Isn't it quite likely that jesus may never have existed?

Question

Say a new school jewish cult emerges from the people that are disastified with the commercialism of the temple and the roman puppet king. The peace and love people. They spread their religion across the sea to greece, but not before being persecuted in thier own land. The stories about these early martyrs formed into a composite charecter named jesus (greek name) who was persecuted by the romans and crucified but he was loving and forgiving to the end. Well you know how these stories go, next thing you know he's the son of god who can walk on water and his marytyrdom was voluntary so we could be forgiven, like a human sacrifice.

Answer 1

The proof of the historical existence of Jesus and the authenticity of the founding of his church is a good starting point for a non-believer. Denials of the historical existence of Jesus have frequently been attempted.

NON-CHRISTIAN sources attest to the historical existence of Jesus. The statements of Tacitus around 117 (Annales XV,44), of Pliny the Younger around 112/113 (letter to the emperor Trajan), and of Suetonius around 120 (Vita Claudis, ch. 25) are reliable and historically conclusive and we may admit them as trustworthy evidence. We also possess statements by the Jewish writer

Josephus Flavius from around 93/94 which permit us to accept his knowledge of the historical personality of Jesus.
As far as I am concerned, the best proof that Jesus is for real is the fact that he answers my prayers. I am not trying to pull your leg, it is true. He has also revealed himself in countless ways to believers so he is truly risen.

Peace and every blessing

Answer 2

The fact is that there is no historical evidence of his existence (no single historian or writing of that time mentions his existance). A well known brittish writer, Paul Johnson, concludes that the best evidence of his existance is the number of followers that have gathered through times around "His " teachings.
But this is realy irrelevant. A religion of love and peace was born... that in fact, his followers ignored by killing thousands of thousands throughout history (and there is evidence of this!), as have many, many other religions by now.

Answer 3

There is enough I think to guess there was someone around with that name - the non bible sources above are at best unhelpful..

Tacitus refers to Christian followers not to Christ.
Suetonius refers to someone who seems to live in
Rome 100 years after "Christs death".

Josephus is the most reliable - and he just says he met James brother and his nickname was "wet"

The other passage in Josephus is obviously a forgery
as the man would not have signed his own death warrant
by writing it. So he didn't....

"The statements of Tacitus around 117 (Annales XV,44), of Pliny the Younger around 112/113 (letter to the emperor Trajan), and of Suetonius around 120 (Vita Claudis, ch. 25) are reliable and historically conclusive and we may admit them as trustworthy evidence. We also possess statements by the Jewish writer Josephus Flavius"

Answer 4

he may not existed exactly like people think he did. Books get revised, legends embellished. But what is important is that what he talked about and his state of being DO exist. And that what he was telling us about ourselves and our potential are so beyond what the average person thinks life is about, that's what made him into the legendary person he's become. There have been enlightened souls thruout history, before Jesus and even today. Religions tend to not believe this and just focus on their enlightened person.

Answer 5

Naw, he existed. Even historians who are not following religious agendas all agree. There was a guy named Jesus, or something along those lines. He really did talk about being the son of God and he really was put to death. History gives us different ideas of who he was and how he was treated.

Historians agree the ruling governments treated him like a David Koresh. A nut who had all these different ideas that had to be dealt with quickly.

But, everyone agrees there was a guy.

Answer 6

The pagan Roman historian Tacitus---look him up.
The Jewish Historian, well respected by non bias historians----Josephus.

Try the letter of Bar Mar Serpion.
Try the writings of Pliny the Younger.
I am using non Christian sources.

Isn't it quite likely that you may never have looked these up, and are assuming or hoping there is no proof?

.

Answer 7

The Myth of the Historical Jesus

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

It is rather unfortunate that many well-meaning Jewish Studies teachers have unwittingly aided missionaries by teaching Jewish pupils incorrect information about the origins of Christianity. I can recall being taught the following story about Jesus at the Jewish day school I attended:

"Jesus was a famous first century rabbi whose Hebrew name was Rabbi Yehoshua. His father was a carpenter named Joseph and his mother's name was Mary. Mary became pregnant before she married Joseph. Jesus was born in a stable in Bethlehem during a Roman census. Jesus grew up in Nazareth and became a learned rabbi. He traveled all over Israel preaching that people should love one another. Some people thought that he was the Messiah and he did not deny this, which made the other rabbis very angry. He caused so much controversy that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate had him crucified. He was buried in a tomb and later his body was found to be missing since it had probably been stolen by his disciples."

A few years after being taught this seemingly innocent story, I became interested in the origins of Christianity and decided to do some further reading on the "famous Rabbi Yehoshua." Much to my dismay, I discovered that there was no historical evidence of this Rabbi Yehoshua. The claim that Jesus was a rabbi named Yehoshua and the claim that his body was probably stolen both turned out to be pure conjecture. The rest of the story was nothing more than a watered down version of the story which Christians believe as part of the Christian religion but which is not supported by any legitimate historical source.

There was absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus, Joseph or Mary ever existed, let alone that Joseph was a carpenter or that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.

---

http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=700

Creation of Christianity: At the same time this popular street story of Jesus, son of Joseph Pandira or Panthera, was spreading in Rome in the first century BCE, the cult of Mithra was introduced into the Roman empire and attracted the military and mercantile classes. This cultural influx of a Persian religion meshed with ancient Hebrew traditions to form what became the cult of Christianity. Anyone who doubts that the popular story of the Jewish Jesus was written into the worship of Mithra to become Christianity should look at Mithraic worship point by point. (See the link above for a summary by David of that religion).

Jesus acquired a biography in the so-called gospels just as Paul Bunyan would if four Americans separately tried to write down all of his history and wonder-working activities, in order to consolidate that aspect of American culture.

Final verdict: There is no historical evidence whatever that the Jesus of Christianity was an historical person.

---

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_ historical_accounts_for_jesus

It may surprise Christians to learn that there are no contemporary historical documents for 'Jesus, the Christ'. The writings of Paul are not comptemporary accounts: they do not appear until years after the purported time of Jesus and they include a concession that Paul never actually met Jesus. The Gospels come much later (as evidenced by the fact that Paul never cites them) and there is good reason that all four of the surviving, accepted Gospels are based on Mark, which in turn is likely to be midrash, not historical documentation: (See: http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_midrash)).

While some apologists attempt to wave this problem away by claiming that "Jesus"would not have been a noteworthy figure, this apologetic tactic contradicts what the Gospels say about Jesus. One cannot hold, at the same time, that the Gospels are true eyewitness accounts of actual events, AND that the Jesus figure in those works would not attract the attention of men like Philo, Pliny or Seneca. It's an absurd contradiction.

Even the relatively sober account of Jesus found in the first gospel, The Gospel of 'Mark', presents us with a Jesus who garnered quite a bit of attention. Consider for example, Mark 2:1-12, where the crowd coming to see Jesus is so great, that a paralytic has to be lowered through the roof of a building Jesus is in, in order for Jesus to see him. Elsewhere Mark tells us that the crowds that Jesus drew were so overflowing that he has to lecture from a boat on the Sea of Galilee. When Jesus travels from Bethany to Jerusalem, throngs of people line the roads to welcome him. Mark also tells us of how Jesus performed miracles before thousands: on two different occasions Jesus feeds thousands through miracles (see for example, Mark 8:1).

In short, 'Mark' gives us a 'Jesus' who is bigger than the Beatles, and I believe the Beatles analogy is a good one: we even have a nice parallel between the story of Jesus' lecture from a ship at Galilee, and the Beatles famous 'rooftop' audition, where they were forced to play an impromptu concert on a rooftop, lest the crowds that would rush to see them cause a riot. In both cases, the crowds had reached, hysterical, historically noteworthy, proportions. Yet, John E. Remsberg, in 'The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence' (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25) makes the curious observation that no one from this era wrote a single word about the Jesus Hysteria. Remsberg notes: "(While) Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library, (no where)... in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

Answer 8

I believe there was man named Jesus. He's in the bible and the Koran. He is also in writings from India. Weather he is the king and son of God. No one knows for sure. But i will go with thinking my Christan's ways, that through him i will have everlasting life.

Answer 9

Unlike Mohamed there are other historical books beside the religious book that document that Jesus existed and was crucified.

Answer 10

No He did exist. There are plenty of historical references to Him - Christian, Jewish, Roman, Atheistic, Muslim. I think that is enough evidence of existence. The real question is whether or not to believe He was who He said He was.