This link is a link to a bystander/tourist that happened upon Jesus' performance of a miracle, the revival of a stillborn baby. This has been verified by other scientists, having been carbon dated. I haven't seen anything like this beforem and while Josephus may not have seen this man, this random bystander did.
There is proof that Jesus existed. However, there is no proof that Jesus really preformed the "miracles" that he did. There is documents proving Jesus of Nazareth really existed and his father was a carpenter. Just beacuse that man existed doesn't mean that his life was exactly as it was written in a book by men not from the time frame.
Science geology and historical studies have proven that a Jewish man named Jesus did exist. This does not necessarily mean he was the son of god and had mythical powers, but it was proven he existed. There has been no proof of this yet and I don't believe there ever will be but that doesn't mean the bible is wrong
This can be turned in every way. Do we know that Cesar existed? We only know him because of scripts. Do we truly know any famous person existed before if it wasn't for video and pictures? So what is the difference if we believe in Jesus because he is in the Bible and Aristotle if it wasn't for his writings? Are they both not literature?
There hundreds upon hundreds of texts that Jesus existed. On top of that you have millions of people following him. Also the tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem will speak for itself. It is couple thousands year old tomb that has been proven that Jesus was sent there after his death and his resurrection.
Of course there is proof that Jesus existed. There are millions of texts about his life that have been written throughout history. There are also historians that have looked into his past and found out a lot about him. If you do not think Jesus existed you are in denial.
Individuals disagree on the spiritual nature of the man known as Jesus Christ, but written records (scripture, scrolls, etc.) point to his existence. This proof is as solid as any other written genealogy. It provides names of contemporaries, family members, geographical links, and other information increasing its reliability as a factual resource.
It's all too easy to say yes or no, but I am voting no as my countless hours of wasted cross-referencing has revealed no conclusive evidence.
If anyone can point out where this supposed evidence is rather than saying "there's evidence to suggest..." or "there is proof..." (but without actually referencing where this proof is) then please do reference it and then I might change my vote if they turn out to be facts rather than hoaxes or 'facts' presented by a biased Christian website.
In the meantime here's an interesting read that at the end suggests he might have existed but again is not conclusive: http://www.Livescience.Com/38014-physical-evidence-jesus-debated.Html
There is no solid evidence that can prove Jesus ever existed on earth. No witness, no belonging, no written materials, no speech record, no official record, no historical places etc. those that are available are all fakes. How can there be so many coincidence. The bible description are not logical. If he ever performed miracles, he would become a superior being , not being treated as a criminals, the story just don't make sense.
Common sense ， there is no non-bible evidences that can prove he ever walked on earth. Purely a myth created by ancient writers. There is no witness, no tomb, no belonging, no written materials, no historical location. No offical record. He came out from no where and is too good to be true.
Nothing was written about him while he lived - not one word - and the sources we have mentioning him decades after his passing are indirect references with only vague references to the Christian faith. They can be seen as proof that Christians did in fact exist and that they believed in this Jesus-character - but they offer no proof or testimony to the life of Jesus himself.
And the gospels don't count. First of they too were written long after his proposed life - and secondly I find their stories to be way too incredible.
However - this is my personal bias. Jesus may have existed - I'm merely pointing out that the evidence presented to me isn't convincing. Not at all. But even if he did exist - we have no credible source detailing any aspects of his life whatsoever so it would be impossible for us two thousand years after to separate myths from facts.
So even if he did exist - we'll never know who he really was or what he did - so to base one's life of his supposed teachings would be highly speculative - to say the least.
Which is why they call it "faith" I assume - rather than "conviction".
The Jesus described in the bible may have been loosely based on a real person but there is no evidence to support that anything else described is true. Saying that Jesus exists because someone wrote about him makes no sense. That's like saying Harry Potter must be real because J.K. Rowling wrote about him. As for the millions of people following him, what about the even greater number that don't follow him? Given that disbelief outweighs belief wouldn't it make sense to argue that he doesn't exist? Jesus may have been loosely based off a real person but the Jesus described in the bible is most likely fabricated.
No. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single contemporary extra biblical reference to Jesus anywhere. And given the utterly absurd claims about what he supposedly did, it is safe to conclude that if nothing else, Jesus as described in the bible is complete fiction. Maybe loosely based on a real person, but not as described in the bible.
I will agree that there is much written about the life of Jesus after his death, but the earliest is decades later. There are historical record and accounts of many events during that time. Not one document talk about Jesus while he was still alive. There is no report of his death until much later in time. Furthermore, the books that were accepted into the modern bible were written decades apart and differ in what actually happened. The only real written evidence of Jesus is conflicting reports ranging from 40-100 years after his death.
I find it extremely interesting and telling that certain accounts of Jesus's life were removed from the final version. These books are just as enlightening to those seeking the truth as the ones chosen because they fit the image of the church.
None. The Jews and Romans were literate people. He was supposed to be a "big deal" -- enough to kill for political reasons. We know of many other ongoing Jewish scholars debating issues ongoing at the time. But nothing about Jesus from anyone who lived while he did.... Unlike those who are satisfied with BELIEF and the existence of books and other believers, I need evidence..... Unfortunately, there is none.
Many of the stories religious people reference as Jesus's existence were written decades, DECADES!, after they were supposed to have happened. This can't be held as proof. All we have is these mismatched, unknown and specifically chosen text that are stories. Stories that copy legends that were old, even it those days. No. Nothing points to a single person.
All the Abrahamic religions (judaism, christianity &islam) are tools used by people in positions of power/wealth to control the masses. Jesus didn't exist because:
1) No historical evidence. (The bible doesn't count as it's a fabrication written long after the reported events and is far too biased).
2) Can anyone point to the town of nazareth on a map from the year 0? No they can't - it didn't exist until around 80CE.
3) Why were the mythical mary & joseph (his supposed mum & step dad) going to bethlehem? For an equally mythical Roman tax census, the nearest tax census to the miracle birth was in 8 CE and DID NOT require people to travel to the town of their birth (joseph's) to register.
4) King Herod was apparently so cross when told of the birth of the messiah he ordered the murder of all new born male children - really?! Herod died in 4BCE, was ill long before he died and in no condition to be ordering massacres. Also, where is the independent historical evidence for this mass murder?