- NEW!
by Duane Roelands on April 16th, 2004
There are physical items have been purported to support the existence of a man corresponding to the figure of Jesus. Some of these objects like "The Jesus Box" (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/) have been dismissed as fakes, while others like "The Shroud of Turin" (http://www.shroud.com/) are surround by controversy and have not been proven to be either authentic or fraudulent.
No piece of physical evidence has been introduced that conclusively proves that the man known as Jesus Christ existed, although there is a fair amount of historical writing that suggests that he did. It should be noted that the question "Did Jesus exist?" and "Was Jesus the son of God?" are considered to be separate questions by many people.
by Ferventservant1 on September 28th, 2008
There is one factor not yet considered: Common sense.
Why would 12 followers allow themselves to be hunted, tortured, and martyred for something they knew wasn't real? All but John were directly killed for their faith. (John was exiled to an island to die) Maybe- just maybe you could say that one or two were nuts, like Judas, but all of them? and hundreds of other witnesses? Not likely.
Also consider the reason that the gospel of Luke was ever written. Luke was a second-hand believer- The follower of a direct desciple. He wrote by investigative reporting. He went where Jesus went, interviewed witnesses, saw the evidence and wrote it all down so that in 2000 years, a bunch of atheists could have proof. His was written separate from the others. The reason they all match up- It happened!
Here are a few more non-believer accounts of this Jesus from Nazareth, called Christ, actually being seen:
• Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote: “The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record. See —THE COMPLETE WORKS OF TACITUS (NEW YORK, 1942), “THE ANNALS,” BOOK 15, PAR. 44.
• Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also referred to Christ. Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome 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). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. 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.
• Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote of the stoning of James*, whom he identified as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead! (*THE JEWISH ANTIQUITIES, JOSEPHUS, BOOK XX, SEC. 200)
• Lucian of Samosata was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.
• Mara Bar-Serepion Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion (spelled either Se- or Sa-), who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.
by smokey888x2 on April 25th, 2004
I looked at this question and I would add that in terms of written material the evidence appears overwhelming. Not only are there numerous accounts but there is also fullfilment from the Old Testiment as well. Far too much for me to even begin to include here but as you read the New Testiment even, think about the number of sources and how the story even fits. I think you'll soon see what I mean that there is a wide source of reporting and even a higher source at times. Really is interesting. Personally, I found there to be such a wide degree of uniformity that no one person could have made it up.
by Tom on September 5th, 2007
In terms of physical proof, one can conclude that a man named Jesus did live. The real question is if that man is who the bible says he is. I am not aware of any physical proof that he is. If one takes the gospels of the Bible as truth, why is that none of the following claims of the Bible are mentioned in the history of other people(s):
1. If a star appeared in the sky directing wise men and kings to his location, why do we not find accounts of the event in other cultures mentioning kings leaving his or her thrown to go star chasing. If not accounted for by those who, according to the story, found Jesus, shouldn’t their at least be a report of a new star in the sky by someone? anyone? Stars have been studied and documented by many cultures for thousands of years.
2. During his death, why did the Jewish scribes not document something as massive as the curtain of the holiest place in the temple being torn as reported in the gospels?
3. If God, the creator of all, turned is back on the entire Earth causing darkness and Earthquakes while Jesus was on the cross, why didn't at least a few culture's of the world report the event?
As much as I want to believe, I would like to see at least one claim made by the gospels appear elsewhere in some other sort of history text of any type (just one will do). To date, I have found none.
by Thom64 on August 28th, 2004
The only thing I can think of that would qualify as physical proof is a body that most everyone agrees is him - like King Tut. We have a body found in an apparently undisturbed tomb with his name and supportive documentary evidence. By this standard, we have no "physical proof" (as far as I know) that Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great or Jesus existed. Almost all historical figures are known by document evidence, not physical proof. So, the short answer is: no.
The long answer is, we have better documentary evidence for Jesus life, death and resurrection than that most historical figures from more than about 400 years ago really lived. There is a Roman historian, Josephus, whose writings from the first century referred to Jesus. While not without controversy, this account and its supporting evidence along with the early manuscripts of the New Testament books make a strong case for Jesus' authenticity.
That Christians were persecuted and fed to the lions within the lifetime of people who knew Jesus is almost unquestioned, so I can say without hesitation that, according to generally accepted historical record, people who lived in the first and second century, who were contemporaries of Jesus and his disciples, believed he was real and chose to be tortured to death under Nero and others rather than deny that the gospel of Jesus is truth. This qualifies as a very strong case for the authenticity of the gospel since most people will not choose torture or being fed to lions to defend a lie... many wouldn't to defend the truth. Nero ruled from about 54AD to 69AD which was within the lifetime of some of the disciples of Jesus. Much more could be said.
The history of people who chose to defend this belief is continuous from the first century to the present.
__________
Note to Krista:
A birth certificate is a document. The carving on a tombstone is essentially a document. It is exactly the same. Shakespeare is known by documentary evidence. If there is a body in that tomb, it could be most any body (pun intended). Any documents supporting the authenticity of the tombstone are... well... more documents.
by TRAVIS SIMPSON on April 29th, 2004
There is more proof of the existence of Jesus and his miracles than of Julius Cesaer. The world does not question his existence though. The Bible tells us that most of the world will deny him. It also tells us that the world hates what is good. These questions are merely fullfillment of prophesy. People who are always looking for proof are always going to be looking for something. The Bible says " seek and you shall find ". The knowledge of this world is nothing but knowledge. Wisdom comes from God. Knowledge is not power. If you do not have the wisdom to use it then it is useless. Seek rightousness and wisdom, not proof.
by Perryman on December 7th, 2007
"Physical proof”?
Over two thousand years – matter turns into dust. How much proof do we have that Julius Cesar really walked the earth for that part.
One historian A. Johnson wrote years ago that "we have more evidence that Jesus Christ died on Calvary, as stated in the Gospels, than we have that Julius Caesar died in the Capitol. We have, indeed, far more. Ask anyone who professes to doubt the truth of the Gospel history what reason he has for believing that Caesar died in the Capitol, or that the Emperor Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the West by Pope Leo III. in 800”.
Regarding the “New Testament” or Christian Greek Scriptures, not only do they verify the Hebrew Scripture account but they themselves are proved to be historically accurate as well as authentic and of equal inspiration with the Hebrew Scriptures.
The writers declare to us what they heard and saw, for they were eyewitnesses of and often participants in the very events that they recorded. They were believed by thousands of their contemporaries. Their testimony finds abundant confirmation in references by ancient writers, among whom are Juvenal, Tacitus, Seneca, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Celsus, and the Jewish historian Josephus.
So in other words, when you check the work of the writers of the New Testament against the secular historians of the time, the Bible checks out as accurate.
Sir Isaac Newton, a serious Bible student, was also eminent as a critic of ancient writings, and examined with great care the Holy Scriptures. What is his verdict on this point? ‘I find,’ says he, ‘more sure marks of authenticity in the New Testament than in any profane [secular] history whatever.
Jesus was a real person and the impact that his life was felt immediately in the decades after his death as Christianity spread worldwide.
by Conundrum on April 14th, 2005
Physical proof does exist in the form of testimony. (The testimony of an expert witness is considered admissible evidence in a court of law. The court will also enter written testimony as "physical evidence"). The testimony of a defendant can be considered "proof" as to his or her guilt or innocence and the testimony of a witness is also considered "proof" for or against the defendant.
There are literally hundreds of pieces of "physical proof" in the form of written text, many are literally written in stone, some on parchment, others are biblical.
But there is a theological reason for a real lack of "proof", those who accept Jesus as the Savior, do so strictly by faith.
The fact that He existed is not "proof" that He is the Son of God, but His testimony and the testimony of others (the list is huge, biblical and secular) regarding His miracles, death, burial and resurrection certainly prove it.
by OutOfDarkness on September 22nd, 2006
Yo, peeps! You CANNOT use the Bible as evidence that Jesus existed, so stop doing it. Everyone knows what the Bible teaches. If it is not corroborated by "real" secular evidence, which it to-date has not been, then there is no proof. If you say there are many secular sources, then cite them here please.
by OutOfDarkness on September 9th, 2006
None of these conjectures would stand up in a rational court of law.
1) Josephus? I don't think so. Ephesus managed quite sloppily to alter the text to include Jesus. Jesus, the brother of James is like saying, Jeff, the brother of Mike. The names were that common.
2) A census that says "Jesus of Nazareth"? Again, not very likely. Where is the documentation? Nazareth, the town, did not even exist until 100AD.
3) Why do the Gospels correlate so closely? Because they were written by the same man, or group of men, assigned the task by the Nicene Council in 310AD. These are not "real" documents. They are novels written to bolster the position of the New Church under Constantine.
4) Why would there be a Christian Church if Jesus had not existed? Again, Constantine needed a socio-political-religious organization to allow him to rule in peace. As the head of State, he was also head of the Church. Very convenient!
5) It IS about faith. There is absolutely no documentable proof that Jesus or the Church existed at the time Jesus was said to have walked the Earth. The date 0AD wasn't even set until the 700s AD when the Catholic Church arbitrarily created a new calendar.
If you believe in Jesus' teachings, that's great!! Buddha taught very similar things. If you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, the Savior of the World, you had better not settle for second-hand information or tradition. There's a huge disappointment waiting for those who don't seek facts to back up their faith.
Whether Jesus existed or was created as a character to build an empire around, it matters very little. What one does as a "believer" is more important than the actual character.
Believe what you will, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or any other sect or culture. Just be true to your beliefs.
by Castrate on April 2nd, 2007
I'll tell you right now, there is no "proof" of Jesus existence, that we know of. There is only evidence. Written documents are as much evidence for his existence, as for just about any other Historical figure. Documented evidence, might even be "better" than a supposed tunic of Jesus', because there are multiple sources documenting it. And yes, the bible is "one" of those sources. Here is a good article on the subject. Honestly, you have to be one desperate atheist, to go so far as to deny that Jesus existed, and yet keep on believing somebody like Archimedes, did...
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
by Shabba on January 8th, 2006
Apart from circumstantial evidence, I am not aware of any hard, physical evidence that can be used to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus existed. There are historical writings and other records of his existence, but if you're looking for a grave or a body, you're not going to find one. He was supposed to have risen from the dead and ascended into heaven, remember. How could there be a body left?
So there's no grave, no birth certificate, no guided tours of Jesus' house. All we have are the bible and other eyewitness accounts. There are shreds of evidence such as those mentioned in other posts, but with the loss of history in that area, especially with the sacking of Jerusalem in AD70 (and hence the destruction of the genealogical records kept in the temple), there is no physical evidence that dates back to the time he is supposed to live.
Where does that leave us, then? We have a few bits of history pointing to him, and the eyewitness accounts of dead men and women. We have a book that to the natural, selfish man is controversial at best, and cannot be proven beyond doubt. So all we have is faith. Isn't that what Christianity is based on?
*Stamps foot* "That's not good enough. I want proof!"
You're not going to get any. Why? "A wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign? I tell you that no sign will be given except the sign of Jonah." "Even if I did tell you, you would not believe me." These were his supposed words to another disbelieving people. Where there's faith, there's no need for proof. Where there's proof, there's no need for faith. If God wants us to live by faith, why would he give us proof?
by Sir yhvhash on October 22nd, 2009
The Roman historian Tacitus attests to his life and death. No one has falsified his comments
.
Josephus twice attests to Jesus. One of these occurences is disputed to be a later interpolation, but not a single manuscript has been found that ommits this. In either event, the non-disputed passage still attests to Jesus' existence as a historical figure
.
Pliny the Younger attests to Jesus
.
The Talmud of the Jews attests to Jesus. It even attests to his miracles claiming them to be worked by sorcery
.
Celsus attests to his life, his miracles, and the fact that he claimed to be God
.
Lucian attests
.
so many more proofs exist. No other figure of the time is as well attested
.
With the exeption of John, all the disciples were brutally murdered for their testimony. Not a single shred of evidence exists to the effect that any of them ever recanted their testimony at any time
.
The first converts who where visitied by the risen Christ likewise suffered torturous death with calmness and singing. Why, because they were not lying. +5
by iwnit on September 28th, 2008
No. It is broadly accepted that Jesus existed, but some people have also presented alternative theories. Those theories could not be held if we had a physical proof.
"The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars often draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition. The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to various religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.
Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion. On the other hand, mythologists, and a minority of biblical and historical scholars argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure synthesized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.
The four canonical Gospels (most commonly estimated to have been written between 65 and 110 A.D) and the writings of Paul of the New Testament are among the earliest known documents relating to Jesus' life. Some scholars also hypothesize the existence of earlier texts such as the Signs Gospel and the Q document. There are arguments that the Gospel of Thomas is likewise an early text.
Scholarly opinions on the historicity of the New Testament accounts are diverse. At the extremes, they range from the view that they are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus, to the view that they provide no historical information about his life. As with all historical sources, scholars ask: to what extent did the authors' motivations shape the texts, what sources were available to them, how soon after the events described did they write, and did these factors lead to inaccuracies such as exaggerations or inventions?"
Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis
by PUGWASHJW on November 17th, 2005
There is the existence of Christians around the world. If Jesus had not existed, how can the Christian religion and its start be explained. Also the early writer Josephus, in his writings, mentions Jesus. And there is historical proof that both King Herod and Pontius Pilate also existed.
by Jarrah Wilson on August 7th, 2005
Yes there is proof that Jesus existed. during excavations archaeologists found ancient Roman census records that stated a person named "Jesus of Nazareth" there.
by jesusfreak289 on May 1st, 2005
In response to what somebody had said earlier, I don't think that it matters about if there's proof that Jesus existed. That's what faith is: believing in something that you can't see. It's in the Bible, so that should be proof enough.
by Andrew on November 16th, 2009
Jewish records, roman records, secular writers from that period all agree he existed. their were abundant proof that he existed; people just had a problem with him being who it was said that he was.
by Talimze on June 16th, 2009
No. Of course, physical proof of a man who lived 2,000 years ago is a lot to ask for. There is some historical (non-biblical) evidence for Jesus, which is more than one can say for some people who are commonly believed to have lived.
by Theophilous on June 16th, 2009
Is there physical proof that Jesus existed?
What would you accept as physical proof? If I showed you some nails and told you they were from his carpentry shop, would you believe? If I showed you a dated invoice from Samaritan Sawyer Services for delivery of 400 board feet of seasoned and sawn cyprus cedar with the delivery signature of Yeshua Ben (illegible) would you accept that? If I had a copy of his donkey drivers license would you accept that?
Of course you wouldn’t. Because physical proof that one particular person, especially a Hebrew peasant, in a roman province, on the edge of the empire, no longer exists. And if it did exist, you would question its validity as proof.
So physical proof, no. Documentary evidence, now that is a different story.
Suppose I tried to convince you that in November of 1963 the president of the united states was killed in Dallas Texas by a man with a crossbow. Would you accept that? No, because there are too many witnesses that saw what happened. Even though this took place 46 years ago. Well there is evidence that people within 30 year of the execution of Christ were dying for their faith in him.
That he lived is well documented. There have been those that maintain that the writings of Flavius Josephus were modified to include references to Jesus. Fine, please present to me your proof in the form of manuscript, codex or scroll that shows the text that predates the earliest copies we have that contain reference to Jesus. Unless you can show that, the assertion that forgery must have occurred is simply unsupported supposition.
We have copies of manuscripts of the gospels that are dated to within 35 or so years of his death. Show me any other contemporaneous person for whom we have such early documents. Even his enemies at the time did not dispute his existence. The Babylonian Talmud (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#PARTb) refers to Jesus and does not deny he existed. They make reference to his being hanged, and being crucified could be construed as being hung.
There is more than adequate documentary evidence that Jesus existed. There is documentary evidence that he was crucified by the Romans and considered dead. This evidence is both inside and outside the gospels. People with access to the official roman records made just decades earlier made the circumstances and manner of his death clear.
That he was buried in a know location is clear. A guard was placed at his tomb to prevent there being any attempt to steal the body. Both the Romans and the Sanhedrin knew where it was. In fact the Sanhedrin asked the Romans to set the guard and seal the tomb.
There is even evidence that points to the fact of the resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then his body is somewhere.
1 Why didn’t the Romans produce the body? It certainly would have quelled the uproar that this sect was creating. The false tale of his resurrection would be squelched quickly if they had paraded the body for all to see.
2 Why didn’t the Sanhedrin produce the body? It would have ended the division and heresy that the Christians brought on later.
They couldn’t because the body wasn’t in the tomb any longer.
If I made the claim that John F Kennedy rose from the dead, talked with dozens, ate and drank, was seen by more than 400 witnesses, many of whom still lived and was then bodily taken up to heaven before witnesses, you would say I am cracked. You could go to his grave, dig him up and prove I am a liar. End of story.
According to Christian tradition Jesus showed himself to be alive, by many proofs for forty days before ascending into heaven. And fifty days later the disciples received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. So within 90 days of his death, people were proclaiming the risen Christ to the world. Presenting the “good news” with such vigor that they readily accepted death rather than deny it. Deaths that they feared enough to go into hiding to avoid just three months previously.
To those that WILL NOT believe, no proof will ever be sufficient. To those who believe, no further proof is needed. Herbert Spencer once said, “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
Or if you prefer it more biblically, Proverbs Chapter 18 Verse 13, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”
by Karen Anne Queen of AB on June 15th, 2009
+5 Every nun I ever met had a splinter of the true cross. If you put all those nuns splinters together they could build the Golden Gate bridge.
Jesus did exist,no legend could change history, no myth could change the way we measure time. Jesus is at the right hand of the Father but one day the nations will bow to Him as He returns in glory
by Ec-nal Licensed Bootie Inspector on June 15th, 2009
There's not much physical proof of anything from 2000 years ago yo...
by Done. never again. on June 15th, 2009
No, you have tio have faith. that is what Christianity is based on.
by CaRbOnPrOdUcK is Baccuss on February 15th, 2009
No, because he only exists in a ancient novel.
by BIG AL on February 15th, 2009
Out of Darkness says to NOT use the bible as proof of Jesus' existence.. Does he think that the "bible" came to us as it is today? In one big compilation? It didn't. jesus himself used the old testament (see temptation by the devil for some quick ones), and the Jews also, got the Law.."professional, highly trained" Transcribers wrote, and rewrote the word... then there was a moment of silence... 300 years...THAT IS LONGER THAN THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED!!!!.... then comes Christ.. and his death, and the history written thereof..New Testament.. There are over 300 foretellings of Christ.. for just a few to happen in one man three hundred years later..the odds are insane.. The jews knew who they were looking for..and when he came and fullfilled all that he said he would in the Old testament...come on, for real, even God says that you would have to be blind, and foolish to not believe just by looking at the creation of the earth... Go to Crazylovebook.com It has a video, the awe factor of God... to see how insanly tiny we are in an enormously large universe..our telescopes are not even able to see it all...to see all the galexies..and not a single one is as beautiful as ours.. after watching that video watch the other one he has..even if you dont listen to him (he's awesome) just look at the back drop.. Our beautiful beaches, the forests..wow.. I was driving and I was looking at some birds flying over a pond, I was in awe watching the birds of the air..wow...to even think that we evolved is ignorant. This earth ball that is spinning at an amazing 1000mph around a sun at 67,000 mph... COME ON!!! it doesnt take much.... I believe that if the dead philosephers and scientists that we still admire..Einstein, Darwin, etc... had they the ability to see what we can now see... the amazing things that have been found just since they have died... COME ON!!! GOD IS SO GOOD.. and he wants to show us HOW GOOD.. and he will one day..and this is the promise that my life stands upon... through Christs selflessness I have been given another chance.... Adam and Eve messed it up..Thank You Father that you kicked thier asses out of the Garden, so that they wouldn't eat from the tree of eternal life.. cause I REALLY wouldn't have wanted to live forever in these conditions.. I cannot wait until the government goes back to him...cause clearly..we are not made to govern ourselves...we are to look to him... VOTE FOR GOD!!!
by vew573 on December 20th, 2008
Tacitus, born about 55 C.E. and considered one of the world’s greatest historians, mentioned the Christians in his Annals. In the account about Nero’s blaming the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. on them, he wrote: “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.” The details of this account match the information regarding the Jesus of the Bible.
Another writer who commented on Jesus’ followers was Pliny the Younger, the governor of Bithynia. In about the year 111 C.E., Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan, asking how to handle Christians. People who were falsely accused of being Christians, wrote Pliny, would repeat an invocation to the gods and worship the statue of Trajan, just to prove that they were not Christians. Pliny continued: “There is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians, into any of these compliances.” That testifies to the reality of the existence of the Christ, whose followers were prepared to give their lives for their belief in him.
After summarizing the references to Jesus Christ and his followers by the historians of the first two centuries, The Encyclopædia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: “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.”
by vew573 on December 20th, 2008
DO YOU believe in the existence of the man named Albert Einstein? You may readily answer yes, but why? Most people have not personally met him. Yet, reliable reports of his accomplishments prove that he did exist. The influence of his existence is felt through scientific applications of his discoveries. For instance, many benefit from electricity generated by nuclear energy, the release of which is closely linked with the application of Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared).
The same reasoning applies to Jesus Christ, admittedly the most influential man in history. What was written about him and the visible evidence of the influence he wielded prove beyond doubt that he did exist. As interesting as the recent archaeological finding of the James inscription, described in the preceding article, may be, Jesus’ historicity does not depend on this or any other artifact. The fact is, we can find evidence of Jesus’ existence in what secular historians wrote about him and his followers.
by vew573 on December 20th, 2008
The Roman historian Tacitus, who was no friend of Christianity. Writing soon after 100 C.E., he tells of Nero’s cruel persecution of the Christians and adds: “Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself
Many have viewed Jesus as he is described in the Bible as an idealized fiction. But historian Michael Grant notes: “If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned
by vew573 on December 20th, 2008
For events in the lives of Jesus and his apostles, documentary evidence apart from the Bible is quite limited. This is only to be expected, since in the first century, Christians were a relatively small group that did not get involved in politics. But the evidence that secular history does provide agrees with what we read in the Bible.
Josephus also mentions James, the half brother of Jesus, who, the Bible tells us, did not initially follow Jesus but later became a prominent elder in Jerusalem. (John 7:3-5; Galatians 1:18, 19) He documents James’ arrest in these words: “[The high priest Ananus] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others.”11 In writing these words, Josephus additionally confirms that “Jesus, who was called the Christ” was a real, historical person
by timothy on September 28th, 2008
i dont think so
by Ananamiss on September 28th, 2008
Yes, there is much historical documentation, though many factions do not consider Scripture to be valid; for instance, there is no proof Alexander the Great existed either (don't stay statues, because there are many statues of Jesus around!), but the world generally accepts that he existed and it has also been documented.
by OutOfDarkness on June 16th, 2007
Historically inaccurate? Oh, please! You can't get an historically accurate record of 911 much less two millenia of history. Different book, different history. You obviously missed the point. It isn't about the history because NONE of it can be proved. NONE OF IT!!! It is entirely about Faith because Faith is the only thing that matters to any believer. History is for the non-faithful. And after Faith, LOGIC!! Why do people believe what they read just because somebody wrote it? Figure it out!
by helpinghands on April 2nd, 2007
hello Krista, i dont know much about Jesus myself, yet i have been studying proof of his existence recently in an RS lesson. well though this is not PHYSICAL PROOF, the new testament and christian texts were not the only evidence, take Roman writer Tacitus for example, he absolutely hated the christians, yet in his account, he didnt deny Jesus's existence, he comfirmed it. There were also other historians such as Josephus who was a Jewish man. so we know the New Testament is not completely byist. Historians also know that they are accurate copies, since they were written in a very close time to when Jesus had lived. there are also 3000 ancient greek manuscripts, all supporting each others statements, therefore the information has come down to us pretty accurately.
finally this is sort of physical proof...well incase you didnt know, in the past, archaeologists have discovered these acrostic stones, believed to be secret christian symbols.When written out they spell PaterNoster meaning our father in　Latin, commonly used in the beginning of prayers. there are only six in the world, and if you think about it, like someone said before, because christians were threatened and banned from worshipping Jesus, therefore they had to do it secretly with these stones. Showing how dedicated and how they believed he existed, if he didnt noone will go this far, that his teachings will spread all over the world through secret codes!
info on rotas-sator square (the stone thing)
http://www.cotswold.gov.uk/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=293&cAction=MUSEUM_ITEM&objectId=886
hope this helps!
by OutOfDarkness on January 27th, 2006
No. Second-hand witnesses do not consitute "eyewitnesses". Four-hundred people testifying that they saw the risen Jesus are of no value if their individual testimonies are not written down and notorized in one form or another.
Because there is no physical proof that Jesus lived, that does not mean that he didn't. If you KNEW he lived, then the Christian religion, which is based upon Faith, would be in vain. Why try to prove the unproveable?
by Truth Seeker on December 8th, 2009
No. And there is no physical proof that my great great great great great aunt lived either.
by Zack on November 16th, 2009
That Shroud of Turin thingy.
by Robertd903 on November 16th, 2009
If there WAS "physical proof" that Jesus existed--how many NON-BELIEVERS would believe it?
If one needed "proof" in order to become a "believer"--what would be the purpose of having "FAITH?"
by Catherine on October 22nd, 2009
Physical proof his body went to his father...But the catholic church has a piece of the actual cross..
by N I C K on October 14th, 2009
2 billion temples across the entire planet
by Ananamiss on October 7th, 2009
Yes, historical literature. Is there proof Alexander teh Great existed? Yes, historical literature written down four hundred years after he died; funny, no one questions his existence.
by EricaNicolebbyy on October 6th, 2009
Yes, there is good evidence that he was what is known as a "Hebrew Mystic". Although he was a rabbi, his teachings put him in the fringe of Jewish teachings. But recognize that above all, he was Jewish and that he would have never done or said anything to deny his heritage or beliefs.
The writings of Josephus as well as many of the other writings of the time all verify that there was a real man named Jesus Christ, who had a strong following, and a relatively small but devout group of Jews who were loyal to his teachings following his death who continued to cause trouble for the Roman leadership. But many of the common modern traditions about Jesus have their genesis in the reign of Constantine. Until Constantine, nobody had been able to unite Europe. He accomplished this by including a little of each of the older European religions and incorporating them into his new "universal" religion. Understand that "Catholic" is roughly translated to mean "universal".
by Anonymous on August 1st, 2009
What good would DNA be? If you found DNA that you thought belonged to Jesus what would you compare it to? DNA evidence has to be compared to a base sample.If we had a base sample of Jesus DNA we wouldn't be asking the question.
by Redman on August 1st, 2009
Anything that you can find from that time, you would need DNA to have proof!!!!
by Anonymous on August 1st, 2009
You cannot answer a question on whether or not Jesus existed by quoting someone or something(The Bible or authors of it)when they are just as questionable! Here's the only truth we know....All religions ,all of them only know ONE thing for sure. And that is..NONE OF THEM KNOW FOR SURE!!!!Simple isn't it?
by george on July 21st, 2009
You dont need proof whether Jesus existed or no, Even people who are cannibals bow to something in fear or honour maybe a tree or a stone , the reason they dont know about a living God, Whatever it is we need an example to follow a person who has spent a good life on this earth from the birth of his life as written in the holy bible. So you may not belive in the Christ but take his example and Live just as he lived thats what he wants,
Praise the lord
by CaRbOnPrOdUcK is Baccuss on June 15th, 2009
Of course
by Don Gorgeous George on June 15th, 2009
No.
by italiano on June 15th, 2009
no it is based on faith
by Anonymous on June 13th, 2009
I don't know about physical proof...but think...
Can you think of any other person whose birth has split the entire history of the world into two...!
(ofcourse I'm talking about BC AD)!
by MoreThanSixChars on February 24th, 2009
There is no piece of physical evidence in existence that has not be questioned and/or denounced as a fake. e.g. The shroud of Turin has been carbon dated and shown to be a 13th/14th century fake.
There are unlimited arguments from Christians designed to protect the basis for their beliefs, on the other hand their are unlimited arguments from atheists/non christians designed to dismiss the Christian faith. The only rational solution for someone intent on questioning christianity (or any religion) is for them to look at the evidence and then to look at the source and veracity of that evidence. For example, you might see the bible as unquestionable proof that Jesus existed, however the bible was written in Greek and more than 300 years after the events (directly relating to Jesus) that it proports to document and can therefore not be reasonably held to be 'evidence' of any kind.
My own research into the subject led me to no conclusive evidence whatsoever... The populous of each religous movement (Muslim, Christian etc) believes that theirs is the true 'God story'... basically they believe whatever their parents condition them to believe (ever heard of a devout Christian child born to a Muslim family living and growing up in a purely Muslim community ?). Muslims protect their faith by punishing those who convert to another religion with death. Christians are not as harsh (well, not these days... but they used to dole out similar punishment). Invariably, behind every religion there is; Power and Wealth, always in the hands of the controllers of that religion, never in the hands of the believers themselves.
At the end of the day, the decision, as always, will be your own...
How many people died in noah's flood?
by Answerbag Staff on May 14th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What's the affiliation with 'Lucifer' and the Lost tribes of Israel?
by FFO/NO NAME-THE MAN-COMPREHENSION on July 27th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
When was King Herod born?
by Answerbag Staff on April 22nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
When did noah build the arc?
by Answerbag Staff on April 22nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Would you want to be a Reverse Noah?
by Invidious on September 26th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Is there physical proof that Jesus existed?
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!
Comments
Very well answered !!
by Astaroth on April 16th, 2004
Well answered
by Krista Ludwig on November 18th, 2005
Well put
by AB-Joel on April 25th, 2004
Good answer. I agree...proof of existence cannot be proof he is the son of God.
by Hambone on April 26th, 2004
The shroud of turin is a proven fake. carbon dated to the year 1200.
by Wisdom on August 11th, 2005
Wisdom, you're wrong. Carbon dating doesn't "prove" anything.
http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm
That's one example. Here are a few more examples showing that carbon dating is not only debatable, but possibly very unreliable when you get into larger dates.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf
I have more, but I feel that is enough to discredit your so called "proof".
by Castrate on April 2nd, 2007
The discussion about the shroud is, at best, an exercise in futile debate. The simple fact is; there was no Yeshua as depicted by the forgeries and old shepherds tales known as the bible. Aside from this well reasoned analysis; http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html
which will, no doubt, provide much target practice at the messenger, the most telling documents we have to disprove the existence of the alleged xist, are the Qumran scrolls. Of all the contemporary writings extant, none are more focussed on the religious mood of the time and in them there is not one word about the alleged xist. Not one word! Add to this the voluminous evidence of Roman documents of the time which also do not mention any such person and the conclusion is inescapable to all but the most determined and deluded believer.
by Bushwah on April 15th, 2007
The fact that the Qumran scrolls don't mention Jesus does not, as you claim, disprove his existence. The scrolls com from a library of a Jewish (i.e. non-Christian) sect. Seeing as the Jewish leaders and teachers of the day considered Jesus to be a threat to their authority, a lunatic, or both, it stands to reason that they wouldn't mention him in their texts.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and calling people "deluded" is not adult discussion.
Welcome to Answerbag.
by Duane Roelands on April 15th, 2007
Bushwah...You are one of those idiot atheists (I've seen your kind before) that come on here, and do nothing but try and insult Christians, or start a pointless unwinnable debate. Even "most" atheists believe Jesus existed. To deny this, is the epitome of ignorance. It seems almost a waste of time to debate something so silly...
Here is a good article on the supposed "Jesus Myth", which is one of the most pathetic atheist attempts I have seen yet.
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
by Castrate on April 15th, 2007
And you, I see, are prone to ad hominum attacks. This is the first refuge of those who know their position is extremely tenuous. It is totally irrelevant what most people believe, the fact is, there is no historical record of the mythical xist. None! Josephus' comments has long since been proven to be a later forgery added to his writings. Clearly, you are unhappy both with facts and reality.
by Bushwah on April 15th, 2007
Me insulting you means no such thing. It only means that I am getting tired of seeing people who in their very first freakin day at answerbag, use it only to argue with people. I see the same thing on youtube. It bugs me, that's all. I will not take back my insult though, because that last statement you just made, pretty much proves my point. So, now the lack of the mentioning of Jesus in some Jewish documents, makes the Jesus myth, a fact? I doubt even "you" are that ignorant.
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
Proven to be a "forgery"? You truly will believe anything your fellow atheists tell you, don't ya? I feel sorry for you really...You sir, are living in denial. It is impossible to have a rational debate with someone who lives in a fantasy world. This is obviously going to be impossible. Your silly slippery slope arguments do not hold up. Since you're obviously making up your own reality, I personally don't see any point in continuing this debate...
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
Also, if that article wasn't good enough for you...Here are some more. (it's not like you'll actually read them anyway)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mark_eastman/messiah/sfm_ap2.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
Oh, one more thing. Here is another article defending the first one I gave you, that you "claimed" had been "proven" to be a forgery...You have some reading to do, haha.
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wellsga01.html
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
It is certainly evident one of us is living in a fantasy world. It also seem evident from your writing style and childish approach that you are either naive and imature to an apalling degree or just very young and inexperienced. You mioght find this additionally frustrating;
http://mysite.verizon.net/wsbainbridge/dl/relinsan.htm
by Bushwah on April 16th, 2007
Castrate & Bushwa, could you please take this exchange out of theAnswerbag comments and into some other forum where it might be more appropriate? You're no longer responding to the question and are only respinding to each other. That's not what Answetbag is for. Thank you.
by Duane Roelands on April 16th, 2007
Oh, I "mioght", huh? Well, may I remind you that you started the insulting, by saying the only people who could still believe Jesus even existed, are the deluded believers. So, if my "approach" is childish, then I'm afraid your writing style, and approaches, are equally, if not more childish. And I have a feeling, that you didn't read "any" of the links I gave you. Including the one refuting your supposed "proof" that what he was saying, were nothing more than a forgery. I can tell by "your" writing styles, that you are an immature, irate, arrogant, atheist...
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
Also, that link you gave me? It has little, to nothing to do with our current discussion...The fact that you are going on a rabbit trail, tells me that you have no other way to refute my argument. I think we're finished here...
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
Duane, I'm sorry, but we are still discussing the same topic. The topic being, "The Jesus Myth".
It is still related to the question...But, if the other party is willing to stop the "debate", then I would be happy to stop, as well.
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
I don't see a discussion, I see name-calling and insults. It doesn't belong here.
by Duane Roelands on April 16th, 2007
The link is germane in that there are many arguments supporting the theory that any religious belief is tantamount to mental illness. This includes believing in a person for which there is absolutely no historical evidence and who is considered to be the son of a mythological being. Furthermore, the onus is always upon the person making the positive claim. One does not need to prove a negative, especially one which is so patently evident. Provide me with one, just one bit of physical evidence to support your belief in the unbelievable. No, the bible is not an authority, it barely mentions your mythical xist, what 5-6 times? In any event it was long ago discredited as either the word of a mythological god or an authority on the times.
by Bushwah on April 16th, 2007
Haha, actually, the burden of proof is on "your" lap. You see, the claim is, that Jesus exists...I have given links which provide evidence for this. You are trying to disprove what "I" and most others, have claimed. I'm afraid all of the hard work is on you my friend. You must come up with decent evidence, that doesn't just show a slight lack of evidence that Jesus existed, but that proves the exact opposite, and that is that he "didn't" exist, at all. Also, to start claiming that religion leads to insanity, during such a random part of this debate, is another one of your rabbit trail slippery slopes. You've just about hit the bottom of the slope pal...You better do something quick to climb back up...
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
By the way...What's this about masturbation leading to insanity? That sounds quite silly to me...But, even though this is getting off of the main subject, I should point out, that according to your very own silly link, if "you" masturbate, then you are doing something that has lead many people to insanity. If that is true, then I'm sure most of your friends are insane, as well...
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
Duane, I will stop calling him names, ok? Will that make you feel better? By the way, feel free to enter this "discussion" at any time. If you would like to take over, in an attempt to put a stop to this, be my guest. I'll step down, and let you have your fun. But, if I'm going to be the only one here willing to defend you, from even the most ridiculous attacks, then please don't try and stop me.
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
Haha? You have provided nothing but things which support your belief. You have provided no proof, no facts. Further, if you understood either debate or scientific thinking, you would not question which one of us has to provide proof, nor would you wonder about proving a negative.
by Bushwah on April 16th, 2007
Well, if you understood anything about logic or science, you would know that we aren't dealing with facts, or proof. You have only given me a link claiming that religion leads to insanity, and a link claiming such and such, which I have refuted using my links. It is your turn to refute the last few links I gave you. If you refuse to do so, and plan on just claiming that I have the supposed "burden of proof", then it would seem that you have lost this debate. One of the best signs of one who is losing a debate, is if they are going on rabbit trails, criticizing the opponents writing, and then claiming the burden of proof is on them. Your move.
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
Castrate: I neither require nor desire your defense. Please let it go. This whole exchange reflects poorly on Answerbag. Thank you.
by Duane Roelands on April 16th, 2007
This little dispute between me and "Bushwah", has very little, if anything, to do with the integrity of answerbag. If you want us to stop, then I suggest you find a way to convince Bushwah as well. Because I have already stated that I would stop, if he stops too. Simple as that. But, know how persistent most atheists seem to be, I doubt he is going to stop anytime soon. Not unless he sees that he is losing this debate like crazy...
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
Amusing. You wanted debate, you have debate, but have no idea how to conduct it. You refute science and logic with faith-based bushwah. You have not and are not able to provide any proof of the existance either of your god or your messiah. There is a simple reson for that...reason itself and the fact there is simply no physical or historical evidence whatsoever. Out of deference to Duane's impending ulcer, if you have another forum to which you wish to adjourn, I'll be happy to oblige.
by Bushwah on April 16th, 2007
I have no idea how to conduct it? That's funny coming from someone whose whole defense is based on rabbit trails, and criticizing his opponents writing! We are not discussing whether or not God exists, nor are we discussing whether or not Jesus was the Christ...We are only discussing whether or not a man known as Jesus of Nazareth, ever existed. And so far, you have done a poor job at presenting your point of view. I have read all of your links, and refuted them with my own. Have you even looked at the links I gave you? Also, I too would be happy to "discuss" this elsewhere.
by Castrate on April 16th, 2007
Fine. There is a little used forum at http://www.bctalk.com/forums/index.php, you'll have to join, but it is free. Look for the thread under General Chat titled Was there a xist?
by Bushwah on April 17th, 2007
Sorry, link isn't working. Besides, I only intended to defend against the claim you were making on "here". I'm not going off to some random thread, and sign up for it, just to debate this silly topic, that neither of us will win. That's what happens when you deal with opinion, and evidence, instead of fact. I doubt I'll be able to change your mind, and I'm sure as hell that you won't be able to convince me.
by Castrate on April 17th, 2007
So, I rather just stop this. As you said, "The discussion about the shroud is, at best, an exercise in futile debate", this is hardly different. This is just as futile a debate, because no matter what the one person says, the other feels convinced that they are wrong. So, just drop it. I don't even care anymore.
by Castrate on April 17th, 2007
Thought so.
by Bushwah on April 17th, 2007
Glad you see it my way.
by Castrate on April 17th, 2007
Yup. I see you running away with your diminutive tail between your unadorned legs, Msr. Castrado.
by Bushwah on April 17th, 2007
Haha, if that's what you have to believe in order to help you sleep at night, then be my guest. By the way, I hope you know that I stopped falling for those "chicken" tactics quite some time ago...Nice try though. Good bye Mr. Bush...
by Castrate on April 18th, 2007
Both of you have said you would take this elsewhere. Instead, you're engaged in a grade-school contest to see who can get in the last word. Please stop responding to this topic, I ask you.
by Duane Roelands on April 18th, 2007
No prob Duane, if he had any cojones he would do as he said. I'll leave your little forum alone. It is clear it is more of a mutual masturbatorium, than a serious discussion group seriously interested in finding "answers". Cheers
by Bushwah on April 18th, 2007