This seems a little bit silly to me. While I can understand (though do not agree with) the idea that Jesus isn't who He said He was, how on earth can you possibly prove that a man *didn't* exist 2000 years ago? I realize that the people this applies to will bark back that I can't prove that He did. That's okay, I'm aware of the fact that I cannot offer tangible proof that He did. Not neither can anyone prove that He did *not* exist. It just seems like such grasping at straws to post links saying that He *COULD NOT* have existed or that He is a myth.
2007-10-05 04:55:52 · 34 answers · asked by KL 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No one can prove that a man name Jesus didn't exist.
Maybe he did, I'm sure he did - It's not really the issue.
The question is: Was Jesus some Godlike being posing as a human or a religious leader of his time?
A religious leader who started a new religion based on Judaism.
2007-10-05 05:01:55 · answer #1 · answered by Stedway 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Actually, it could be proven that he DID exist...... unfortunately there have been no significant findings to prove that he ever existed. Now, not finding any evidence with still so much left to be discovered obviously doesn't prove he never existed, but anyone with half a brain can see that the bible is a mythical story about fictional people. Even some christians admit that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally. So it's more than likely that no matter how much they dig and search they will never find any evidence in support of this savior that was supposed to return 2000 years ago.
Not only that, but the historical evidence of previous religions who have all shared this "son of god" character is further proof that the jesus myth is just that, a myth!
Why are some so dedicated to proving that it is a myth? Oh i don't know, perhaps because we're sick of hearing these dim-wits telling us that this very same mythical figure is going to send us to the fictional world of hell if we don't worship that same mythical figure as our unconditional savior!? how is that for a reason?
If someone kept telling you day in and day out that if you didn't accept leprechauns as your savior you'd suffer for eternity in an afterlife run by demons and whatnot.... would you take them very seriously? Would you ignore it? Maybe right away.... but if that "persuasion" was EVERY DAY..... "Repent to the leprechaun and you will be saved"....... "to know heaven you have to accept the leprechaun into your heart"..... I'm sure you'd start trying to talk sense into these people too!
You can't ignore it when it is in your face.
edit: and as some above me have said, the wreckless use of the words "proof" and "truth" from christians are extremely frustrating. Just because you may feel the presence of some "savior" in your life doesn't mean that what you believe is true, and it is no more proof of it's existance than if I were to say that I feel the presence of allah watching over me while i take a leak.
2007-10-05 05:03:58 · answer #2 · answered by DaveFrehley 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
True.
But if you think about the centuries that people have shoved the existence of Jesus down the throats of others, then it would only be fair that some people would be dedicated to disproving his existence just as well.
As for myself, as I have read more into it, have come to realise that with the numerous theories we have found (and those we haven't)...we really don't know squat...and besides, whether he existed or not, is not relevant to my current existence, so I need not be insistent in disproving or proving on the matter, until we come across actual evidence.
2007-10-05 12:54:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe there are a lot of atheists trying to prove Jesus did not exist, you cant prove a negative, and a man named Jesus may will have existed, but the deeds attributed to him are what are in question, these deeds, and in fact, his whole life from the date of his "birth" to is resurrection after 3 days mirror redeemer fables from earlier religions that are about the zodiac and winter solstice.
Euphemism and allegory have been used to explain the world since man acquired the ability to speak.
2007-10-05 05:57:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have made this a lifetime study, and there are certain criteria historians use to determine the authenticity of the claims of a historic persona.
Jesus Christ of the Bible does not meet those criteria.
Whether a "Jesus" existed or not is not the issue. But the Jesus of the Bible, who performed the things therein, did not exist.
For historians, the burden of proof lies in substantiation of the "historically outstanding" events or claims made.
There are countless of these types of claims about Jesus, for which there should be tons of records. There are virtually none, and the ones we do find are sketchy at best.
Christians will refer to Josephus and Tacitus, but without going into a lot of detail, real historians know that those claims do not pass the criteria for substantiation.
Think about it: there were forty or so noted historians in Palestine at the time of Christ, who took great pains to record petty details of the times, and we have Jesus, right in the middle of it all, walking on water, turning water to wine, raising the dead.. at his death, we have an earthquake, the sky turns black, the dead saints rise out of their graves and speak with the masses. The scriptures claim that the fame of him went throughout the world, while he was alive, but the historic record absolutely conflicts with all of this.
No historian worth his salt would ever state that the Jesus Christ of the Bible ever existed.
And any person who stakes his life on this persona is merely misinformed.
2007-10-05 05:31:08 · answer #5 · answered by The Burninator 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Agreed. It's not possible to conclusively prove a negative. From Zeus to Jesus to Santa Claus, you can't prove that someone didn't exist. But, when there is a conspicuous lack of credible evidence to prove someone did exist (as is the case with those examples), it's certainly not unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion that he did not exist and is therefore a myth.
2007-10-05 05:07:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If someone as important as he would have been had actually existed, there would (Or at least should) be a lot in the historical record regarding him. But there is nothing there. Now, given that the very foundation of Christianity is based on him being real and not, himself, a parable, that is why it is important to establish whether or not he walked the earth. Moses, Abraham, etc, are not needed for Judaism, for example, as they are not worshiped. But Christianity needs Christ, so if he wasn't there, then the entire religion would crumble.
2007-10-05 05:06:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you are missing the point. You are right, we don't know who walked the earth 2000 years ago with certainty... however, the stories told of him in the Bible are mostly what people are referring to...because that is what most Christians believe Jesus was/is. So, they are saying that "that Jesus" who is portrayed in the Bible, is a myth - not that there was never a man named Jesus back in those days that caused enough of a commotion to be written about!
2007-10-05 05:02:31 · answer #8 · answered by I, Sapient 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'm not even going to dig into the facts but the fact is a man named Jesus did exist. That is a fact. Jesus like Budda never claimed they were anything. They taught a philosophy or a way of life both toward the same goal. Happiness. it is their followers who changed their teachings to match their own purposes.
2007-10-05 05:10:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Considering that the entirety of Christian existance is based on the existance Jesus Christ as a real man, don't you think that whether he existed or not is important? I do. THAT is why.
2007-10-05 05:05:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋