Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes yes yes he did

    He came to this world to die for all mankind because he loves all so much he died for us 😀 if he never died we all would go to Hell but we go to Heave if we believe in him and that he died and rose again we will go to Heaven I can not wait till I go to Heaven

  • But critics like to ignore evidence

    There are several lines of evidence that point to him existing, including early testimony, extra biblical testimony, eye-witness testimony, and excruciating testimony to name a few. There is also archeological evidence to his existence, along with writings from Roman sources soon after his death.

    Critics will argue against these lines of evidence and pick them apart one by one, often citing that there is are no contemporary writings from when Jesus was alive. But they also fail to consider the lines of evidence as a whole, which is the very thing that makes them strong to begin with.

    This is however, an inaccurate and unwarranted criticism. The evidence for Jesus as a person is better than many (if not all) evidence for other persons living over 2K years ago, but since he is also a religious figure, critics either ignore or inappropriately apply an unrealistic standard to the evidence. If the same standard was applied to other figures or writings, then they would also have to throw them out as well, since they will not meet that standard.

  • Yes, he did.

    There is no question that Jesus existed. His birth and death have both been documented multiple times by many different people. The real question that is being debated is this:
    Was Jesus who He said He was?

    There is also proof that He was and is, but that is something people that want to know choose to look into.

  • What's in the numbers?

    As others have here have shown, secular historians & writers of the day & shortly thereafter, have written re Jesus' following & of His life. & maybe, just maybe, the most prolific historical writings of the day by far, writings that would be the bible later, have described Jesus in detail. Many people do not give credence to the bible, but copies of the writings far outweigh anything that is secular writings at that time. But, I suppose since it's about God's message to us, many people have dismissed it as phony. I wonder if a secular collection of writings appeared just as these had, what would have been the response of those naysayers about them? I am sure you know that answer.

  • Jesus' existence is widely accepted and backed by numerous pieces of evidence that can be found outside of the Bible.

    Here is a quote from the ancient Roman historian, Tacitus: "Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with guilt, and punished with most exquisite tortures, the persons the called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, their founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius." -Annals 15:44

    Another ancient historian that we can look to in reference to the existence of Jesus, is the Jewish historian known as Josephus. He states in Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan: "At this time there was a wise man called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known t be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets accounted wonders."

    There are multiple other examples of reliable sources which mention the existence of Jesus. Some include Lucian, Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, Tertullian, Thallus, Julius Africanus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Justin Martyr, etc. The Jewish Talmuds also act as a valid source as well. So there is no hiding the fact that there are more than enough external sources outside of the Bible which reference the existence of Jesus. But just for some excess evidence, lets see what MODERN historians have to say about the existence of Jesus.

    There are dozens of quotes from historians that say that Jesus existed. I'm obviously not going to go through every one, but I do intend on mentioning a few in hopes to get my point across. My first example comes from Marcus Borg who is a Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University: "some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. .... We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world."

    The next one comes from Richard A. Burridge, a Professor of the Biblical Interpretation at Kings College, London: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

    To avoid beating a dead horse with similar, repeating examples, I will present one more. This one is from Maurice Casey at Nottingham University: "This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. .... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent."

  • There is numerous pieces of evidence outside of the Bible that point to existence of Jesus. It is also widely accepted among historians.

    Here is a quote from the ancient Roman historian, Tacitus: "Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with guilt, and punished with most exquisite tortures, the persons the called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, their founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius." -Annals 15:44

    Another ancient historian that we can look to in reference to the existence of Jesus, is the Jewish historian known as Josephus. He states in Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan: "At this time there was a wise man called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known t be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets accounted wonders."

    There are multiple other examples of reliable sources which mention the existence of Jesus. Some include Lucian, Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, Tertullian, Thallus, Julius Africanus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Justin Martyr, etc. The Jewish Talmuds also act as a valid source as well. So there is no hiding the fact that there are more than enough external sources outside of the Bible which reference the existence of Jesus. But just for some excess evidence, lets see what MODERN historians have to say about the existence of Jesus.

    There are dozens of quotes from historians that say that Jesus existed. I'm obviously not going to go through every one, but I do intend on mentioning a few in hopes to get my point across. My first example comes from Marcus Borg who is a Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University: "some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. .... We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world."

    The next one comes from Richard A. Burridge, a Professor of the Biblical Interpretation at Kings College, London: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

    To avoid beating a dead horse with similar, repeating examples, I will present one more. This one is from Maurice Casey at Nottingham University: "This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. .... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent."

    Had to shorten due to length

  • The man? Yes. The supernatural being: No.

    There are many other outside sources that mention a man named Jesus who claimed to be a profit or messiah. In some of them, they mention claims of miracles. Clearly there is enough evidence to accept that the man named Jesus (the one mentioned in the bible) did exist.
    Because none of the outside sources document him actually doing miracles but only mention rumors of him doing them. There are no outside sources that support any supernatural abilities. Without anything to validate the biblical claims, there is no reason to believe the supernatural being (Jesus) existed.

  • God isn't proven, so the son of god isn't proven.

    An amazing, historical figure who performed acts of charity may have existed, (debatable) but the son of god can't exist without the defined existence of god. I've read a lot of interesting evidence that points to the existence of "Jesus", but the Jesus of the bible can not be confirmed until we KNOW that there is a god.

  • There is little if any evidence to support this

    I would be interested to see the evidence that the pro argument is citing here, as from a bit of research I have found that there is little, if any, plausible evidence documenting the existance of him as an individual (let alone him being the son of the alleged God). One of the many individuals who has analysed this was the writer Michael Paulkovich, and after analysing 126 texts he found one mention of Jesus in a book by Josephus Flavius - however even this he concluded to have been added by editors later on.
    The only argument for his existence is that historians have considered it plausible that he existed despite the lack of evidence, and one must remember that authority is not always right. In this case, the historians are making the unfounded assumption that most of us do that he existed as a person, even if he wasn't the son of alleged God.
    When you take this into account, the most definitive conclusion you can draw is that there was a Jesus like figure (and hence the bible was written), there is no evidence to document the existence of Jesus as historical fact.

  • At least not the way we think of him

    I prefer to think of Jesus as a legend based off of many early proto-Christians and faith-healthes and such, rather than as an individual. If there were a real Jesus, I highly doubt that he would recognize the version of him we worship today (and not just because we picture him as a white man).


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.