The Evidence For Jesus' Existence is Overwhelming

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus.

All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

www.nobeliefs.com...

Interesting read and very long Ive yet to finish it.

Good thread

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

I can't debate a sentence like "many historians believe Jesus didn't exist" --- I need references, who were these historians? Now I will concede that there are many people who don't believe Jesus existed, but when you use the term "historian" I automatically think e-d-u-c-a-t-i-o-n, not just personal gut feelings. Now, if you can give me a name of a scholar or history expert, not Anton Levey, who believes Jesus didn't exist, we can debate.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Bombeni]

You have debated nothing, and I did give you a name (although you dont seem to want to do your own research) but you still seem to be missing the point. Why does it matter who the historians are that think this way? The point are the theories, not who made the theories.

You dont want to debate, you want people to tell you you're right.

I call BS on this - its perfectly acceptable to ask for sources especially since the OP put up his sources and quoted from their texts....

And as to the existence of Yeshuah - there is more than enough proof even if second hand - Saul of Tarsus(Paul of the NT) most definitely existed and wrote his own documentation of his faith and the early church - this is widely accepted by both secular and nonsecular authorities - as to the story itself (that is - Christ crucified dead, buried and rose from the dead) One has to ask why a man like Paul - an educated Roman citizen, a Pharisee, and leading persecutor of Christ's followers would give up his position, wealth, and reputation to follow a myth to the death....
This fact alone is a testament to the power of Yeshuah's life and teaching....

I would also ask the same question of those other apostles who literally gave their lives to spread the gospel message...

Have you ever joined an organization that required an oath of allegiance to the death? and if so are you still engaged, still a member? Or was it a youthful pipe dream that pooped out once you had a bit of wisdom and age under your belt? Yeshuah's teaching has endured past all understanding...Is this simply because of the power and wealth of the "church" or is there something in all of this that transcends the machinations of "scholars", "priests", and politics....I say the latter....

the men that followed Christ had lives, families, occupations, yet they threw in with a man with an outlandish story...or was it?

Paul himself speaks of the resurrection to a group of people of whom he says - "some of you are still alive who remember and were witnesses"... I am 58 years old yet I can tell you where I was, the color of the sky, the room, the time, and who I spent the day with on the day that JFK was shot as if it were yesterday....it 2008 now and he was shot in 1963 - so let me give you a second hand report and then call me a liar...please.....

and for the record Nero was emperor and blaming Christians for his own madness in the first century - it wasn't centuries before christians were persecuted - it followed them from the very beginning...with a few years of respite here and there...until Constantine...

Yeshuah Himself said it best - they hate you because they hated Me first..and guess what? His words still ring true...

I LOVE this topic, as you can really make out those who have actually studied history (non-emotional and factual) and those "Faith" based (emotional and non-factual).

Did not the Church take out any book from the canon that did not make out Jesus as God?

Anyway, this is an argument that will never be won, much like UFO's and Bigfoot.

reply to post by breakingdradles


Oh come off it!! Anybody can refute anything whether or not there is evidence. "I don't believe it" is all that needs to be said. People who refute Jesus' existence are not interested whether He existed at all. They are more interested in rejecting Christ because they feel a belief in Christ would be too restrictive on their lifestyles.
Look; St Paul was a historical figure. He spoke to eyewitnesses of Jesus. He even had a supernatural encounter with Jesus. Anybody reading about the deeds of St Paul can clearly see that the man had 100% conviction for Christ. St Paul had profound discussions with eyewitness contemporaries of Christ. They were still alive at the writing of the epistles. They did not reject St Paul's epistles as myth. That is all the proof you need!

reply to post by realshanti



so in conclusion - these debates about the historicity of Yeshuah are always straw dogs for other issues on the part of believers and and non-believers-

the argument around Yeshuah always goes to the heart of the question of whether He is who He says He is... all the rest of the hairsplitting is BS wrapped up in poor rhetoric and poorer thinking....so think what you like, believe what you like, the fact that Yeshuah lived and died and then conquered death has nothing to do with what you think, feel or believe...Its truth, absolute and unchanging and most of you have never contemplated such a thing in your lives...the "absolute" for most is unthinkable...even so called "believers" have a hard time with it - but that's a conservation for another thread...

g'day and good on ya....




[edit on 12-9-2008 by realshanti]

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


What we know of the Greek philosopher Socrates comes from only four writers: Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. Socrates wrote nothing himself that has survived. What we know of Hannibal the Etruscan, we know only from a few, mostly hostile Roman accounts; no first-hand account of the life of Alexander the Great survives. Yet no one gathers from this that Socrates, Hannibal or Alexander the Great never existed. Why Jesus?

reply to post by Bombeni

When world historian H. G. Wells was asked who has left the greatest legacy on history, he replied, “By this test Jesus stands first.”

HG Wells is a clever man. Judging by what 'test' I wonder. This is the man who done the radio broadcast of an alien invasion, war of the worlds, for the government as a test to see how the public would react.

What he may have meant was seeing as people are so gullible Jesus is obviously first in this case? I dont know the context of that sentence Id like to trace it out.

Oh this looks interesting tho

In C. S. Lewis's novel That Hideous Strength, the character Jules is a caricature of Wells, and much of Lewis's science fiction was written both under the influence of Wells and as an antithesis to his work. The devoutly Christian Lewis was especially incensed at Wells's The Shape of Things to Come where a future world government systematically persecutes and completely obliterates Christianity (and all other religions), which the book presents as a positive and vitally necessary act.

So it Doesnt seem to me that HG Wells is Christian at all so his comment is out of whack.. sure he was a historian but mainly a Novelist, Teacher, and Journalist. Not religious.

As for the post of yours I took that from half of it was copied and pasted from another site, which is cool, but you should try and use the EX editor and provide the links to the source otherwise people think you wrote it yourself.. as I did until I stumbled onto the page you got it from as I was searching for that HG statement.

You know some of you act like you have a personal vendetta against the Lord ?
Why do you want so bad for him to NOT EXIST ? What has he done to you so horrible ?

reply to post by Simplynoone


Thats not the point see you shouldnt jump to that conclusion. The point is people want the TRUTH. Not half truths and spin. A sceptic person is truly seeking the truth, that takes guts and courage, rather than just picking up the bible and saying ok this is it dont tell me otherwise and forget everything else. If we all did that we wouldnt even be making computers and talking to each other now would we.

We read the book properly, and we read outside of it. Its reasonable to view objectively we need to balance out whats true or not.

Some ''sceptics'' would like it to be true and they may constantly try to believe it but it feels wrong deep in their bones and it provokes too many questions that CAN be answered so they research. Ever thought of that?

Theres another thing that comes into play too.. PLACEBO effect. Beliefs work -- doesnt matter if they are true or not, if it works for you then do it but the world hasnt got to do it the same way. So in that sense of beliefs nobody has the right to tear them down and mock another.. that would be 'evil'.. we should just leave each other in peace to do things our way with our words... language is a big issue.

Originally posted by Nohup
I think it's interesting that historical proof of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) existing is relatively easy to find, whereas proof of the Jesus as told about in the Bible stories is essentially non-existent.

Wiki Article

Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from ancient India and the founder of Buddhism.[1] He is generally recognized by Buddhists as the Supreme Buddha (Sammāsambuddha) of our age. The time of his birth and death are uncertain...

... the collection of teachings attributed to Gautama by the Theravada, was committed to writing about 400 years later. "Scholars are increasingly reluctant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life and teachings."....

...The prime sources of information regarding Siddhārtha Gautama's life are the Buddhist texts. The Buddha and his monks spent four months each year discussing and rehearsing his teachings, and after his death his monks set about preserving them....

...The scriptures were not written down until three or four hundred years after the Buddha's death. By this point, the monks had added or altered some material themselves, in particular magnifying the figure of the Buddha...

I'd apologize for going off topic, but this seems relevant in a way and you opened the door.

From the information above it is clear the story of Buddha (Guatama) is very similar in that it was passed down by word of mouth and only written down hundreds of years later. The final writing were a result of deliberation by others after the fact, very much the same as the origins of our Bible.

I'm afraid that in making the point you did you instead lead me to show that the history of Buddha is far removed from being a writing done during his lifetime or even his century.



[edit on 9/12/2008 by Blaine91555]

Thought I would share this with all of you this makes SO MUCH SENSE.

Valentine Michael Smith gets my Vote, he changed the world and had a lot more fun (Stranger in a Strange Land)

the best line in the whole book

".....G$d D#mn it quit taking the lords name in vain...."

it was a life changing moment.

Maybe in the next 2000 years???!!!!


Pantheistic solipsim

reply to post by Observer_X


Why would you care so much ?
Do you really think that all Christians are just zombies ? And that we just waltzed into believing something just because someone told us it was true ?
I resent that ..I really do ..

reply to post by Simplynoone


Well I can tell by that remark that you are totally missing the point. Did you see me call all Christians zombies .. yes or no?

I have a different theory for everyone. Jesus was a real being....seeded into Mary from ET's (hence immaculate conception)...the "star" the wisemen followed to the manger on that very night was a beacon for them to do so not by God, but by a space craft leading them there to bear witness. They were kings and what more reliable and noble of witnesses do you need? his whole divinity and miracles were acts by the ET's or by abilities from his halfbreeding with them. His resurrection - they beemed him aboard a ship. That would explain the Shroud of Turin, scientist believe the image was created by some kind of chemical reaction or radioactive occurance (beeming would do that). In all actuality most players in the bible stories could have been "aliens" or had encounters with them...Moses parting the sea...aliens did it....The ten Commandments...aliens wrote them and dropped them off to moses on the mount. David and Goliath...goliath was an alien the were checking davids strength...All the revelations...aliens were trying keep us froming being destructive...The antichrist - just a different breed of alien that the think will come here and try to take over. The pharoahs play right into this too...I mean the pyramids came from somewhere right...Stargate wasn't far of fro the truth...

Originally posted by Observer_X
Thought I would share this with all of you this makes SO MUCH SENSE.

^ And this is why I have so much respect for Buddhism. It teaches and encourages you to question all things. Christianity does not do this...in fact, they teach, that if you do...you are ungodly.

EDIT: To the OP;

On the contrary my friend. The word "overwhelming" is an overstatement. In fact, some of the things you listed as "evidence" is hardly any evidence at all.
It's more like...potential evidence...if you have faith.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by sdrawkcabII]

Originally posted by Chief O
People who refute Jesus' existence are not interested whether He existed at all. They are more interested in rejecting Christ because they feel a belief in Christ would be too restrictive on their lifestyles.

This is untrue - for me anyway. I am interested if he lived or not and would love some hard proof either way. (excluding the NT since it would obviously credit Jesus since it is written to show the life and times of the son of god) I do not live my life based on the faith that you seem to have and, like observer_x has said, I am one that is looking for truth.
I like the idea that there was a man with such humility, love, and forgiveness that his life goal was to save humanity in a way that he knew how. I enjoy this topic because not only do I want to find a truth (though some have pointed out that it will not happen), I want to find a follower that is living as his savior would have/did. After all, aren't Christians supposed to "...become mature, attaining to the whole measure that is the fullness of Christ"? (Ephesians 4:13) I have not found such a mortal.
This brings me to your statement on how Christ would affect my lifestyle and you are wrong here as well. I was an active member of a church for a long time - attending at least once a week, giving money, going to bible studies, etc. I did not leave because Christ was clogging up my agenda; I left because I could not stand the people - and I normally get along quite well with people. I found them to be hypocritical and judgmental when they should have been whole-hearted and welcoming. My questions - when answered and not evaded - where answered with more questions along with the suggestion that I asked too many questions. How was I supposed to give my life to something that, even after studying it for a long time, I did not completely understand?
I end this rant with a quote that I agree with from Ghandi (you may have heard of him, I don't think we need to debate his existence or credibility) "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. " And since I do agree that this is a never-ending topic I also share a quote from another credible source by the name of Martin Luther, "Every man must do two things alone; he must do his own believing and his own dying."