Amazon.com Widgets
  • There is no proof he does exist, but there is no proof that he doesn't. It's your choice weather or not to believe.

    If any of you have seen or heard of the movie God's Not Dead, there's an argument right there. Some of you might ask, if God created the universe then who created God? But if the universe created you then who created the universe. There has to be an all living bean. It may sound like that's not possible, but it has to be right? If any of you reading think what I'm saying is a lie, just watch God's Not Dead. I got one of my atheist friends to watch it, and now she thinking about becoming a believer. In conclusion, nobody has proof either way, it just depends on what you believe.

  • Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.

    Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

    Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

    The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

    The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

    The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

    Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).

  • There has to be at least 1 proof against the existence of Jesus

    In saying this I do not wish to argue weather or not Jesus was the son of God or if God is real, being an atheist, but there is inaccuracies which goes against Jesus. Like everything there is data that goes for and against it. Since this is ¨is there ANY proof Jesus does not exist¨ if 1 thing is provided, lets say I have never seen Jesus therefore he does not exist could be considered a proof that Jesus does not exist!

  • There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus.

    Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.

    Agnosticism over the matter is already seemingly appropriate, and support for this position comes from independent historian Richard Carrier’s recent defense of another theory — namely, that the belief in Jesus started as the belief in a purely celestial being (who was killed by demons in an upper realm), who became historicized over time. To summarize Carrier’s 800-page tome, this theory and the traditional theory – that Jesus was a historical figure who became mythicized over time – both align well with the Gospels, which are later mixtures of obvious myth and what at least sounds historical.

    The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the “celestial Jesus” theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). Humans – the murderers according to the Gospels – of course would still have killed Jesus, knowing full well that his death results in their salvation, and the defeat of the evil spirits.

    So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.E. Non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

    Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

  • Is there proof that Leprechauns don't exist???? It is a trick question.

    The way that proof works is if there is a theory you provide PROOF that it is true. The real question should be "Is there proof that Jesus existed"??? The answer is NO there is no real evidence that supports the idea of Jesus or anyone who fits the description of Jesus in the history of that period in that area. The Jesus story is actually a mythical story told over and over with different characters such as Mithra http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm There were 43 historians Greek, Roman, and Jewish that wrote during the time when Christ was suppose to have lived, NONE mention anything of anyone resembling Christ. Even the earliest Biblical Canons were written at the very least more than a generation after the supposed ressurection of Christ. There are no confirmed artifacts of Christ, There are no self written or first hand writings of Christ. The only writings about this figure were from educated Greek writers (not the group that supposedly witnessed the life of Christ). If you do the research Jesus was just another mythical demigod.

  • Historicity of Jesus.

    The historicity of Jesus concerns whether Jesus of Nazareth, born c 7–2 BC, existed as a historical figure, whether the episodes portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction, and the weighing of the evidence relating to his life.

    One of the chief problems confronting scholars interested in the historicity of Jesus is that there are no contemporary records of his life or existence. Like many other historic figures of antiquity, all records of his historicity come from one or more generations after his death, the earliest source being that found in the Epistles of Paul dated to CE 59, who reported on his crucifixion. Other sources such as that of Josephus or Tacitus date even later. Historians interested in the historicity of Jesus are confronted by discussing the nature of these historic records and the intention and points of view of their authors.

    Nevertheless there is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels. While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

    The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts. Historicity, by contrast as a subject of study different from history proper is concerned with two different fundamental issues. Firstly it is concerned with the systemic processes of social change, and secondly what was the social context and intentions of the authors of the sources by which we can establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances.

    Since the 18th century, scholars have attempted to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus, developing historical-critical methods for analysing the available texts. The only sources are documentary; in conjunction with Biblical texts such as the Pauline epistles and the synoptic Gospels, three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic.

  • Supported by Historical Evidence

    There is plenty of historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. The only real debate to be had is whether or not he was the son of God. Even if you don't take the Bible as a source, plenty of other documents confirm the existence of Jesus, and describe many of his actions.

  • Actually, religion aside, yes!

    The Romans were great at administration. They kept track of everyone who was crucified, and there is a record of a man who came from Nazareth, who was crucified at the same time Jesus supposedly was.

    Whether or not he had magic powers is irrelevant, but historically speaking he did exist.

  • Even atheist scholars agree that Jesus existed

    Bart Ehrman who is a well known agnostic/atheist scholar has written a book on the subject entitled: Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Every serious scholar accepts that Jesus was a real person who existed and go even further to say it is absolutely clear that Jesus was crucified. You don't need the Bible to know this. Not all scholars agree that Jesus claimed to be God but they definitely agree that Jesus was real.

  • A a a

    A a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

  • A a a

    A a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

  • A a a

    A a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

  • A a a

    A a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

  • A a a

    A a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

  • Jesus was a historical person

    There was such a person called Jesus. That has been proven. I've read somewhere that in the 20th century they looked if there was actually person called Jesus who was crucified and it turned out there was. Wheather or not he is the Son of God, that is your personal opinion. I personaly believe he is the son of God.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
neoryan1 says2015-12-02T14:13:22.900
There's no proof he DID exist. That's the problem. If I say "prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist" you can't do anything. If YOU make the claim he exists, YOU need to back it up.
Vox_Veritas says2015-12-02T15:50:21.850
The existence of historical figures is not generally something that is questioned. There are people who we only know about from copies of their writings written 500-2000 years after the fact (their existence isn't usually questioned). For Jesus, we at least know that this religion with 2 billion adherents (with documentation of the existence of Christians dating back to the days of Nero) had to come from somebody!
Vox_Veritas says2015-12-02T15:57:34.467
The Alexamenos Graffito is pretty much indisputable evidence that Christianity existed by 200 AD, and the Papyrus Script P52, which consists of a NT verse, has a possible date of 117-138 AD.
zookdook1 says2015-12-03T19:19:23.707
You can't prove something doesn't exist. YOU have to prove it DOES exist. If I say there are invisible flying chocolate space dragons, you can't prove me wrong. I have to prove me right.