What's the historical consensus on whether Jesus ever actually existed?

Question

I remember my high school textbook saying he "did exist," my college textbook saying he "may not have," and recently I've seen some people saying there is a lot of evidence that he never existed -- like missing records for him in Rome.

MyPreshus: My squirrel isn't bleeding. He's rolling around in a daze. See the bigger picture on my 360.

Answer 1

The vast vast vast majority of historical scholars say that he probably did exist. In fact, most of them don't even say "probably" they just say, "he did exist."

Answer 2

Evidence works both ways. Most of the NT can be linked to the Roman era, in "The Christian Movement." And I think there is one record of Christ accepting money (Although I will point out it wasn't nothing more than loose change. No large amount.) I personally think that it's hard to acknowledge somebody who captured the then known world with mere words of wisdom instead of a sword. 1) The history has implications of a "divine being," which is glaring. Not just a teacher, nor philosopher. 2) The message that Christ himself was preaching. It sort of puts an odd "Break" in that point of world history.

Answer 3

Actually, credible historical evidence is completely lacking. Despite Christians' saying there is "ample evidence" the fact is that is just not true. Tacitus, Josephus and other "contemporary" references are questionable at best and most likely forgeries. Contemporary Jews, who documented everything important, completely fail to mention Jesus. Would he not have been important, as a heretic if nothing else? But there is no record of his existence.

The fact that there was a sect of "Christians" does not prove the existence of an historical person with supernatural qualities any more than the cult of Dionysus proves that an actual god named Dionysus existed. Many mystery cults existed at that time in Roman history and Christianity had many parallells to those religions, although with a uniquely Jewish flavor.

The God Who Wasn't There is a pretty good introduction, although not very rigorously academic. See the link below for a very good analysis of the evidence (or you can buy the book if you don't want to read it online). Also see the apocryphal books (link below) for more stories - I think they help put the Jesus fiction in context. I also recommend reading "The Jesus Mysteries," "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man," and Ehrman's books.

Answer 4

Rome did not keep "records" on every individual in the Empire. Absence of evidence is not proof of non-existence. On the other hand, those historians who mention Jesus are nearly all talking about the undeniable existence of Christians, not of Jesus.

Those few who provide any brief account of Jesus himself either are quoting the claims of Christians (Fact-checking didn't exist back then.) or their accounts show signs of editing, most likely by Christians. So there is simply no unimpeachable proof for the existence of Jesus, or against. He could have been apotheosed by his devoted followers after his death, or he could have been manufactured out of whole cloth by secular Jewish intellectuals.

Or he could have been just what his followers say he was. No help from history.

Answer 5

Why would there be records of him in Rome? Only one undeniable fact EXISTS which says that Jesus was not a figment of someone's imagination. Would a person that did not "exist" command over 220 authors to write about him? At the Council of Nicea, it is what the Catholic Bishops had to sift through to come up with the "few" books you read in the New Testament. Not even "fiction" writers re-iterate an imaginary story as much as there was written about the man called Yezua/Yeshua (Jesus) YET to this day many deny this person EXISTED. Look at Hollywood and all they produce when it comes to movies which we know to be untrue. At the most in 50 years they have probably redone certain movies at most 3-4 times each time different than the last. In 50 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified, let's say his apostles at least wrote one book, Paul some others, Nicodemus yet more, not to mention many others who did too. Of someone who did not "exist?" If he DIDN'T it was one hell of a POPULAR story that so many had to write about, YET of all of them NONE tryed to "improve" on the other. Kind of ODD don't you think>>>>?

Answer 6

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

"No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings."

---

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html

---

"Was Jesus a xerox copy of one particular Pagan God? When Paul and Mark and John sat down to write about Jesus, did they have the Revised Standard Edition of The Gospel of the Pagan Gods open on the table? The answer is No. Of course not. Don't be silly.

"What Paul, Mark, John, and the other early Christians had wasn't on their tables, it was in their heads. What they had were the same general notions of divinity, and cosmology and humanity, and how those things worked together, that everyone had back then. They knew how Gods worked. And when they wrote about Jesus, they made sure he worked like a God—which I do not doubt for a minute is exactly what they believed He was."

Answer 7

some human beings are lost devoid of religion, something to have faith in. provided that Christianity is so time-honored, it supplies human beings a feeling of fellowship to share a concept. I fairly desire the rationality of agnosticism...the place that's no longer appropriate if there's a author or no longer, we in basic terms stay our lives to the suited we are in a position to. Jesus (in accordance to the Bible) had some good issues to declare the place the therapy of your fellow human is in contact, yet maximum Christians i understand do no longer stay as much as those teachings. maximum agnostics and atheists i understand do. Now how extraordinary is that?

Answer 8

There are probably a lot of missing Roman records since the barbarians looted it several times, and it feel into general disrepair and was almost abandoned during the Middle Ages.

If there was no Jesus, then it is hard to imagine how an entire religion could have sprung up out of nothing.

Answer 9

Historians against Jesus. What about historians against Christianity? What did their writings say? One of such anti-Christian mentality was Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian, senator, consul and governor of the province of Asia. Concerning Jesus and His followers, Tacitus wrote, "Nero…punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where this mischief had started) but even in Rome" (The Annals of Imperial Rome, XV, 44). Julian the Apostate (called such because he rejected Christianity after being raised in it), a fourth-century emperor, wrote, "Jesus, whom you celebrate, was one of Caesar's subjects. If you dispute it, I will prove it by and by; but it may be as well done now. For yourselves allow, that he was enrolled with his father and mother in Cyrenius…But Jesus having persuaded a few among you, and those the worst of men, has now been celebrated about 300 years; having done nothing worthy of remembrance; unless anyone thinks it is a mighty matter to heal lame and blind people, and exorcise demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany" (Cyril Contra Julian, VI, 191, 213). These are just two quotes from pagan Roman scholars who loathed Christianity. Since these men had access to government records, and hated what Christians believed and stood for, they could have easily "disproved" and discredited the existence of Christ if they so wished. But, because they could not do such a thing, their writings only add to the monumental proof of the life of Christ. What about the Jewish people? If Christ did not exist, how then could the Jews reject Him? In his book Antiquities of the Jews, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus writes about Jesus, His disciples and John the Baptist. He referred to John as "the good man" (XVIII, 5, 2). Modern-day scholars recognize Josephus' account of the death of James, "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" (XX, 9, 1), as genuine. The Jewish Encyclopedia (1907 edition) explains that Jesus is also mentioned in the Talmud, the Jewish tradition consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara. These references to Christ are found in the sections Shabbath 104b and 116b; Sanhedrin 43a, 67a and 107b; and Sotah 47a. You may want to read an article entitled "Jesus of Nazareth," from The Jewish Encyclopedia (1907), the articles "Jesus Christ" and "Talmud and Midrash" from The New Encyclopedia Britannica (1981), or the article "Jesus" in the Encyclopedia Judaica for more background concerning this subject. These sources offer valuable information regarding the many proofs of the life of Christ. They point to the immutable facts that He: was born of a virgin, was of Jewish nationality, preached the gospel, healed the sick and diseased, and was betrayed and brutally slaughtered.

Answer 10

I think there are a lot of evidence that Jesus did live.

Can anyone explain that why would the Romans heavily persecute so called Christians at that time? History did record that persecutions of Christians

Those Christian would not die for something that's not true.

Therefore, Jesus must have lived and had great live changing influence on them.

Roman didn't record Jesus was probably because Jesus was not a political threat to them.