Jesus may not have existed. And there may have been only one author to the gospels. A very clever author at that. But indeed is the Gospel story about a higher power in special characher/person tenses. And the Gospel is about the higher power's role in our lives and in existence. The one who wrote the original gospels was the Sun of man (higher power). The seed sower alright. No wonder how it only seemed like some ppl long ago jotted down all of what Jesus said. You seriously cant believe ppl were able to jot down sayings of someone's so accurately. So the higher power is real still because I see things in the gospels that are 100% true about astral projectors. The tell about Lazorus in John had to have been fake and done fake on purpose just so it could be known by someone smart and with a sharp eye that the author made this Jesus characher up. "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man." ^^^The story of Noah (and Lot likewise) didnt happen in real life, you know? You can tell by the author(s) themself of Genesis on that one. Check how things are told for one. Surely no real life Noah or real life Lot passed down any real life story at all. So just as it was in those days it was a story passed down from some author(s). "It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed." ^^^Revealed is the key to the Sun of man. I've revealed him as a great story teller who talked about true things in a clever way. So know there was no human resurrection of Lazorus or Jesus. The author put in things that seemed like lies on purpose. For what reason you say? I think you now know the reason concerning religion. And just like the flood that came and destroyed them all so did that occur that the gospels' charaters arent real. So they constitute having never existed. Thus being destroyed in the readers very mind as we speak the truth. It's kind of like a mind game. So it looks like certian lies just had to be in order for truth to be shown. The author of the gospels had a funny way of telling the truth you could say.
Duh! Jesus May have not existed. He may have he may have not no proof either way but there is more evidence supporting his non-existence.
I think there's more evidence for his existence than non-existnce. There's evidence that James, his brother or half-brother exisited and had a following in Palestine. Josephus talks about him; Paul visited him. There's also evidence that Peter existed. A number of the early Christians were in contact with him and recognized that he was Jesus' head apostle. It's possible they got together and made Jesus up, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say he existed. Now as for your existence, I'm not too sure, but you can verify that yourself.
How exactly was it prooven? And how do we know if the so called "proof" is right? We are speaking of more then 2000 year delay!
For someone to have resurrected Lazorus the Jews surely dont accept the nt at all. That says a lot right there. Why is that? wayfaring stranger: Maybe Jesus was real but made the gospels up. Or maybe a lot had the name Jesus back then to why someone visited someone by that name and why someone was the half brother of someone by that name. You never know. One thing for sure is the gospels dont add up. Why was the book of John of mainly different tells of Jesus' sayings other than that that was in Luke, Mark, and Matt?
Who said proof? I said some evidence--not much at all,and only for the man's existence. We have the Romanized Jewish historian of the period, Flavius Josephus (37-100 C.E.), who mentions James the Just, the brother or half brother of Jesus who became leader of the Christian sect in Judea. I didn't mention references by Roman historians Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger, because they were using second-hand information, or the direct account of Jesus in a part of Josephus that may have been altered. A good book book on this subject is Robert van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Another scholar, Michael Grant, argues:"...If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same criteria as we 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." That is the view of most historians today, although there is a minority that is not convinced that Jesus existed. How much evidence do we have that there was a Buddha? And we may never know for sure. I go on the basis of what I think is the most plausible view. And it's not particularly a big deal for me whether or not either Jesus or the Buddha existed. It's the thoughts that count. As for the points raised by Sign Related: (1) of course there were lots of people called Jesus back then, but James and Peter were claiming their Jesus was the Jesus, the holy man with a message whom many follow today; (2) Jesus didn't write the Gospels; they were written decades after Jesus' death; (3) yes there are discrepancies in detils of the accounts, possibly because they were based on faulty memory,hearsay and rumor and "editing";I'm sure fundamentalists would have a different explanation; (4) I agree that just saying Jesus existed doesn't do anything to establish that he was the Messiah or the Son of God, or that he did or said all the wonderful things attributed to him, like raising Lazarus from the dead.
That is actually not true. There is proof he existed. They found his bones and other physical evience the Jesus of Nazereth, the man who supposedly was the son of God and performed miracles, existed.
Jesus Christ did not exist. If he did there is no acceptable evidence for it. And if there is acceptable evidence then it is too flimsy to justify taking Jesus seriously as a god or wizard. The only possible evidence we have for Jesus having lived is the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for everything else is hearsay or could be.
If I am wrong and there is no evidence for his existence (which I will look for it and get back to you), there is certainly no evidence for his non-existence. Just because you can not prove something does not mean it is disproven. I never said he was a god or wizard.
If his even human existence could be proven ( which it hasnt ) That would be probaly the biggest archelogical find in history you wouldnt really have to go through the trouble of looking for it. The gospels written as late as 150 CE up to 4 generations after his death by authors who were not eye witnesses of his teachings! No one has the slightest physical evidence to support Jesus existed There isnt any 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 they couldnt still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesussimply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
This is what I was thinking of: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/ Some say it is a fraud, but it is certainly more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is against his existence. Even if this was a fraud (which tests, scientist, and historians have said it is probablly not): The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
The Burial box of James Even many credible theologians bought this fraud, hook-line-and-sinker. The Nov./Dec. 2002, issue of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine announced a "world exclusive!" article about evidence of Jesus written in stone, claiming that they found the actual ossuary of "James, Brother of Jesus" in Jerusalem. This story exploded on the news and appeared widely on television and newspapers around the world. Interestingly, they announced the find as the "earliest historical reference of Jesus yet found." Since they claimed the inscription on the box got written around 70 C.E., that would agree with everything claimed by this thesis (that no contemporary evidence exists for Jesus). (Note that even if the box script proved authentic, it would not provide evidence for Jesus simply because no one knew who wrote the script or why. It would only show the first indirect mention of an alleged Jesus and it could not serve as contemporary evidence simply because it got written long after the alleged death of Jesus.) The claim for authenticity of the burial box of James, however, proved particularly embarrassing for the Biblical Archaeology Review and for those who believed them without question. Just a few months later, archaeologists determined the inscription as a forgery (and an obvious one at that) and they found the perpetrator and had him arrested (see 'Jesus box' exposed as fake and A fake? James Ossuary dealer arrested, suspected of forgery). Regrettably, the news about the fraud never matched the euphoria of the numerous stories of the find and many people today still believe the story as true.
Again, even if it is not real: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. There is no proof to say Jesus did not exist.
