then how come many scholars and scientist confirm his existence. It's his resurection and ability to create miracles that is question. Even if you don't belive in the many miracles of Jesus Christ, can you at least accept the fact he existed? Or not? Please explain?
2006-12-11 12:00:41 · 22 answers · asked by oaparicio2003 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It's a very good question that deserves fair answers. The truth is that there are no contemporary literary references to Jesus or archaeological evidence of his historicity. The Gospels and Pauline epistles were written by Jesus's followers decades after his death. References to Jesus by Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus are often cited, but they were also written later and only prove that Christians believed such a person existed.
For details, read Wikipedia's "Historicity of Jesus" article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
2006-12-11 12:05:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is no evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus existing at the time he is said to have existed. No archaelogical or documentation about the guy until some 40-80 years later when the gospels were written. Much of which was written as hearsay, from other people. Most of which contradict eachother on not only small things like Joseph's father's name, but big things too.
Nope, all of the evidence points to Jesus being just another myth.
2006-12-11 20:11:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I accept that a man named Yeshua probably lived during the begining of the first century CE, that he may have preached, and even that he was probably crucified by the Romans (loads of people were). I do not think that his existence in any way proves his divinity or his ability to work miracles. There is also proof that a man may have lived who was the basis for the Arthurian myths, but I don't think that proves the magical sword in the stone, Merlin having visions, etc.
2006-12-11 20:19:41 · answer #3 · answered by N 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Existence, probably yes. But they went too far in miracles department. FYI, the gnostics (the very first christians) never accepted miracles and similar myths. One example was the gnostic Paul who doesn’t mention it, or the physical/literal resurrection, now there’s one cool gnostic who was against all the Roman nonsense that somehow managed to find its way into the new testament anyway.
2006-12-11 20:07:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't matter to me rather he existed or not.
That said there is a lack of Roman documentation backing it up. If he lived, and was executed there probably would have been. If he were really an important figure at that time, there certainly would have been. It just seems to me that if he was an historical figure, the Romans certainly were not impressed.
2006-12-11 20:14:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus definitely did exist, as did other supposed children of deities. Now whether or not they were who they claimed to be is the real question. But honestly, the chances that they were don't look good at all.
2006-12-11 20:05:41 · answer #6 · answered by jetsetradio3000 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can accept that a man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth existed.I cannot accept that he was the son of a non-existant deity.
Man made god,not the other way around
2006-12-11 20:04:58 · answer #7 · answered by rosbif 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nobody has EVER confirmed his existence, that is ridiculous. Science has proven just the opposite....that the entire concept of jesus is a complete fairytale.
2006-12-11 20:07:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't have a problem with Jesus existing and being a very wise man who had some great ideas.
I don't believe the whole "son of God and savior of mankind who died so that your sins are forgiven" idea.
2006-12-11 20:06:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Someone may have existed, but he may not have been anything like the Jesus found in the mythology.
2006-12-11 21:25:15 · answer #10 · answered by Sketch 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋