I've read from several people on here that Jesus did not exist..Why do you think that?

Question

from what I read historians pretty much agree the man Jesus did exist. That there were enough non christian references from that time to prove it. They didn't seem to be too impressed with him or his following, But they did write about him.

Answer 1

Though I think it foolishness to think that the historical Jesus did not exist, I have entered into this debate enough times to be able to answer your question.

Coming from a contrarian view-point (where Jesus did not exist unless proven otherwise), the primary reasons are:

(a) the Bible and apocryphal literature is viewed by opponents as a biased documents, and thus cannot be trusted as a historical testimony

(b) the extra-biblical, secular historical references of Jesus, are not eye-witness accounts but rather based on hearsay and written many years after his life

(c) the reference that Christians point to most frequently, Josephus - a near historical reference - appears to be at least a partial embellishment (I would have to agree on this point) ... the original text of Josephus might have mentioned Jesus, but the language that appears in current versions of Josephus looks suspiciously biased

These three things do not give sufficient documented evidence for opponents to believe in his existence.

Answer 2

There were many historians who make acsolutely no reference to Jesus; the mentions by Josephus Flavius are known to be questionable...there were a few, some have already been proven to be later insertions.
There are mentions of a 'christus' but it was a Greek word that meant 'savior', several religions used that word at some point to describe their god-man.
Even the Gnostics know the Jesus character was an allegory...IE-every Greek knew about Dionysis but no one ever claimed him as a historical person
It doesn't matter a whole lot. Even those who believe he was an actual person who existed know he was definitely a human, not a god...Still, the character is well-known. Proving he didn't exist is just pointing out another lie 'the church' has spread throughout the ages.

Answer 3

It seems that historians tend to agree that Jesus existed, but they reach that conclusion by using the gospels as a reference text, then comparing them to known histories of the region. There is virtually no mention of Jesus outside of the gospels, and nothing that supports the claims about him. Considering what a major figure he would have been had he actually existed, this scarcity of material is surprising to say the least. Basically, if you don't look at the bible, there is no evidence that Jesus ever lived as a man on earth.

Answer 4

Actually, you are wrong about that.

Jesus supposedly lived from around 4 BC to 33 AD. Almost everyone accepts that as the timeline for his life. (Keep in mind here Jesus was a fairly common name, or Yeshua, which was his real name).

The first Christian to write about Jesus was Paul, around 50 AD, or about 20 years after his supposedly life. Paul admits he never met Jesus.

The first Gospels that give details about Jesus' life (Paul's letters offer almost no biographical details) appear around 70 AD (Mark), which is about 40 years after he supposedly died. It is fairly clear that none of the gospel authors ever met Jesus (Mark certainly never did).

The first non-Christian to refer to Jesus was Josephus, around 96 AD. This passage is highly disputed, but nevertheless almost all historians admit he did refer A Jesus in someway. However, Josephus was born AFTER Jesus died (36 AD) and we are now over 60 years after the events in question. Plus, as mentioned before, there was no doubt that Christians existed at this time since their writings were already out. So this only references the concept that Jesus was a historical figure to the Christians by 96 AD (Something no historian denies is true).

For example, by 1870 no historian would deny that Mormons believe that in the 1820's Joseph Smith was visited by an angel. However, referencing that concept in 1870 doesn't mean that it actually happened, it only means that by 1870 people existed who THOUGHT that it happened. A fact no one would deny.

The simply fact is this. There exists not one writing, in Aramaic, Greek or Roman writings that make reference to Jesus while he was alive or even for the next 20 years. Of all the miracles noted in the gospels, we have not one historical record of any of them by either Christians or non-Christians.

Quite simply, there is little contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever existed. Personally, I think a person named Jesus likely existed upon whom Paul and the gospel writers formed Christianity, but we can know nothing about him unless new writings show up.

Check the link below for tons of excellent articles about this stuff from all perspectives (secular, fundamentalist and catholic).

Answer 5

I think it's questionable, especially since Philo ( a historian who would have been a contemporary of Jesus) says nothing about Jesus. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Jesus did exist, and I think it's possible. I don't really care, because either way I still don't think he was the son of God.

Answer 6

From a certain point of view: even if he had existed, we still don't know what he looked like for his prophesied miraculous return. Supposedly, someone claiming to be him will show up first, performing false miracles. Many people seem to look forward to the anti-Christ who they believe will than fail and usher in the 1,000 year reign of Christs rule. The recent docudrama of his families alleged tomb didn't seem to phase very many either. I'm leaning more towards the skeptic point of view along with the possibility that aliens have been behind these historical and phenomenal events all along.

Answer 7

From what I've read, the only reference is from the Jewish scholar Josephus, who mentioned a Jesus, but it wasn't a Jesus, son of God, or a Jesus who was related to any of the people the Biblical Jesus was related to, so it's not a very reliable reference.

Answer 8

I think most people would agree a man named Jesus lived. A lot of us just don't believe he is the son of a god.

Answer 9

between the main ordinarily held atheistic myths is that Christianity as all of us realize it as we talk became now not invented till the fourth century, after the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. The e book, and at present launched action picture, The Da Vinci Code, makes this very declare (between different very strange assertions). Many say that the early Christian church seen Jesus Christ as in easy terms a sturdy ethical instructor, and did now not worship Him till the 4th century whilst the Trinity and deity of Christ became "invented." even nonetheless, our examination of this question, utilizing biblical ingredients, the writings of the early church fathers, and secular ingredients, will needless to say set up that Jesus became worshipped as God no later than the early 2d century (113 A.D.). The earliest Aramaic-talking Christians confer with Jesus as "Lord" contained in the earliest greater beneficial-canonical Christian e book, the Didache, which pupils agree became written no later than the overdue 100s. The be conscious "Lord" (Greek Kyrios) became utilized by utilizing the Greeks to designate divinity. Justin Martyr, a 2d-century church father, baptized new believers contained in the call of the triune God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, acknowledging the equality of the three different individuals of the Trinity. greater may well be stumbled on right here:

Answer 10

Common Christianity believed Jesus was both human and divine. Some sub-Christians believe that Jesus was purely divine-that's probably what they mean