Is there any concrete evidence that Jesus actually existed?

Question

The bible doesn't count by the way.

Answer 1

nothing but to the contrary as far as i've ever seen ...

Answer 2

There is NO concrete evidence that Jesus actually existed. The Gospels never claim to be the word of G-d. At best, they are just some human's report, done years and years after the 'fact'. Never do the Gospels ever said: "G-d said 'so and so'." The best that can be said is that John or Luke or Matthew or Mark said 'so and so' about something somebody else claims to have seen. None of the writes of the Gospels can claim to be eye witnesses. In fact, none of the writers of the Gospels can honestly be claimed to be the same person who the particular Gospel is attributed to. Moreover, the Gospels often disagree with each other and are often wrong about Jewish custom and practice and the events of the Roman occupaton of Israel. They are so totally unreliable as to be a laughing stock when it comes to 'real' history.
Paul only saw Jesus Christ in a hallucenation. Paul never saw Jesus Christ during his time on earth, if that happened at all. Paul worked real, real hard not to meet with the Disciples so whatever knowledge he had of Jesus Christ was between him and Jesus Christ and the hallucenations and not what actually happened 'on the ground' in Israel.
All Roman historians who report on Jesus Christ do so years and years after the 'fact' and never claim to have met him or read any contemporary record of what he did. The best the Roman historians have is what Christians contemprary with the historican were saying about Jesus Christ. Again, not reliable or honest.
The Josephus report on Jesus Christ's historical existance is a proven forgery. The best that can honestly be said about Jospehus is that he reports the existance of Christians, not Christ.
So, when all the sources are taken into account, there is NO reliable evidence of Jesus Christ.

Answer 3

Outside of the first two Gospels, and all the works ultimately derived from there? Nope.

You can find ALL the usual arguments (Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, The Talmud, Roman Records, argumentum ad populum, etc. - which I'm sure people will copy and paste from some evangelical site) thoroughly debunked in the first link below, and many other sources on the subject too.

Answer 4

Concrete no. A little circumstancial evidence yes. The records of someone being crucified by a similar name.

Answer 5

Of course there is.
Why doesn't the Bible count? Is there any scientific basis for discounting the many independent sources compiled into the New Testament?
Why do you suppose the vast majority of secular scholars do not question the existence of Jesus? Do you know something that they don't?
(As for the first answer, how could the writings of Paul have been based on the first two Gospels? They pre-date the Gospels by decades).

Answer 6

Did Charles Darwin actually exist? "The Origin of the Species" doesn't count by the way.

Answer 7

But The Bible is all I need. Think about it! How else would we have this beautiful world? How did we get here? Who made us? Seriously think about it. Jesus and I love you!
Godbless!

Answer 8

Watch the science, history or learning channels they burnt me out on watching about Jesus and the evidence supporting him. Interesting but to much is to much of anything.

Answer 9

The Bible does count. 5000+ extant Greek manuscripts/papyrii of the New Testament are proof enough of his existence as an historical figure.

Answer 10

yes. three historians of the time spoke of Him. Check out the Jesus FAQ on AnswersInGenesis.org

Answer 11

The Qur'an...does that count?

The interesting thing is that vivid accounts of Jesus (pbuh) the Son of Mary, and his mother, were revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) 622 years after his birth...

What more evidence do you need?

oops again! I must've answered this on Sunday too! :)