What is the actual evidence for the existence of Jesus?

[Kylie]

What evidence is there for the existence of Jesus?

Pretty much everything I have seen is people speaking after the fact and even they are just repeating what other people already believe. There's no contemporary accounts I am aware of.

Are there any verifiable eyewitness accounts? Anything contemporary (that is, from the time he actually lived)?

 

[Faithfulservant]

Witness accounts. Historical records. Watch A Case for Christ.. an atheist investigative journalist set out to disprove Jesus existence and couldn't.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What evidence is there for the existence of Jesus?

Pretty much everything I have seen is people speaking after the fact and even they are just repeating what other people already believe. There's no contemporary accounts I am aware of..

You seem to be suggesting that Abrahamic religion could be one big giant conspiracy..
What evidence do you have that this is likely?

 

[Kylie]

Witness accounts.

Please tell me these witnesses. Do you mean the Gospels? How did you verify the authorship of them?

Historical records.

Such as what? Can you show me any contemporary historical records?

Watch A Case for Christ.. an atheist investigative journalist set out to disprove Jesus existence and couldn't.

An investigative journalist? So he had no qualifications in any relevant field? Why does his opinion matter then? It's like claiming a particular person can giove you the truth about the JFK assassination and his qualifications are that he's a fully trained dentist.

 

[Kylie]

You seem to be suggesting that Abrahamic religion could be one big giant conspiracy..
What evidence do you have that this is likely?

No, I'm saying that I find the evidence for Jesus that I have seen is quite lacking and I don't find it convincing.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Even AI says He existed. If it makes you feel better to believe He didnt exist then noone is going to persuade you on this forum. I wont get into an ugly back and forth about it if you wont even look at the sources provided.

 

[Vasu Devan]

No, I'm saying that I find the evidence for Jesus that I have seen is quite lacking and I don't find it convincing.

What would serve as actual evidence for you that Jesus actually existed? What form in current times would serve that purpose? Non Christian scholars and even secular Biblical scholars tend to agree that a man named Jesus existed, was baptized by John the Baptist, gained a large following among Jews and Greeks of the time, and that his death on the cross was seen as a great act of love by them and cemented in the minds of followers the practice of Christianity which he taught to them.

Of course, more has been added by various people as years have passed. But that happens for most famous folk on some level. You can find tales about Einstein's spirituality in some corners already. Truth is finicky. Even what science teaches as truth to common populations in modern day is presented as spoken/written teachings from trusted sources, not based as experientially proven to all who need to believe. Many of the studies that are taken as source for proof can fail to generate that proof on retests. So much of what all human minds rely on for knowledge is based on faith not reason.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

What evidence is there for the existence of Jesus?

Pretty much everything I have seen is people speaking after the fact and even they are just repeating what other people already believe. There's no contemporary accounts I am aware of.

Are there any verifiable eyewitness accounts? Anything contemporary (that is, from the time he actually lived)?

There are no accounts of eye witnesses who didn't follow him and became Christians.
There's the 1st Epistle of Peter which the majority of critical scholars grade probably authentic. Peter was an eye witness.
There's the Gospel according to John the 1st and 2nd Epistle of John (3John doesn't mention Jesus). They are assumed to be authored by John, who was an eye witness, but the authorship is disputed among critical scholars.
The authenticity of the Epistles of James and Jude, who would also be eye witnesses is also disputed. To note that "disputed" doesn't mean that it is proven that they are not authentic.

The main proof of the existence of Jesus is that Christianity exists. It's highly unlikely that this movement, with all the scripture in the N.T. that refer to Jesus has risen from a phantom that never existed. Who would have invented it and and why? Why should there arise a large movement of dedicated believers just from a fiction author?

 

[Kylie]

Even AI says He existed. If it makes you feel better to believe He didnt exist then noone is going to persuade you on this forum. I wont get into an ugly back and forth about it if you wont even look at the sources provided.

So what? You think AI is some higher power? It's an advanced auto-complete, nothing more. I've seen it say there are only two Rs in the word strawberry, so don't pretend that it's some great intelligence that has access to a well of knowledge and understanding that we mere mortals don't have. I don't know what point you think you are making, but AI is unreliable and practically worthless when it comes to determining the nature of reality.

 

[Kylie]

What would serve as actual evidence for you that Jesus actually existed? What form in current times would serve that purpose? Non Christian scholars and even secular Biblical scholars tend to agree that a man named Jesus existed, was baptized by John the Baptist, gained a large following among Jews and Greeks of the time, and that his death on the cross was seen as a great act of love by them and cemented in the minds of followers the practice of Christianity which he taught to them.

Of course, more has been added by various people as years have passed. But that happens for most famous folk on some level. You can find tales about Einstein's spirituality in some corners already. Truth is finicky. Even what science teaches as truth to common populations in modern day is presented as spoken/written teachings from trusted sources, not based as experientially proven to all who need to believe. Many of the studies that are taken as source for proof can fail to generate that proof on retests. So much of what all human minds rely on for knowledge is based on faith not reason.

Verifiable records of Jesus that come from the time when he actually lived. As in something where we can verify who wrote it and when. I mean, Jesus did a lot of miraculous stuff, like healing the blind, bringing the dead back to life. How is it that there is not a single verifiable record of these events? No government records either?

Of course, you're probably going to say that it was all in some backwater of the Roman Empire or something, that records weren't kept acurately, or they were lost, or something else, which is very convenient. And unfalsifiable as well.

 

[Kylie]

The main proof of the existence of Jesus is that Christianity exists. It's highly unlikely that this movement, with all the scripture in the N.T. that refer to Jesus has risen from a phantom that never existed. Who would have invented it and and why? Why should there arise a large movement of dedicated believers just from a fiction author?

And do you apply this same reasoning to Islam? Hinduism?

The fact there are believers does not mean that the belief they hold is true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, I'm saying that I find the evidence for Jesus that I have seen is quite lacking and I don't find it convincing.

..so the Qur'an must be a conspiracy then, if Jesus is not real..
..and all the Scriptures in the NT must be based on lies.

Feel free to believe what you like, but I find it more credible, that these Scriptures are based on truth,
even if they contain errors/exagerrations etc.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

And do you apply this same reasoning to Islam?

Yes, there's a much greater number of of eye witnesses for Muhammad than for Jesus (peace be on them) and a broad body of traditions inside Islam that cannot have been fabricated as a whole.

Hinduism?

No, because there's no founder of this religion. The figures of this very old religious tradition have a mythical character and they are, as far as I know, not even considered to have founded Hinduism or Brahmanism.

The fact there are believers does not mean that the belief they hold is true.

That's another topic. Your question was whether there are sufficient proofs that Jesus or Muhammad were real persons.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

No, I'm saying that I find the evidence for Jesus that I have seen is quite lacking and I don't find it convincing.

Do you think to have enough evidence that Hammurabi existed? Gaius Iulius Cesar? Maimonides? Martin Luther? Albert Einstein? Do you have a proof that I exist?
What's your criterion?

 

[wil]

There is not enough evidence to prove or disprove his existence, to me, this much is clear.

I feel it is highly probable the man referred to in the Bible existed...but highly unlikely all the words, actions and miracles credited to him dont contain some hyperbole and aren't referencing someone else.

Folks like to point to Josephus and I feel he lends enough credence to get to existence, but does not help with validating the rest.

While I dont believe he said it all or did it all I find great value in my life being aware of and utilizing the teachings attributed to him as a guide.

Modern scholarship indicates the gospels are not written by eye witnesses and not authored by their titular references.

As for ai, ai is not a singular entity nor a trusted source...it may lead you to sources you can trust.

Bottom line you are asking a question that has been asked by millions for thousands of years and the answer varies widely based on beliefs, not factual evidence you can hang your hat on.

 

[wil]

Do you think to have enough evidence that Hammurabi existed? Gaius Iulius Cesar? Maimonides? Martin Luther? Albert Einstein? Do you have a proof that I exist?
What's your criterion?

Contemporary writings by the people and eyewitnesses.

 

[moralorel]

Aside from the Bible, there isn't really any first-hand evidence of his existence. But Jesus was a commoner. He wasn't considered royalty, wasn't famous, and wasn't rich. If there were any first-hand witness evidence, I would be surprised.

It was after his death that he became famous. That is when he starts being mentioned in historical record.

 

[Vasu Devan]

Verifiable records of Jesus that come from the time when he actually lived. As in something where we can verify who wrote it and when. I mean, Jesus did a lot of miraculous stuff, like healing the blind, bringing the dead back to life. How is it that there is not a single verifiable record of these events? No government records either?

Of course, you're probably going to say that it was all in some backwater of the Roman Empire or something, that records weren't kept acurately, or they were lost, or something else, which is very convenient. And unfalsifiable as well.

There are records by Roman historians(Josephus, Celsus) of the influence he made and his death for treason at the time. Nazareth itself may not have records because global literacy is relatively new within human civilizations. The stuff about the miracles is probably made up but there are records from non-Christian sources, even from his critics(non-Jewish historians) of Jesus doing 'acts of magic'/''sorcery'. They blame him for it, not praise. But it's best if you don't take the Bible literally. In those days, stories were not designed for literal interpretation since they were designed to spread a message than be actual fact.ie.myths/parables.

Try to understand the message and meaning of Xtianity rather than understand it empirically. Jesus had a beautiful message of unconditional love, unique at time, which would serve us well. The Thomas Jefferson Bible has all the paranormal stuff cut out. You may find that version more useful than the King James version.

 

[wil]

The Thomas Jefferson Bible has all the paranormal stuff cut out. You may find that version more useful than the King James version.

TJs bible is a misnomer, it isn't the bible, no genesis, no revelation...just the gospels with the miracles (virgin birth thru resurrection removed)

There are records by Roman historians(Josephus, Celsus)

Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews, describes Jesus as a wise man who performed "surprising deeds" and was called the "Christ." Most scholars believe this passage was later altered by Christians. (Basically they believe the core nugget of truth (some man existed) was later modified to suit the believers)Celsus, as quoted by Origen, criticized Jesus and Christians, calling him a magician and a deceiver born of an adulterous affair.

I do not need him to have existed or all the sayings attributed to him to have been uttered by him to utilize those statements to benefit my life a d those around me.

 

[Thomas]

I do not need him to have existed or all the sayings attributed to him to have been uttered by him to utilize those statements to benefit my life a d those around me.

OK. That's your opinion – but it's not an argument.

Today just about all scholars accept the existence of a person known as Jesus of Nazareth, based on evidence from Jewish, Roman and Christian sources.

One can argue the odds about miracles, words and deeds, etc., but the Jesus's baptism, crucifixion and resurrection are widely accepted, and the idea that he was a purely mythical figure is rejected by academic consensus.