said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed. But that much is already given in Josephus' reference to James (Ant. 20.200) and most historians agree that Jesus' existence is the only adequate explanation of the many independent traditions among the NT writings." (p.174f)


* Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110)
* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)
* A fragment of Tacitus, with implications for the existence of the "Nazarene"
* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)
* Lucian (mid-2nd century)
* Galen (c.150; De pulsuum differentiis 2.4; 3.3)
* Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).
* Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)
* Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)

There are other references to "Christians" in this period, but I am not concerned with those--although some would offer supporting evidence for someone named 'Christ'. For example, Marcus Aurelius (Meditations 11.3) calls the believers 'Christians', but Epictetus (Discourses 4.7.6) calls them "Galileans".

Source(s):

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesus...

Answer 2

I am not by any means religious... I have never been to church (except for a wedding) and I don't practise any sort of praying and such.

However... I still hold my own opinion...

I think that Jesus was a man who lived long ago... and simply had an idea of how to make your life better. Much like many of the books that are out there today telling you how to better your life. I certainly don't think he wrote the bible or had anything to do with it... but had something like the 10 commandments to follow by.

I do not think there was a prophet or a god or the like and I do not think that Jesus was a messenger of any of these people... just a guy with an idea!

Like any story or event.. it gets built up over time and the facts of what *really* happened are lost... the facts of one event can change an awful lot in a matter of weeks... and look how many rumours there are going around all the time about different people... Imagine how many things about a person could be changed over thousands of years?

Answer 3

I believe Jesus is God. You said, "Son Of The Living God" which is more in line with the non-Christian Unitarian teaching that Jesus was not God but the "son", a seperate being. Jesus was the human incarntation of God.

As for being a figment of someone's imagination there are a good number of texts referencing Jesus Christ, some of His Apostles, and various other events portrayed in the Bible.

A good online source, with references to locate the actual documents in Antiquities is here: http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

You may notice the reference to something called the "Talmud", which was a compilation of the the Mishnah and other legal texts during Roman rule of Isreal and the surrounding area. It says someone named Jesus was executed for enticing other Jews to apostasy (or, idolatry) which is exactly what the Pharisees had Him condemned for.

I think that's a substainsal evidence, that not only was the event recorded historically but legal records!

As for Christ being, well, Christ this is something I believe with every fiber of being. The Bible proves itself true by being entirely consistant in Canon: History and Prophecy for beginning to end. As for prophecy, if you look at the Old Testament many, many things were prophecied then took place 80-300 years later from the time of the writing from one text to the other.

Answer 4

Jessu wa really teh Son of the living God. God was the one that filled a Mary to be pregnant and He did it with the Holy Spirit. So don't u think that God did this so that ht babay would end up becoming Him in His image. Jesus is God in the flesh/ human form. Like how the Holy Spirit is God in Spirit form. Poeple didn't blieve it but He really walked this Earth and ministerd where God lead Him. How was He able to do thsoe miracles without God's help? He was by God's side for the whole time so that was why God was on His side and alwasy helped Him toescape whenever there wasa time when He was gonna get stoned for what Hew as aying. God alwasy got Himt o escape just beofre they threw the rocks. God tole Jesus that it was not the time yet for Him to die for us. So that is why everytime (if u read the four Gospels) that Jesus alwasy just by like one second esaped a stoning.

Answer 5

I most certainly do believe Jesus walked on this earth, as the Son of a living God and a virgin mother. Jesus, Himself, was not a prophet. He came to fullfill the prophecies that had been made and no, He is not a figment of the imagination. There were too many witnesses to dispute Him. I have accepted Him as my Lord and Savior.

Answer 6

You have so many answers I almost hate chiming in still there is a piece of evidence that you should consider. It's not the Bible but the historian Josephus. I hope this helps Jim

In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account:


About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

Answer 7

No, i think of the Jesus Christians have faith in is principally a fable. There might have been a guy that the fairly some thoughts are based on, yet as such a brilliant number of of the thoughts have been edited out interior the 4th century (somewhat the Gnostic gospels) that is hard to be attentive to what may well be based on actuality and what's sheer fabrication. The middle of Christianity: virgin start, crucifixion and resurrection bears so remarkable a resemblance to different myths around at that element interior the Mediterranean area that i think of they are completely fictional.

Answer 8

It's pretty likely that there was a guy named jesus who actually lived. He's referred to (although briefly and in no way that backs up the bible stories other than being crucified) in the works of a roman historian, so he was probably a real person.
In all likelihood, he was a kind person, a good teacher, a pacifist who was bucking the trend of jewish rebellion against the romans, and a peace-loving person. All the divine, son-of-god, prophet stuff was made up after he died by the followers let down by the fact that he didn't deliver them as the messiah was supposed to do, and so they could have their own religion apart from the jews based very loosely on his teachings.

Answer 9

There is all kinds of evidence aside from the Bible that Jesus actually did indeed walk on this earth. Although I was raised a catholic I have always struggled with the role Jesus played. Was he real? yes Was he very wise? yes Was he the son of God? yes he was, and what he said was that we are all children of god. So how this elevated him to be the only recognized child of god is something that I do have to question, because wouldn't that be in conflict to what Jesus actually believed?

Answer 10

Yes, I believe Jesus walked this earth as a real man, and was probably even crucified for being a rebel. I DO NOT believe he is literally a God--maybe a prophet, but more likely a great cult leader, and probably a really good guy.

-A Pagan

Answer 11

Just a lie told by liars. Why? Well the writers of his story can't agree on the facts. So many contradictions.They also took their sweet time in writing the story, conveniently after all that could refute the story were long dead.
Also there are many similar mythological stories that existed before Jesus supposedly walked this earth.
Men believe what they want to, just look at this site for overwhelming evidence of that.
And.
What is more likely? That nature acted against its own rules (definition of a miracle) or men lied?
You decide.