Did Jesus exist?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 11:42 AM
I've always had a hard time beleiving in a literal way the stories of adam and eve, noahs ark, the parting of the red sea, the 3 wise men,etc. I have always felt Jesus lived, isn't there a record of him in roman law records ?

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 11:48 AM
thank god for google (sorry)

In his writings, Josephus mentions the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians. He mentions Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Jesus (twice) and James the brother of Jesus. He also mentions the Essenes - the strict religious sect within Judaism that founded the Qumran community, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.

1. Micahel Green Runaway World, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 12.

From Pagan Sources
Palestine of the first century has been referred to as an unimportant frontier province in the Roman Empire. Those provincial governors assigned to that region of the world were often thought to have received hardship posts. Too, those who wrote the history of Rome were in the upper strata of Roman society and usually had a personal dislike of Orientals, disapproved of their religions and looked upon their superstitions as very un-Roman.2 This partially accounts for the little trickles of information that comes from their pens about the Christian religion. They wrote about it only as it forced its way into the mainstream of their view. Yet what they did write is proof positive that Jesus Christ was both a real person and that he had made such an impact upon society that the Roman world found it increasingly difficult to disregard him.

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:32 PM
Perhaps he existed, but it's certainly strange that no documentation exists contemporaneous with his life (the 4 books of the new testament just don't count, because they are too sketchy). Previous important figures were always properly documented (Buddha 500 years before, Muhammad 700 years later). The ministry of Jesus was short (3 years), so perhaps the accounts were written after the fact.
But there is still the fact that the doctrines themselves are too badly explained, with no depth. It seems like either information was suppressed or else there the little information there was was left intentionally ambiguous so that it could be taken advantage.

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 02:44 PM
DontTreadOnMe, would historical proof make the decision for you whether or not to believe in Jesus?

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 02:59 PM
Very Good Radagast & Amelia - you both get an A+!!!!

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Amelia
YES! I think that too, and I also think that the roman empire used this guys to control masses and brainwashed everybody and the bible as it is, is not really exactly what happened. The roman empire is "the elite" with blue blood and they just knew that jesus was a guy from the light, so they had to kill him and they profited from that...

What evidence do you have that the Roman empire, during Jesus' time gave a (crap) about him.

You do realize the Roman Church wasn't started until YEARS after his death?

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 04:33 PM
Jesus is not mentioned in Roman records of the time because he was the heir apparent to the Judean Throne of Israel and the Romans had installed The Idumean King Herod. The Romans were keenly aware of Jesus's presence because he was the leader of a small but highly connected group within the Jewish Community including the hereditar heads of the Zadoch and Abaithar Preisthoods.

Most records pertaining to Jesus from Palestine were destroyed, in fact the whole country was raised by the Emporer Nero under Govenor Felix.

Most of the stories of Jesus in the bible are written for "those with eyes to see and ears to hear", i.e. in code to not arouse the suspiscions of the Romans and them inaccurately translated, so a great many stories have been widely misintrerpreted.

A foremost Australian scholar working with the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Univeristy of Sydney Dr Barabar Thiering has much light to shed on the Jesus of history rathan that that of myth, see


[edit on 16-11-2004 by Flange Gasket]

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 06:14 PM
Jesus did exsist, part of his life was recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus and was also further mentioned by Tacitus who was a greek historian you can find these books just go to amazon.com and you can buy them preety good history books but since they are both historians I would tend to believe them this is just looking at a historical perspective i would have to think up of some more refrences of him in history. But this seems to be enough proof to prove his exsistence

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 06:17 PM
More to the point, first prove that Jesus didn't exist, if you can't he must have existed. Not only that, why do millions worship him and the father every day, just for fun, or does your soul speak to you?

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
Not only that, why do millions worship him and the father every day, just for fun, or does your soul speak to you?

This got me thinking about myself at one time being the defiant, proof-driven cynic of God. Here's the thing - I got proof, but it came in the form of experience. What does that mean? I can write it down all I want but unless you experience it, you would not consider it proof. Fun, isn't it? Ask God to reveal himself to you. See what you get. I can say with reasonable assurance he won't show up at your door for tea, but you'll get it one way or another.

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 06:53 PM
I came across some good info on the following web site.


posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 07:12 PM
Perhaps you can find historical evidence of the apostles which could help in your search to find out if Jesus was indeed real.

If you find evidence of a apostles say Peter it could be strong evidence that Jesus was indeed a real person. They went on to live longer lives so there may be more historical evidence of them. One was even a Roman tax collector I think, perhaps he would be a good place to start.


[edit on 16-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 01:52 PM

Jesus did exist, part of his life was recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus and was also further mentioned by Tacitus

Translation: someone called "Jesus" existed at some point in time. He was a political revolutionary who did not agree with the moral code of his society.

Whether his message was local and time-bound or universal, we have no information today. The overall core of information that is left remains below recovery.

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 02:01 PM
I don't believe we have no evidence... what about the dead sea scrolls and the coptic bibles, the Mulslim stories of the prophet Isa and the family geneology of European royalty, as well as the bible, the apocryphe and other writings of the Romans and the Greeks.

If your prepared to put in some work you can make up your own mind...but there's plenty of evidence to examine.

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 02:24 PM
We have some weak evidence.

The dead sea scrolls are the legacy of an apocalyptic jewish sect. They were expecting the Messiah. At no point do they confirm the present or past existence of Jesus.

The coptic bibles are just bibles written in Coptic. They can be traced to no earlier than 350 A.D.. Whatever information they contain is either about the old testament (irrelevant) or the new testament (copied from somewhere).

The family genealogy of European royalty was just a way of profiteering from the people's gullibility. The frank kings were supposed to have healing powers, and they created a myth to place them in the same mythological spot as the current "healer of the world": Jesus.

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:49 PM
Jesus existed because enough NON-christian sources have also confirmed it, i.e. non-christian roman scholars and historians. there is enough correlation to support his existence, just not his "miracles".

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 10:32 PM
Jesus is the lord. He existed. He still Exists.

posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 03:37 AM
Actually, no serious scholar today doubts the historicity of Jesus. All of these following historians mention Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure who existed in the first century CE, or they mention Christ......

Thallus (c. 50-75AD) ,Phlegon (First century) , Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93), Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110), Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120) , Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125) , Galen (various writings, c.150), Celsus (True Discourse, c.170). ,Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?) ,Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses), Lucian (Second century) Numenius (Second cent.) , Galerius (Second Cent.)

For example,

Encyclopedia. Britannica says, in its discussion of the multipleextra-biblical witnesses (Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, etc.):"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponentsof Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputedfor the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the endof the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."(Article on "Jesus", 1990)

Best Regards,

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:32 PM
It's nice to see someone dig in and answer these topics with facts.

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:30 PM
Sorry, your correct, The dead sea scrolls do not reference Jesus, I was thinking of the Nag Hammadi Library.

The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts, was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. The collection includes a large number of primary Gnostic scriptures -- texts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define "orthodoxy" -- scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth provide insights into the life and times of Jesus.www.gnosis.org...

new topics
top topics
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in