by msminnamouse on December 22nd, 2008

Question

Help answer this question below.

Is there any REAL proof that Jesus even really existed? Things that aren't real include the shroud of Tourin and the Jesus Box and the like.

Like
Report

Share:: Facebook; Twitter; Other

Answers. 15 helpful answers below.

by PonderAppreciatively on December 23rd, 2008
Could a person who never lived have affected human history so remarkably?
The reference work The Historians’ History of the World observed: “The historical result of [Jesus’] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognised by the chief civilisations of the world, dates from his birth.”

There are the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, who mentions Christ in passing, when writing about the Emperor Nero.

Annales 15.44, in the second Medicean manuscript:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,
(Such history also reveals that Christians living in the first century, (the time when Christ lived), were sufficiently convinced to literally stake their LIVES on it.)

Jesus is also mentioned by the Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus. The reference is made in the Antiquities, in the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9. It concerns the execution of a man whom traditional scholarship identifies as James the Just.

",...Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:"

According to the New Encyclopædia Britannica: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”
Comments
- well said.
  
  Report
  
  by ICU says April is Autism Awareness Mo. on December 23rd, 2008
- Thank-you Carlysgram.
  : )
  
  Report
  
  by PonderAppreciatively on December 23rd, 2008
- Josephus is the only non-Biblical account, and there are those who believe that Josephus had heard from the same group who produced the gospel writers.
  
  For an idea to have a great effect, it does not have to be right, it just has to be timely. A story that touches the zeitgeist of the times will propagate, true or not.
  
  Nevertheless, I think it far more likely that someone named Jesus (or Joshua or something like that) did preach in Galilee and adjacent areas at the time. He may well have been crucified and, due to a bungling centurion, survived. How many of the stories attributed to him are true is anyone's guess.
  
  Report
  
  by Im Alec has abandoned this account on December 23rd, 2008
- Okay. All you did was you spouted gospel at me. How was that supposed to be evidence of anything? People believe in aliens and earth spirits too, does that make them real if I started spouting gospel about them?
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on December 23rd, 2008
- Gospel?
  Neither Flavius Josephus nor Tacitus were even Christians.
  Josephus was a Jewish Historian of the first Century and Tacitus was a Roman historian of the same period. Both mentioned Christ as a real historical personage, but both references were made in writings which were not religious in nature.
  These writings are not part of the Bible.
  Gospel?
  
  Report
  
  by PonderAppreciatively on December 24th, 2008
- I don't think msminnamouse recognizes the difference, Ponder, but to those of us that do that was a very adept answer. Good job. +4
  
  Report
  
  by hedge-rider on April 24th, 2009
- PonderAppreciatively: So according to your logic, because of Mohamed’s effects on human religious history he must have been a true prophet of god! There’s a lot of Muslims that would be pleased to hear you say this.
  
  Report
  
  by Retrovampire on June 29th, 2009
- Retrovampire: You old silly!
  The question asked if there was evidence, (outside of the Bible), that Jesus ever existed.
  In a nutshell: "Yes,...there is."
  
  Report
  
  by PonderAppreciatively on July 20th, 2009
- No, there isn't.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on July 20th, 2009
- Yes there is evidence of his existence outside of the bible. But it is not strong evidence.
  And as a correction Josephus does not mention Jesus as a historical figure, he in fact mentions Christians as historical figures and that they follow the teachings of one they call Jesus the Christ.
  Islam also mentions Jesus so this should also stand as equal evidence in that respect, evidence of a historical but not divine Jesus.
  We also have the gospels of Thomas, just as legitimate as evidence. And again Jesus is spoken of as a historical but not a divine figure.
  So in all there is written evidence for a historical Jesus (although not first hand), but not a divine son of god Jesus.
  And please, do not confuse evidence with proof.
  
  Report
  
  by Retrovampire on July 21st, 2009
- Ponder, I would like to answer the question you posed in the first line:
  Santa Claus (yes there was a St. Nicholas, but I hope we are all capable of accepting that the two have merely barely a handful of similar traits in common).
  
  Report
  
  by hedge-rider on July 21st, 2009
- Per Merriam-Webster:
  
  Main Entry:
  1ev·i·dence Listen to the pronunciation of 1evidence
  Pronunciation:
  \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
  Function:
  noun
  Date:
  14th century
  
  b: something that furnishes proof
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on July 22nd, 2009
- So Retrovampire is right, evidence and proof are not the same. Yet another semantics argument in the making.
  
  Report
  
  by hedge-rider on July 22nd, 2009
- How is this semantics? Evidence is not proof, merely a path towards proof. Conclusive evidence is proof, sure. But evidence can be merely circumstantial, there are many levels of evidence.
  The Gospels/NT are evidence of a historical Jesus, but when we consider who wrote them, when they were written, and who had control of them before they became part of the public domain, then they become very poor evidence.
  
  Report
  
  by Retrovampire on July 23rd, 2009
- Now independent writings by Josephus would be considered stronger evidence, especially if he had wrote how he had been down Jerusalem way and ran into some guy called Jesus preaching or being nailed to a cross. But he never, he just mentions the fact that there were Christians about at that time and they followed the teachings of some guy names Jesus. Which unfortunately tells us nothing more than we know already.
  
  Report
  
  by Retrovampire on July 23rd, 2009
- I didn't say it was semantics, I said it was a semantics argument in the making - because so many people use evidence and proof interchangeably. I was agreeing you, on the whole.
  
  Report
  
  by hedge-rider on July 23rd, 2009
- Indeed,...the question actually asked for "proof",... but I could only provide "evidence".
  It is my understanding that "proof" is achieved when the "evidence" provided is deemed sufficient to convince.
  Which means that no amount 'evidence' can 'prove' anything,....if those considering the 'evidence' have ALREADY reached a conclusion.
  
  Report
  
  by PonderAppreciatively on July 23rd, 2009
- What whole? I was`nt on any whole! Semantics?..
  
  Report
  
  by Retrovampire on July 23rd, 2009
- Ponders: Almost completely agree with you. Except to say that in some cases insufficient or weak evidence can often convince. "Spin doctors" and "preachers" have much in common.
  
  Report
  
  by Retrovampire on July 23rd, 2009
- Retro: Good point. Some are easily swayed,...and demand very little evidence in order to be convinced.
  Cheers!
  
  Report
  
  by PonderAppreciatively on July 25th, 2009
- And of cause some people will never be convinced what ever, one way or the other.
  
  Report
  
  by Retrovampire on July 25th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
21 comments | Post one | Permalink
by The Galaxy Hitchhiker on June 28th, 2009
There is extra-biblical proof that Jesus existed as well as archaeological evidence. It is important to note that archaeology without history is meaningless. All that archaeology can tell us is a sequence of cultural development, not give us an exact chronology. History gives us the chronology, the events, people, places.

What archaeology has done in the past 100 years is to verify some of the history contained in the Bible. For instance, two of the cities mentioned in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, have been for many years considered mythological.

In short, archeology simply verifies what the Bible has claimed as truth all along. On the other hand, using archaeology to "prove" the Bible is an attack on it's authenticity and claim to be the inerrant Word of God. Scripture needs no proof but it is nice to see that archaeological findings varify it's authenticity for it's many skeptics.
Comments
- indeed
  
  Report
  
  by Big Buckin Chicken on February 11th, 2012
- Not indeed since hearsay isn't proof.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on February 17th, 2012
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by the artist formerly known as triorion on December 22nd, 2008
like photos or whatnot? no, but most historians who have compared documents, Biblical and otherwise, agree that there was a man named Jesus who lived at that time, was a rabbi, and is the man described in the Bible (from there you have to determine whether He performed miracles or not for yourself). the scholarly debate nowadays is less focused on whether He existed or not, and more on what He actually did. so no, there's no concrete proof that will convince all people of His existance. this is, however, an issue for many historical figures.
Comments
- So what you're saying is that no, there is no proof.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on December 22nd, 2008
- if we are defining proof as evidence that will convince even the most skeptical people, then no, there is no proof (since this would probably require at the very least dozens of similar portraits from Jesus's lifetime). if proof is what convinces many people, but not all, then yes, there is proof. the documentation about His life is enough to convince quite a few scholars that He existed.
  
  Report
  
  by the artist formerly known as triorion on December 23rd, 2008
- I wrote a documentary about a green guy with polka dots that I kept seeing when I was high. Does that make him real?
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on December 23rd, 2008
- only if hundreds of other people saw him, wrote about similar characteristics, and were not high. i see where you are going with this, but the literary evidence for Jesus's existence (not whether He was the son of God or not - just that He existed) is pretty strong. i'm not trying to convince you though. happy holidays to you!
  
  Report
  
  by the artist formerly known as triorion on December 24th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
4 comments | Post one | Permalink
by SanityClause on December 22nd, 2008
His face was on a grilled cheese sandwich a while back. Some pious soul sold in on eBay. Last I heard of it, it was reverently enshrined in a casino.
Comments
- If anything convinced me, that was it!
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on December 22nd, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by vew573 on July 7th, 2010
The ignominious execution of Jesus as a contemptible criminal provides “the most convincing argument against opponents of the historicity of Jesus,” states Trilling. Why? Because the execution “encumbered, even hindered, the dispersion of the new faith among Jews and non-Jews.” (Compare 1 Corinthians 1:23) If the execution of Jesus the Messiah was such an effrontery to both Jews and Gentiles, it hardly would have been an invention of the apostles! Furthermore, Jesus’ death is attested to as an historical event not only by the four Gospels but also by the Roman writer Tacitus and by the Jewish Talmud.”

Other events during Jesus’ life are also viewed as internal evidence of the credibility of the Gospels, hence of what they tell us about him. For example, would the followers of Jesus have fabricated his coming from Nazareth, a place seemingly out of favor? Or is it likely that they would have invented his betrayal by Judas, a trusted companion? Does it seem realistic to think that they would have made up a story about Jesus’ being abandoned by the rest of the disciples in such a cowardly manner? It is surely illogical that the disciples would have constructed particulars so detrimental in nature and then proclaimed them far and wide!

In addition, the art of teaching employed by Jesus was characterized by a unique style. Jewish literature of the first century contains nothing comparable to his illustrations. Which anonymous person could ever have “invented” such a masterpiece as the Sermon on the Mount? These arguments all tend to corroborate the trustworthiness of the Gospels as reports of Jesus’ life.

There is also external evidence for the historicity of Jesus. The four Gospels portray him against a specific, accurately detailed, historical background. Places, such as Bethlehem and Galilee; prominent individuals and groups, such as Pontius Pilate and the Pharisees; as well as Jewish customs and other peculiarities were not simply concocted. They formed part of the structure of life in the first century, and they have been confirmed by non-biblical sources and by archaeological findings.

There is, thus, convincing evidence, both internal and external, that Jesus is a historical person.
Comments
- None of that convinces me because that's not evidence.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on February 14th, 2012
- msm. Some will not accept that Jesus was a real person regardless of what evidence is presented. I understand that. And that is their prerogative. However, here are a few quotes that might help.
  
  What is the historical evidence that Jesus was a real person. Josephus and Tacitus were two respected historians who lived in the first century and were not Christians. They mention Jesus Christ as a historical figure. Describing how Roman Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome in 64 C.E., Tacitus wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”
  
  Regarding the references made by first- and second-century historians to Jesus and the early Christians, the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”
  
  In 2002, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal stated: “Most scholars, barring the stray atheist, have already accepted Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person.”
  prerogative
  
  Report
  
  by vew573 on February 14th, 2012
- The Jewish Talmud and Mishnah don't even doubt that Jesus existed or his miracles. They claim that Jesus was an imposter and they attributed his miracles to magic.
  
  References to Jesus by Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and at least one by Flavius Josephus, are generally accepted as proof of the historical existence of Jesus.
  
  The following is a quote from an article from 1985:
  [Another example of a discovery that confirms the historicalness of a person mentioned in the Bible is given by Michael J. Howard, who worked with the Caesarea expedition in Israel in 1979. “For 1,900 years,” he wrote, “Pilate existed only on the pages of the Gospels and in the vague recollections of Roman and Jewish historians. Next to nothing was known about his life. Some said he never even existed. But in 1961, an Italian archaeological expedition was working in the ruins of the ancient Roman theater in Caesarea. A workman overturned a stone that had been used for one of the stairways. On the reverse side was the following, partially-obscured inscription in Latin: ‘Caesariensibus Tiberium Pontius Pilatus Praefectus Iudaeae.’ (To the people of Caesarea Tiberium Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judea.) It was a fatal blow to the doubts about Pilate’s existence. . . . For the first time there was contemporary epigraphic evidence of the life of the man who ordered the crucifixion of Christ.”28—John 19:13-16; Acts 4:27.]
  
  Report
  
  by Texasescimo on February 16th, 2012
- I don't think you understand what evidence means. All that is hearsay.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on February 17th, 2012
- If you won’t accept the statements of respected historians who lived in the 1st century and who were not Christians…Your probably not going to accept any kind of evidence.
  However, today, there are very who , few deny that Jesus really lived. In fact, there is very little about which there is more agreement than that he was a real and very important person. The heading of a Wall Street Journal editorial in December 2002 stated: “Science Can’t Ignore Jesus.” Its writer concluded: “Most scholars, barring the stray atheist, have already accepted Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person.
  
  But, your free to believe what you want. (:>
  
  Report
  
  by vew573 on February 17th, 2012
- It's been said that there is more evidence that Jesus Christ existed than there is that Julius Caesar, Emperor Charlemagne, Oliver Cromwell, or Pope Leo III lived.
  
  Report
  
  by Texasescimo on February 17th, 2012
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
6 comments | Post one | Permalink
by 23Skidoo on June 29th, 2009
There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus existed - except the gospels themselves - but that's rather slim as evidence goes.

Of course, with very, VERY few exceptions there is no evidence that any particular individual existed back then - and yet we know they did.

There may have been an actual man playing that role. And there may not have been. It's possible that he is more a construct of those who finally got round to writing things down.

+5
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by ZiggyStardust on June 29th, 2009
Well.. None of the Famous historians that were alive in the time timeframe as Jesus managed to write a single word about him (and considering he rose from the dead and acended into heaven, you would think that they would, right?)

Christianity was a Roman creation, brought about to unite the Empire.
All of the events in Jesus' life were stolenborrowed from a number of other religions and stories already circulating at the time.

This video will explain better than i ever could...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Retrovampire on June 29th, 2009
No...there is no real proof of a historical Jesus. There is of course some documented evidence, but unfortunately this has been comprehensively tampered with by the early church rendering it almost completely unreliable as evidence. I refer to the bible and Josephus of course.
Still, even these offer slightly more evidence than some historical figures....and considering the quantity of prophets, preachers etc that were around at that time in history...then I see no reason to suppose the stories weren’t based upon some historical figure of the time.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by hedge-rider on April 24th, 2009
Yes. There are records of him in an old Roman record, I believe (although if it's a census record or a reporting of his "trial" I don't quite remember).

Plus, there are quite a few non-Jewish historians and philosophers of the day who mentioned him in writings during the time.
Comments
- That's NOT proof.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on February 14th, 2012
- What are you defining as proof? Like a DNA sample?
  
  Report
  
  by hedge-rider on February 14th, 2012
- Something that would hold up in court, to prove that he existed beyond a reasonable doubt. So yes, DNA evidence that he existed. THAT is evidence.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on February 17th, 2012
- Got any DNA for Pontius Pilate or Julius Caesar? Most historians used to think that Pilate never existed until the last century. Most don't doubt that Julius Caesar existed and there is more evidence that Jesus existed than that of Julius.
  
  Report
  
  by Texasescimo on February 17th, 2012
- Witness testimony DOES hold up in court. Thus, if records and historical accounts from his time period attest to his existence, then you have your proof - according to the definition you set down.
  
  However, I'm quite certain, from what I've gathered from your other comments on this question, that you've already made up your decision to this answer. So for YOU, no, there doesn't seem to be any proof that's good enough. For the rest of the scholarly world, there is as adequate proof as is needed for any/all figures beyond the time that DNA evidence (as Texasescimo states) or photographic evidence were possibly collected.
  
  Report
  
  by hedge-rider on March 8th, 2012
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
5 comments | Post one | Permalink
by tapatio on June 28th, 2009
There is no real proof msminnamouse, for you with the current condition of your heart. Somehow you need to hear the Word, God's call on your life, probably from a believer. When you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, your eyes will be opened and you will know like millions of others do how real and wonderful Jesus is. I pray for your deliverance from your spiritual blindness.
Comments
- That's extremely offensive. I'm not Christian. Stop forcing your religion on me, Jesus is NOT my savior.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on February 14th, 2012
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by MininimMCXCVII on July 7th, 2010
The Shroud of Tourin is a fake. It is a religious relic. Possibly —according to some scholars that I don't remember their names — is a fake made by Leonardo Davinci; with the use of an optical device, made in a tower in Italy. I don't know what tower or place.

Every church in the world, or at least a lot of them, claim they have a relic from the cruxificion or saints; i.e.: nails, wood, saint bones, etc, etc, etc.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by woggy on February 11th, 2012
Johnny come lately here...

The Jews, who hate Christianity, admit Jesus' existence in their foul writings of him in the Talmud.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by fundamentallyflawed on February 11th, 2012
Do you still talk about anyone else who lived 2000+ years ago? Do any other religions or cultures?

I know. It's a big conspiracy. Whities got together and all agreed for the next 2000 years this is what we will say. BUT conspiracies like the government was behind the OKC bombing for example are crazy talk.

I find it amazing what we question these days. The world has lost its compass.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by fundamentallyflawed on February 11th, 2012
Funny liberals basically want to see Jesus' birth certificate, but not obama's there messiah.

Got to love it.
Comments
- WHAT do liberals and Obama have to do with ANYTHING???
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on February 14th, 2012
- The stereotype liberals question religion, Jesus, etc more than conservatives. Remember "cons" cling to their bibles and guns and liberals are enlightened beings with far superior intelligence. So smart in fact they don't worry about small details like SPENDING MORE $$$ THAN YOU HAVE IS INSANE. Plus they worship Obama like a messiah i.e. Jesus.
  
  Report
  
  by fundamentallyflawed on February 14th, 2012
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by msminnamouse on December 23rd, 2008
And reciting gospel doesn't PROVE anything.
Comments
- I'm curious,...how do you define 'gospel'?
  
  Report
  
  by PonderAppreciatively on December 30th, 2008
- 1. the teachings of Jesus and the apostles; the Christian revelation.
  2. the story of Christ's life and teachings, esp. as contained in the first four books of the New Testament, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
  3. (usually initial capital letter) any of these four books.
  4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed: to take his report for gospel.
  5. a doctrine regarded as of prime importance: political gospel.
  6. glad tidings, esp. concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ.
  7. (often initial capital letter) Ecclesiastical. an extract from one of the four Gospels, forming part of the Eucharistic service in certain churches.
  8. gospel music.
  –adjective
  9. of, pertaining to, or proclaiming the gospel or its teachings: a gospel preacher.
  10. in accordance with the gospel; evangelical.
  11. of or pertaining to gospel music: a gospel singer.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on December 30th, 2008
- You say that reciting "gospel" doesn't prove anything,...
  Okay.
  Do reports by secular historians, of a nonreligious nature also fall under this category?
  
  Report
  
  by PonderAppreciatively on January 1st, 2009
- Yes.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on January 1st, 2009
- Hmmmm,...enough said.
  
  Report
  
  by PonderAppreciatively on January 1st, 2009
- You have yet to offer any concrete evidence of his existence.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on January 2nd, 2009
- Your comments indicate that NO evidence offered will be regarded as proof.
  I don't understand why you even asked the question.
  
  Report
  
  by PonderAppreciatively on January 2nd, 2009
- So then the answer to the question is that there is no real concrete evidence that he ever existed. Isn't it funny how religious fanatics never apply logic? They just let their church think for them.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on January 2nd, 2009
- No. The answer is that you've already reached your conclusion.
  "Proof" is the amount of evidence necessary to convince. You cannot be convinced of anything, unless your keep an openmind.
  -
  There are two types of historical evidence; religious and secular , (nonreligious)
  You've commented that you will accept neither.
  How reasonable is that?
  
  Report
  
  by PonderAppreciatively on January 3rd, 2009
- I accept hard fact. Scientific evidence. Do you know what that even is? It might be outside your grasp.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on January 4th, 2009
- No need for insults.
  I'm apologize, if I've offended you in any way.
  
  Report
  
  by PonderAppreciatively on January 6th, 2009
- I apologize also. You're right, insults were out of line. I'm sorry.
  
  Report
  
  by msminnamouse on January 7th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
12 comments | Post one | Permalink

Question

Is there any REAL proof that Jesus even really existed? Things that aren't real include the shroud of Tourin and the Jesus Box and the like.

Answers. 15 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

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

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Is the Shroud of Turin proof that Jesus existed?

I am looking for proof that that jesus was real and if he was who wrote the origanal Bible and what kind of religion did they have if Jesus was real when he was little if jesus was not included in the bible until later?

Why wasn't Jesus Christ's real birthday mentioned anywhere in the Bible if he existed? If Jesus were real, wouldn't his date of birth been an important fact to have mentioned?

Okay people of Answerbag that tell others they must be Christian, Catholic, etc. in order to be saved, here is proof Jesus disapproved of public prayer so the question here is aren't you marked as disobediant because you didn't listen to Jesus?

What was Jesus' real name? (Pretty clearly he wasn't born with the name Jesus Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth, etc.)

Professionally Researched

Are freshwater pearls real?

What controller is needed for an\"Orange Box\"PS3?

Can we file a joint tax return even when we aren't legally married?

What does ISO really mean?

Do rhinos really put out fires?

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Question

Is there any REAL proof that Jesus even really existed? Things that aren't real include the shroud of Tourin and the Jesus Box and the like.

Answers. 15 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

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

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!