I do, for the record. I just don't understand why people refuse to believe that he even walked this earth, claiming that is was a long time ago and things could have gotten misinterpreted. You could say the same thing about any historical figure, about Ferdinand Magellan, or Charlemagne, or Cleopatra and Marc Antony. Originally, all we had to work with was dusty old scrolls, but no one questions whether or not they existed. Some people will say that those who recorded Jesus life and teachings were biased because they were religious, but if you look closely, most written records from that time period had religious elements to them. Why is one more acceptable than the other, is it just personal choice or does it have a proven method behind it?
Whatever you believe, I ask that you be polite and courteous to others. I will respect your opinions if you respect the opinions of others and my own opinions. Keep it civil, or don't bother. Take your insults and cutdowns somewhere else.
2007-07-30 06:19:23 · 27 answers · asked by Dan in Real Life 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The issue isn't whether or not a historical person existed who was named Jesus. The question is whether his MINISTRY as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John really happened. I am not aware of any independent sources outside the Christian community. But I could simply be ignorant.
2007-07-30 18:12:29 · answer #1 · answered by MikeT 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are big differences in the records we have for any other major historical figure and for Jesus.
For one thing, we have multiple, independent sources from different perspectives regarding other figures. We have the writings of people who were for them, from those who were against them and from those who were neutral. The only writings we have about Jesus (other than forged documents) are from those who were founding a religion around him. All not only positive but worshipful.
Secondly we have contemporaneous sources for the others. For Jesus we have only stories written down decades after he supposedly lived. The longer the delay the less accurate we consider the texts. And no matter what the apologists tell you, a couple decades delay before the first written mention of someone is not a very short period of time. For all the others you mention we have material from the period they lived.
Then there's the variety of sources. For many we not just written gospels but coins, governmental documents, architecture, etc. For some we have their own personal writing, Jesus never wrote anything we know of.
Despite your claim, the documents we have regarding the other historical figures you name are not trying to form religions around them. They are standard documents without the religious intent of the Bible.
2007-07-30 13:31:13 · answer #2 · answered by thatguyjoe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the record, I believe he probably existed as a human being. However, I can understand people's skepticism. Records are scarce, and the records we do have on him were written with the goal of promoting the idea that he is the son of God. There aren't accounts from uninvolved people. Most of the accounts aren't even contemporary with what they describe. (for example, the gospels tell of Jesus's birth, but none of the gospel writers claim to have been there.)
If we had, for instance, a Roman record documenting his execution order, that would completely solidify in my mind that he existed. Or if the three magi independently recorded their journey. Things like that.
2007-07-30 14:24:23 · answer #3 · answered by Nightwind 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The descriptions of Jesus Christ doesn't match the description in the old testament. Many discrepancies, which is why the Jewish priest refused to accept him. Also why they demanded proof. Which reminds me of the people on the earth today, when they will see the real son of God, they will also demand proof before they will be willing to believe.
People are going to be in for a shock when they finally learn that God's son will not return in a way the false teachings are being taught.
2007-07-30 13:28:45 · answer #4 · answered by tiscpa 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You mistake historical records written at the time and a story written 50-250 years after as being the same. They are not. There is no written record or evidence outside of the bible that Jesus ever lived. That is why it is a belief and not a fact.
2007-07-30 13:26:03 · answer #5 · answered by honshu01 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean? Do you mean "don't believe that Jesus ever existed"? Or do you mean "don't believe in the divinity of Jesus"? I believe that Jesus existed; I have no proof he did not exist. However, being a Jew, I do not believe in his divinity. Why? Because he didn't follow the "rules" for what the Messiah would accomplish, IN MY OPINION. I capitalize that because I want to make it clear that his is my opinion and I am not saying it's therefore the truth. What would be the advantage of having everyone on earth believe the same thing?
2007-07-30 14:28:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is actually more evidence that Jesus existed and that he said and did the things he is purported to, than for Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. In fact, the records which very few historians find fault with for Caesar's conquest of Gaul are over 900 years removed from the events, and yet there are documents dated to within 40 years of the time of Christ and they are considered suspect by many.
There are also a few secular records by a man named Josephus, who was a Roman historian, which detail the existence, life and ideals of Jesus of Nazareth.
People don't want to believe that Jesus existed because it then requires them to make a choice, and people don't like to be told that they are wrong.
2007-07-30 13:30:16 · answer #7 · answered by nbrs6121 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Why is one religion more acceptable than another? Because one is more liked than another. If people reject a particular religion, then it doesn't matter how true it is, people will see it as special. In the same way that a book or movie can be liked although it doesn't have to be "the best" people can like religions for all kinds of reasons. From here, people then decide to demand that others like it. People think a religion is true, so they attempt to make it a universal truth by having other people believe in it. Sillyness if you ask me. Believe what you want to believe and focus on the good things in life.
2007-07-30 13:25:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Many people believe that Jesus existed. However, as a Christian you and I do not see the historical Jesus. We see the faith story of Christ. We see the Jesus that has died and rose again. We see the Jesus that ascended into heaven. Some people believe in the actual Jesus, but they don't believe in the one that is my savior, my lord, and my best friend. It's simply a matter of faith.
2007-07-30 14:27:28 · answer #9 · answered by One Odd Duck 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus existed. There is strong independently verified records that the Romans strung up some itinerant preacher on a cross that was named Jesus who had real problems with the Jewish authorities. However, historical evidence does not a God make.
2007-07-30 13:30:28 · answer #10 · answered by UpChuck 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋