Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Polls /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Religions
  5. / Religions A - Z
  6. / Christian Religions
  7. / Jesus Christ

by Michael Barker on July 23rd, 2005

Michael Barker

Poll

Help answer this question below.

Is their any reliable, independent evidence for the existence of Jesus of the new testament as a historical figure?

Embed
  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. 121 helpful answers below.

  • by Zoomzoom on June 22nd, 2010
    voted: Yes

    Zoomzoom

    I believe Jesus walked on the Earth, was the son of God, and rose from the grave.

    • Like
    • Report

    7 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by RC loves ice cream on June 21st, 2010
    voted: No

    RC loves ice cream

    He may have been a historical figure in the same way that Robin Hood or King Arthur was. That is, there may well have been a real person with that name, but the stories attributed to him are another matter altogether. Of course, without those stories, Jesus would have been just another Jew, who may have gotten the idea that he was the messiah (king) and got executed for his troubles.

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Lucy in the sky on June 22nd, 2010
    voted: Yes

    Lucy in the sky

    Our Lord Jesus Christ is The Son of God. There is only ONE God, and that is The Lord God Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth.
    Jesus Christ is His son, who was on the earth 2000 years ago, is now seated at the Right Hand of His Father, in heaven, and WILL return to the earth, when the time comes.

    • Like
    • Report

    43 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by MrJosh on June 21st, 2010
    voted: No

    MrJosh

    I really dislike the wording of this question. It should say something along the lines of "Is the Jesus of the Gospels BASED on a historical figure?" As someone else mentioned, King Arthur and Robin Hood are quite likely based on real people, but the characters we know by those names did not exist. Similarly, there may have been a man named Yeshua that the stories are based on, but the Jesus that we know through the gospels never existed.

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Quesi1 on December 18th, 2009
    voted: Yes

    Quesi1

    He's been dead for over 2000 years and we're still talking about him

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by GlenShelley on December 11th, 2009
    voted: Yes

    GlenShelley

    The fact that scoffers exist is not questioned. Perhaps this is coy, but maybe we should be asking them to prove their own existence from afar, in other words not permitting them to merely present themselves or other eye witnesses in present day physical form, as a means to prove what is a ridiculously, obvious, point of fact. Watch then, how they themselves go about doing this. One would assume they would have to resort to written evidences. Birth records, newspaper articles, letters and they would have the benefit of labeled/tagged photo albums. Some of these written evidences would come from family and friends. Some would come from independent sources, such as birth records and newspaper articles. Perhaps some would even be hostile, such as a filed civil suit. If those in the future were asked to prove the skeptics existence they might provide oral accounts passed down from friends and family that have survived through their lineage. All these proofs coming forward individually, could easily be challenged, but their collective force would eventually be accepted. Now I have no doubt that some skeptics sincerely ask such questions. I am merely standing firm, that in the wake of the above accepted evidences that have been applied to many other ancient historical figures, the question itself lacks intellectual sincerity.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by euchanels on June 22nd, 2010

    euchanels

    "Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the most influential figures of all time, although he didn't have more than 2 billion worshipers worldwide.. But what if he never existed? Many skeptics have posed this very question, and while true believers scoff at such suggestions, the debate is far from resolved. Napoleon Bonaparte may have changed the world, but did he really walk the Earth"? That is how stupid this question is. Hey, no, Einstein didn't exist either, he was just a figure of scientists imagination, yep people, don't believe the billions and billions of books and historical literature about a person that actually "did not exist". You know, Australia doesn't exist either, no ways, have you ever been there? "yes", really? how do i not know that your not lying?? same argument. Please, we as a society should start questioning every historical figure then, not just Jesus. Cause this argument goes for every man that made it into the history books. What utter non-sense.

    • Like
    • Report

    12 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Scoundral on July 31st, 2005

    Scoundral

    No. The only "evidence" of his existance is religious, and therefore biased, unreliable, and dependant.

    Unfortunatally, for mankind, the two sides of this debate have an unusual connection. In most debates, evidence is pulled to-and-fro between the opposing parties until one side establishes/abolishes it. But Christianity has grown too powerful and frankly too unreasonable to continue any form of debate with them. Anything that the word "Jesus" touches is snached so fast by the Christian churches as "fact" that the rest of the world doesn't bother to pull it away and say "oh well, more fuel for their fire". It's not worth trying to disprove the Bible anymore because the religion is something that doesn't require facts, only faith.

    It's futile to play a rebuttal against someone who doesn't need facts for their case. The only peace can come when non-christians stop trying to disprove christians and christians stop trying to convert non-christians.

    Edit: read above response to Thom's answer. The pressence of side-effects is not the presence of effect. There is plenty of side-evindence to support evolution, but if that alone could prove it we wouldn't need creationist religions.
    King Arthur, Merlin, and the story of Camelot had books written of it by people who claimed it really happened. Plato's writings of Atlantis claim it really existed. Homer's writings of the Trojan War claim it really took place. But are any of these in history books? No.

    History relies on believing, and only 11% of the world beleives in Jesus... so he is not a historical figure.

    • Like
    • Report

    9 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by seisho on October 4th, 2006

    seisho

    Why is it when you ask a christian a question they always turn it around and avoid answering the question you asked them in the first place?

    I am going to make a rebuttle for every # reason u have.

    1. how can you use a book that glorifys the existance of someone as proof of their existance? its far too biased. What proof is there that the bible is actually "God's" word? if there is myriad amount of proof how come i cant think of any?
    2. Josephus wrote about the events of jesus? Jesus was estimated to have died in about 36-37AD, Josephus was said to have been born in 33 AD. Hes writing history about stories hes been told.
    3. Tacitus like josephus was born after the death of jesus, so again hes writing about jesus from stories he was told.
    4. We know next to nothing about Thallus or his works. We don't even know if he wrote only one book or several. The only information we have about him, even his name, comes entirely from Christian apologetic sources beginning in the late 2nd century, and that information is plagued with problems. We dont know when thallus existed cuzz theres supposed to be works of his existing in 100bc to 100ad.
    Julius Africanus was born like 100 years after the death of jesus...again writing history off of stories. And he wrote his history as a christian follower. Seems kinda biased.
    5. "Nero and other Roman Ceasar's persecuted and tortured Christians for not denouncing their faith in Jesus Christ." ....and? How is that proof that the son of god existed? If you were ruling a country why would u want a a religious cult gaining power and influence in your country? No, so of course u kill them. And Nero was a psychotic ruler as well. It is presumed that he went on a christian killing campaign after the burning of rome which some say that he had started.
    6. "The Romans tortured and killed thousand of Christians in the Coliseum for their faith in Jesus, another well documented historical fact." ... The romans killed many people in the coloseum christians just so happened to be a number of the ones slain.
    7. "Many of the 12 disciples were brutally killed along with their families for not denouncing that Jesus Christ rose from the Dead. " .... usually people in cults are brain washed. Hell hundreds of people go out and buy nikes and kill themselves just so they can hop on a comet, why? because its what they wanted to believe.

    And comparing santa to jesus is stupid. The modern day santa didnt come about till cokecola made that figure their marketing device. market device/mythological figure vs religious figure is apples to oranges.

    8. I think the 1500years of crusades is comparable to egyptians building monumental pyramids for hundreds of years because of their religious faith and their sense of duty and debt to that faith. I dont think that the crusades should be counted as proof of jesus's existance. Crusades were military campaigns to gain more power and spread the reaches of certain empires. Just so happens that the group conducting the crusades were christians and the people they conquered had to succomb to they rulers and their religion.
    9. Using how are dating system is recorded is just a stupid suggestion of proof that jesus exists. Just so happens that the most influential culture adopts christianity as their religion and records history based off the birth of their god. Other cultures recorded histroy based off of natural events (floods, eclipses, droughts) or thier own religious leaders. Greeks based their calender off the olympic games.
    10. I dont see many japanese or chinese people cursing the name jesus? No duh people speaking the english language(based off latin used by the romans who became christians) are going to curse the name of jesus, a majority of the people who speak english are christians. You made no valid point.
    11. How do you know that those gods didnt exist? How do you know your god exists? The only reason Christianity existed today is because of the amount of military conquests spreading its influence, Over many countries, and those countries growing and spreading that religion more. Looking at the history and spreading of christianity, this religion killed millions of ppl just to spread its influence and ideals. How can you say that every other culture and religion worshipping another god prior to christianity is wrong? There are many gods and idols worshipped all over the world and their are cultures that havnt even heard of the christian lord, does that make them wrong, does that make them heathens? NO
    12. Again ur making the same silly arguement just worded different. You could say that Christianity has killed way more people in trying to spread their message than any other religion because of the time of its occurance, the during the most revolutionary 2000years of man thus far. It gained its popularity by being a religion of the most powerful nations that had yet to be conquered.
    13. there is no hard evidence ,if any, of jesus being the son of god. And you saying that theres more evidence of jesus existing than alexander is just stupid. Let me also reverse your question. Can you find 4 cities named after jesus christ like Alexander the great? Why would we model our calenders after a cultures that was taken over and defeated. We dont talk about alexander as much as jesus because he wasnt a religious figure, he was a military leader. Id like to see you try to tear my arguements apart about alexander the greats existance. The man had buildings erected, sculptures, murals, paintings, mosaics made after himself and his victories that are still in existance today. The man took over the entire persian empire and whose death brought about a complete change in the Greek culture. You cant deny the existance of a man who has SOLID evidence backing up his existance.

    And finally, if there is no evidence of something actually existing, thats as good as providing proof that something didnt exist. But in your arguement you are mixing the difference between the existance of a man named jesus and a man named jesus who claims to be the son of god. I dont want proof that a man named jesus existed, i want proof that jesus was the son of god and there is no evidence supporting that.

    • Like
    • Report

    7 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Thom64 on August 4th, 2005
    voted: Yes

    Thom64

    Absolutely.

    I do not believe there are any reputable sources that deny the historic persecution of people called "Christians" by the emperor Nero who ruled the Roman Empire in the first century. This persecution took place within the lifespan of Jesus contemporaries. I do not believe there is reasonable doubt that these were followers of Jesus. Records indicate that the Christians needed only to repudiate Jesus and acknowledge Nero to escape torture and death, but chose to be loyal to Jesus at their own peril.

    Ancient writings attributed to Josephus (who, I believe, wrote history for the Romans in the first century) refer to the followers of Jesus as a sect of Judaism (if I remember right).

    And there are, of course, ancient manuscripts of the books of the New Testament which demonstrate irrefutably that people from at least as early as the second century - when there were plenty of people around who had parents or grandparents that could have testified personally about the stories in those books - took the history of Jesus very seriously.

    • Like
    • Report

    11 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by garion335 on June 24th, 2010
    voted: Yes

    garion335

    There is so much wrong under the "No" column that I won't address it all.

    Much of the writer's attitude is dismissive in nature, as when he supposedly discredits OT prophecy by simply saying it is irrelevent. Notice how he does not address why it is so, nor does he provide alternate explanations, nor does he address the nature of prophecy itself.

    Nearly all of his conclusions regarding the Gospels rely heavily on assumptions that many scholars do not agree with nor can be 100% proven or disproven. You see how it's ok for non-believers to make assumptions but when christians do it we are scoffed at.

    On the Pauline letters he states that only 4 letters could have been written by Paul as if this is a fact (the writer is guilty of doing this numerous times in his synopsis; that is, presenting opinion or theory as fact). No mention of the ongoing scholarly debate and no mention of scholar's majority opinion regarding the letters. A large reason he seems to discredit the Pauline letters is because virtually nothing is mentioned of Jesus and his life as in the gospels. What he doesn't tell you is Paul was writing to Christians who were well aware of the gospel message. It would be no different if you had a friend who told you about something that happened to him. Then a week letter he sends you an email regarding the story he told you, but instead of just getting to what he wants to say he begins by telling you the whole story all over again.

    • Like
    • Report

    6 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by lilygirl14 on June 23rd, 2010
    voted: Yes

    lilygirl14

    Jesus was one of the most influential people to ever have lived or have been said to live. He is the focal point of all Christian religions. Of course He was a historical figure!

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on June 23rd, 2010
    voted: Yes

    bagicide stayed 10 months too long

    Nothing like watching someone destroy their own credibility in the cause of promoting their favorite prejudice.

    Any good scientist forms a testable hypothesis and then tests it. If the evidence leads elsewhere, then discard it. Okay, lets look at Frank Zindler's claim's. In Jesus times, papermaking was still in its infancy. Like most new technologies, paper and writing materials were in short supply and very expensive. Only rulers and the wealthy could afford it, and only rulers and the wealthy rated being written about on that expensive stuff. Small town rulers like Herod and Pilate didn't rate being written about. Outside of the Bible, Herod and Pilate are only written about in Josephus. So if you discard the Bible reference, there is only one place to learn anything about Herod and Pilate. Do you suspect they didn't really exist? No, no one argues that. There is some archaeological corroboration, of course. Herod did build a palace. But we wouldn't know it was Herod's palace without that reference. In fact, without the Bible and Josephus, we wouldn't have known there was a palace out there to excavate. Feel free to Google this. Somehow, no one doubts the Bible when it comes to Herod or Pilate. It is only Jesus they doubt. Now remember, the Bible was only gathered together as one book long after they were written. Even after the invention of the printing press, book binding was not advanced enough to bind them together into one volume. So the idea of "the Bible" as one book is very recent. Originally, those were 66 different books on the nature of God and the history of the Jewish people. The Gospels were four different books written by four different men at four places in four different times. They have minor disagreements, which any police officer will tell you means they didn't get together and agree on a version of the story. Yet their stories substantially agree, even given that they didn't discuss it beforehand. Now, before you can accept his hypothesis, you have to answer the question "why did a poor carpenter's son from the very backwoods of Israel rate four books on very expensive paper in an era when most people couldn't write and you had to pay a very expensive scribe to write your words down for you?" He rated more books than the rulers of his region, way more. He rated about the same number of books as Caesar. Why would anybody waste that much money writing down the life story of the son of a backwoods carpenter? Remember, fiction writing hadn't been invented yet and wouldn't be for hundreds of years. There were no novels in this time period. Paper was too expensive to was on frivolity. No one wrote much of anything except records and history. Yes, there were myths and plays, but they were written as myths and plays. Even Homer wrote the Illiad to commemorate something that really happened. Yes, the Odyssey was a myth, but it was a myth written by one man, not corroborated as truth by three other writers writing without the benefit of having "gotten their story straight" together.

    The very idea that Zindler claims Christ did not exist because there isn't as much evidence as there is for Tiberius is downright silly. There is actually a roughly equal written record that a poor carpenter existed as there is for the Emperor of the Roman Empire. There isn't as much archaeological evidence or quite as much in the daily records department. Would you expect there to be? That is like expecting to find as much television footage of the carpenter who built your house as there is of President Obama. Silly? You bet.

    Lastly, lets look at his idea that Christ was a skilled magician and it was all smoke and mirrors. Smoke being the magician's stock in trade, lets start by remembering that gunpowder wasn't invented yet. Go google the masked magician. There are dozens of his shows on youtube. He shows how different magic tricks are done. Do you think Christ could do any of those? If He could, that would probably prove He was God rather than the other way around. Lucite wasn't invented yet. Television cameras weren't invented yet. Cables and pulleys weren't invented yet. Just look at the feeding of the 5000. When you are trying to fool someone, you don't give the names of the witnesses so that people can go check. David Copperfield never gave out the names of the people who witnessed him making the Statue of Liberty disappear or the names of the people who watched him make a 747 vanish. Why? He didn't want them to give away his secrets. The authors of the gospels said the feeding of the 5000 happened at Bethsaida so their audience could go and ask and make sure it actually happened. Now, how much food do you think it would take to feed 5000 min? Remember, there were women and children there too, but they didn't count them. There may have been more like 10,000 people, but they only counted the men. Do you think it would take a box truck load? A semi-truck load? Remember we are talking about fish here. How would you keep it from spoiling? Fish goes bad pretty quickly in equatorial heat. Could you hide it ahead of time to produce it at the right moment? Or would it give you ptomaine poisoning? Now, go look up Bethsaida on Google map. Take a look at the terrain. Could you hide a box truck load of food in that terrain? Remember, they didn't have box trucks. They didn't have semis. They didn't have reefer trucks. So you are talking about a fleet of boats or a caravan of camels or donkeys to transport the food. Where would you hide them in that terrain?

    Methinks that the magician trying to pull a sleight of hand here is Mr. Zindler. He wants you to think that he has formed a testable hypothesis and followed it wherever the evidence led. In reality, he has formed a conclusion and tried to shape the evidence to support his conclusion. That is pretty bad science. In fact, I would say it boils down to making a religion of science and "believing" in it. To be a scientist, you have to ask hard questions and follow wherever the answers lead you. You don't believe in science, you DO science.

    • Like
    • Report

    6 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 21st, 2010
    voted: Yes

    Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here

    I believe that there is enough credible historical evidence available to substantiate that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a historical figure. However, the theological question of whether he was the true Messiah ("Christ" in Greek) or not remains a matter of faith that can not be proven via empirical methods.

    And here is a good article with a sampling of historical documents that substantiate the historicity of Jesus using only non-Christian sources: http://www.probe.org/site/pp.aspx?c=fdKEIMNsEoG&b=4223639&printmode=1

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Stormarm on June 21st, 2010
    voted: Yes

    Stormarm

    No historian in the world can study Paul's general epistles (as he would any other ancient document) and seriously doubt the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, no Professor of Ancient History who has so studied the documents does doubt his existence. Just try to find any article in a peer reviews academic journal where one does.

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by leetmeat on June 27th, 2007

    leetmeat

    There isn't any solid historical proof of the existence of the Jesus in the bible. This is just the plain truth that some people refuse to believe.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by lareth on July 4th, 2010
    voted: No

    lareth

    Someone once said, that there is as much evidence of Jesus from nazareth, as there is evidence of Hercules.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Siyanor on June 21st, 2010
    voted: Yes

    Siyanor

    I'm pretty sure Answerbag just didn't even BOTHER to post my answer... if it shows up twice, sorry...

    I am an atheist. I do believe that Jesus existed, but I don't believe that the Biblical stories are an accurate biography for Jesus.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on June 21st, 2010
    voted: Yes

    Anonymous

    Obviously He is a historical figure.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by OwlKaMyst on June 21st, 2010
    voted: No

    OwlKaMyst

    There was not a 'maybe' or 'undecided' option.
    From all of my study and poking about- it is hard to say if Jesus was really who he was as written in the bible. For starters the bible was translated and rewritten so many times...as well as the parts about Jesus not being written until many decades later, after all who where alive at that time have gone.
    As with all legends, most are a collaboration of several influential individuals of that time period, similar to King Arthur.

    Beings that I study astrology, I find a lot of astrological references in the bible. Those who do not study astrology may take the words differently than I do. I see them as stellar references.
    Thus, this whole story could be seen as some cosmic influence.
    For instance- Virgo, the sign of the Virgin, it's symbol is an M shape with a fish on one 'leg' of the M...virgin/fish...sound familiar? Then there is the fact that the sign of Virgo 'rules' Bethlehem, 'house of bread'.
    In December, Virgo is the sign on the horizon.
    So literally, in a cosmic sense, the Virgo gives birth to the Sun in December.
    The three wise men, if real, where Magi and used the night sky/astrology of that day (which is not like the horoscope astrology of today) to see messages for the Great One.
    If they where figurative, they represent the three stars of Orion's Belt, which are known as the 'three kings'

    Then there is the numerous stories of 'virgin' births in mythology all about the northern hemisphere.

    There is very little, if any, writing about Jesus other than what is found in the the bible.
    At the time Rome was big on recording events. Had Jesus been such a 'big' player in these times, I would think there would be more about him.

    There are also thoughts that while he did walk this earth, he is not the 'great son of god' that religion would like for us to believe.
    Other thoughts are that he was a Prince from Egypt and that he went into exile in India and died there. There is a shrine in India that has a sarcophagus with a figure that could be seen as Jesus, has marks on the hands and feet.
    But who knows. I don't, I was not there- anything else could be fake for the sole purpose of making a legend a fact.

    • Like
    • Report

    32 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Gratis on June 21st, 2010
    voted: No

    Gratis

    Show me the evidence.

    • Like
    • Report

    21 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Farino on July 11th, 2007

    Farino

    "The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility. Though the reconstructions vary, they generally agree on these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher[1] who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in Palestine during the governorship of Pontius Pilate."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
    So, yes there are other sources that provide evidence of his existence.

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Temple Fire on July 6th, 2010
    voted: No

    Temple Fire

    religious yes for some but not historical by all since there is no proof of his existence other then the bible and even it has no facts only opinions that have never been able to be truly verified

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by 666kowboy on June 26th, 2010
    voted: No

    666kowboy

    The jesus of the Bible is likely a combination of various myths and stories taken from other cultures and scraps and pieces from real people who existed at different times in different places. One real person? No.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by josie III on June 24th, 2010

    josie III

    The truth is, there is no way to know with certainty. But as other baggers have noted, the story of Jesus has themes that are repeated over and over in antiquity, in different cultures and locations. Charismatic healers and preachers were common, particularly in the Middle
    East before and during Roman occupation. Tacitus' wrote about him over a century after his death, hardly a contemporary account. If he lived at all, he probably was an interesting guy. However, modern epistemology would not permit any reasonable person from concluding that he was some sort of representative from a Platonic other world, carrying divine guidance.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by The Anonymous Witch on June 23rd, 2010
    voted: No

    The Anonymous Witch

    The whole story of jesus was stolen From engravings on the inner walls of Temple of Luxor, in Luxor, Egypt, from the time of King Amenhotep III (1538-1501 B.C.).
    ---jesus and horus comparisons ---
    Conception: j= By a virgin.- horus= By a virgin.
    Father: Horus- Only begotten son of the God Osiris.
    jesus; Only begotten son of Yehovah (in the form of the Holy Spirit).
    Mother: Horus =isis-Meri. jesus = Miriam (now often referred to as Mary).
    Foster father:Horus= Seb, (a.k.a. Jo-Seph). jesus= Joseph.
    Foster father's ancestry: j= Of royal descent. h= Of royal descent.
    Birth location: h=In a cave. j=In a cave or stable.
    Annunciation: h= By an angel to Isis, his mother. j=By an angel to Miriam, his mother.
    Birth heralded by: h=The star Sirius, the morning star. j=An unidentified "star in the East."
    Birth date: Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at
    the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human.
    jesus =Born during the fall. However, his birth date is now celebrated on DEC-25.a pagan holiday

    Birth announcement:h= By angels. j= By angels.
    Birth witnesses: j= Shepherds. h = Shepherds.
    Later witnesses to birth: h-Three solar deities. j= 3 wise men.
    Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Herod tried to have Jesus murdered.
    Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus' mother "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child."
    An angel tells Jesus' father to: "Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt."
    Rite of passage ritual: Horus came of age with a special ritual, ---
    jesus was Taken by parents to the temple for what is today called a bar mitzvah ritual.
    Age at the ritual: j=12 h=12
    Break in life history: h= No data between ages of 12 & 30.
    j= No data between ages of 12 & 30.
    Baptism location: h= In the river Eridanus.
    j= In the river Jordan.
    Age at baptism: h=30. j =30.
    Baptized by: h= Anup the Baptiser. j=John the Baptist, a.k.a. John the Baptist.
    Subsequent fate of the baptiser: h= Beheaded. j= Beheaded

    • Like
    • Report

    23 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by skep on June 22nd, 2010
    voted: No

    skep

    I voted no.

    The character Jesus was entirely allegorical. His persona was required by the handful of Hebrews who decided to adopt the ideas of a tax collector named Saul, so they say.

    Saul wanted a messiah who actually arrived and not one to arrive eventually like every collection of 15 or more individuals in Mesopotamia.

    The real Hebrews, who starter it all, are content to wait, even today. A messianic expectation was common in the various religions of Mesopotamia for any collection of wandering tribes and this helps to account for the over 2,500 gods identified since written language began.

    In my view, most of the major characters in any religious missive, from the time, are made-up characters with important, to the particular dogma, jobs to do in order to establish whatever religious fantasy the constructors were trying to build.

    Surely Moses was allegorical and if we take the time to look up various man-gods in Middle Eastern religions, we find half-man, half-god characters able to perform miracles that amaze and confound the ignorant.

    The very description of Jesus is a composite of three such god/men so early christians didn't even provide anything original; they just purloined well known god/men.

    This is not rocket science and the information, by genuine scholars, is available, for free, on the Web. Amazing, really.

    • Like
    • Report

    8 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Gratis on June 21st, 2010
    voted: No

    Gratis

    Just an FYI, it should be 'a Historical Figure', not 'an'. Perhaps the poll author should look this up in an English grammar book. It's very easy, if it starts with a consonant you just use 'a'; if it starts with a vowel you use 'an'.

    • Like
    • Report

    23 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by hijklmno on July 11th, 2007

    hijklmno

    I'm an atheist, but I firmly believe that Jesus was a real person.

    Have a look at this wikipedia page for some contemporary-ish sources for his existence as well as other discussions:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by BlessedAreThose on June 27th, 2007

    BlessedAreThose

    So here goes:

    Josephus, a well known historian who lived around time Jesus did, writes this:

    “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. ” Antiquities, XVIII, 33)

    ----------
    Tacitus, sure you know that name, writes this:

    "“But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of
    Rome also." (Annals XV, 44)

    -----------------

    Just some examples.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by BlessedAreThose on June 27th, 2007

    BlessedAreThose

    There are actually 10.000 times more documents from Jesus' days about him, then there are documents about Alexander the Great, yet noone seems to doubt the latter one's existence. For example, Greek historian Cicero wrote about him in his works.

    Jesus Christ did (does in some people's opinions) exist, and there really is no debate about that anymore. The 'real' debate lies in whether he was who he said he was, or was he just a good man/teacher, etc.

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by vew573 on January 15th, 2012
    voted: Yes

    vew573

    “It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.”—Reynolds Price, American writer and Bible scholar.

    “A man who was completely innocent offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.”—Mohandas K. Gandhi, political and spiritual leader of India.

    As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”—Albert Einstein, German-born scientist.

    Jesus Christ, to me, is the outstanding personality of all time, all history, both as Son of God and as Son of Man. Everything He ever said or did has value for us today, and that is something you can say of no other man, alive or dead.”—Sholem Asch, Polish-born essayist as quoted in Christian Herald; italics theirs.

    For thirty five years of my life I was, in the proper acceptation of the word, nihilist, a man who believed in nothing. Five years ago my faith came to me. I believed in the doctrine of Jesus Christ and my whole life underwent a sudden transformation.”—Count Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist and philosopher.

    “[Jesus’] life is the most influential ever lived on this planet and its effect continues to mount.”—Kenneth Scott Latourette, American historian and author.

    “Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction. On the contrary, the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ.”—Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French philosopher

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Michael_H1410 on September 14th, 2010
    voted: No

    Michael_H1410

    I answered 'no' because there is no choice for 'probably not.'
    I look at the question this way: is there any other person who's historical existence we accept that can only be traced to the single holy book of a particular religion, who's purported eyewitness authors are anonymous and wrote their works at least 60 years after his death? Why then with Jesus? Even the existence of Socrates, for similar reasons, is contested to this day. And yet we keep hearing that nearly all historians accept the historicity of Jesus. Really? Or do you mean biblical scholars?

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Adam_Y on August 31st, 2010
    voted: No

    Adam_Y

    No he cannot be considered a Historical Figure until Every living person belives Christianity. If i was too go to Pakistan and say Jesus is a historicl figure the Muslims would disagree as would the christians if i said Allah was a historical figure. Remember, it takes ONE person to start a rumor THOUSANDS believe.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Aero on July 3rd, 2010
    voted: No

    Aero

    Anyone who just reads the bibles and goes from there, must be brainwashed....

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Aspergers syndrome on July 3rd, 2010
    voted: Yes

    Aspergers syndrome

    First of all, I am an athiest.
    Now that that is out of the way, Yes. I do believe that Jesus was a historical figure based on evedence presented. Was he the son of god? Did he have supernatural powers? I don't know. But what I am pretty sure of is that at least he existed.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Missnicolehw on June 28th, 2010
    voted: No

    Missnicolehw

    if he walked the earth would make him the first man on earth and yet still to proven Adam & Eve is first by the bible (which was proven that mankind epoch was not of human like us by sciencist today)

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by In-Stereo-Type on June 27th, 2010

    In-Stereo-Type

    Not sure if the individual existed or not. But I'm inclined to believe that the Romans produced all of the lore surrounding the individual. The deity surely did not exist at all.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Shawn on June 27th, 2010
    voted: Yes

    Shawn

    To me this is silly poll and points to NOTHING. The question should not be if a man existed by the Jewish name "Yeshua/Yahshua/etc" BUT rather he did the things that the story CLAIMS he did. I could care less if such a Jew existed BUT I would care IF he supposedly did the things the story says he did.

    Now of course there's no real evidence to attest to that though! The post-biblical stuff doesn't help the situation either. You see, there are all kinds of wonderful stories of FICTION out there that has a character doing super-human things BUT you won't see those things OUTSIDE that book!

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Z-Weezy on June 27th, 2010
    voted: No

    Z-Weezy

    I don't believe that the Jesus of the New Testament existed. Did a man exist who inspired the stories that make up the gospels? Perhaps, but the way this question is worded questions the authenticity of the biblical Jesus Christ.

    There is not a single eyewitness account over Jesus' existence. The main historical proof listed by the "yes" answer of this debate is the historian Tacitus, who wasn't even born until 20 years after the biblical Christ's death. Tacitus wasn't even born until 56 A.D. and the events referred to in Annals 15.44 would have occurred while he was less than 10 years old (the annals begin with the death of Augustus Caesar and end with the death of Nero).

    The lessons taught in the New Testament can be a solid foundation on which to live a life. However, I don't think that the man who most Christian's believe to have taught them was anything like what he was represented as in the Gospels.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by science_geek on June 25th, 2010
    voted: No

    science_geek

    No. Follow this link. Can you still believe after really watching it?
    http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/9234489

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by HoboJoe on June 24th, 2010
    voted: No

    HoboJoe

    He was one of the first evangelists. Jesus was just a man. No more than Jimmy Swaggart or Billy Graham.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by jakesyup on June 24th, 2010

    jakesyup

    76 penises and some poop

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Catholic31 on June 23rd, 2010

    Catholic31

    Jesus without reasonable doubt did exist. One of the main points that the author of the contrary position left out, is the fact that there are hundreds of writings by early Christians that testify to the existence of Christ. Over 100 narratives (gospels) of the life of Jesus did not make the cut for the Bible. Numerous letters, similar to the Epistles of Paul, were written between leaders of different Christian communities.

    If Christ did not exist, then what about the Apostles? Did they not exist? The author speaks at length about the Gospel of Mark. Mark was a disciple of the Apostle Peter. Ignatius of Antioch was associated with both John and Peter. These men truly existed and walked along side Jesus. They were from different backgrounds. Their primary languages were different. Because of their social standings they would not have associated with each other. And yet, if Jesus did not exist, they must have spent excessive amounts of time together developing this "myth".

    The difference between Jesus and the others listed, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Greek Gods, etc. Is in specificity. Jesus is listed as being in specific places at specific dates and times.

    • Like
    • Report

    31 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by thatsJustme on June 23rd, 2010
    voted: Yes

    thatsJustme

    'be careful of something thats just what you want it to be' skeptics.....HE is still changing the world.......it was PLANNED that WAY.....

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by A on June 23rd, 2010
    voted: Yes

    A

    I believe that he did.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Magenta on June 22nd, 2010
    voted: No

    Magenta

    In Jesus' time there were many street corner prophets, so Jesus could have been an amalgam of some of them, and later became more and more "miraculous" through word of mouth.

    His story is an obvious blend of other "dying god" myths, so there is no doubt that most of it is simply fables.

    If there was a single individual who was the basis for the myth to snowball from, maybe, maybe not. If there was, he would have almost nothing in common with the being in the story anyway.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by 23Skidoo on June 22nd, 2010
    voted: No

    23Skidoo

    I voted No but that's not really accurate. My position is better stated as, "There is insufficient evidence the think he did exist - but that isn't reason enough to think he didn't."

    And that should be the position of both authors here as well. In fact, that's close to the position of the Con author.

    The simple fact is that there is very little evidence to support a historical Jesus. It's so thin it could just as easily have been made up.

    Tacitus and Josephus wrote lone after Jesus would have died. Not a single 1st hand account was written down soon after - the 1st was about 40 years after.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Zack on June 22nd, 2010
    voted: Yes

    Zack

    That's what I hear even though nobody knows what this mysterious historical figure looks like.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by my2cents--Vote for Paul on June 22nd, 2010
    voted: Yes

    my2cents--Vote for Paul

    Yes. There numerous non-Biblical text. Documenting that Jesus was a real person.
    -
    Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1.
    -
    Tacitus, Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome -Annals, 15, 44.
    -
    Suetonius another Roman historian - speaks of expelling Jews on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].
    -
    Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.

    • Like
    • Report

    11 comments | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Is their any reliable, independent evidence for the existence of Jesus of the new testament as a historical figure? - which can also be phrased in the following ways:

  • Did Jesus exist, or is he a myth? If you believe he existed as a historic figure, please provide any evidence from the time Jesus lived that supports it.
  • Was Jesus a Historical Figure?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Independent evidence of jesus
Do history books provide reliable evidence about the past
Are there any credible contemporary non biblical sources that cite the existence of jesus
The crusades is the evidence reliable
Inaccuracies about jesus existence

Answerbag

a Demand Media company