What is the reliable evidence that Jesus really existed?

Answer 1

Josephus the Jewish historian mentioned his miracles as 'wondrous works' and Tacitus the Roman. Pliny also mentioned a new 'sect' called the 'Christians' that had formed. Roman catacombs, tunnels used to bury the dead, are full of Christian symbols, pictures and depictions of the resurrection engraved on the walls by the earliest Christians hiding there for safety in around 80AD. Another source is Polycarp, who, himself was a disciple of John, the disciple closest to Jesus himself, who has left a great deal of writing about Christ - none of which contradicts the Gospel stories.

And let's not forget, with the exception of the Gospel of Mark being used by Luke and Matthew, the gospels were all written independently (including a fifth Gospel, now lost, called 'Q' which can be seen in fragments in Matthew and Luke) and yet they all agree with each other very well. The Gospel of John was written totally independently, and yet the details of the Life, death and resurrection all agree with remarkable accuracy.

As for the resurrection one has to say - what if the resurrection never happened and the whole thing was a lie? A superb book is atheist Frank Morrison's 'Who moved the Stone?' - a book that was intended to disprove the resurrection on 'hard' evidence. The result was that Morrison was converted, became a Christian and had to rewrite the book. It is still in print and available from Amazon.

Let's look at the evidence:

1. The body wasn't there. Why? was it removed by the diciples including Joseph of Arimathea No. If they removed the body, many of them went on to be executed for their beliefs, especially in the resurrection. Hardly credible if they knew they were dying for something they knew to be a lie. Did the Roman or Jewish authorities take it? Hardly. Peter almost caused a riot in Jerusalem when he proclaimed the resurrection to a large crowd. All the authorities had to do would be to produce the body and his cover would be blown. But they didn't. AND they knew about the resurrection - firstly by the guards posted at the tomb who may well have signed their own death warrants by admitting that they allowed it to happen, and secondly by the disciples who preached it. What about grave robbers? Hardly. Jesus had few possessions, a fact known my all who saw him, therefore nothing to take.

2. They went to the wrong grave. How silly. They knew exactly where the grave was - after all, large tombs of this importance (Joseph of Arimathea, a rich merchant, owned it) were not that common.

3. Jesus didn't die on the cross - merely fainted and the cold tomb 'brought him round'. Unbelieveable. have a look at Mel Gibson's 'The passion of the Christ', and, for all its 'antisemitism' and other criticisms, it was an historically accurate portrayal of Crucifixion. The Romans knew what they were doing - they didnt make mistakes here. Even so, the eye witness John records a spear thrust in his side. Sinmilarly it is inconcievable that someone died in his place - they wouldn't have made this simple error.

4. Jesus appeared to many, many people. not as a resuscitated corpse, but as a shining radiant human. He appeared to the disciples, to the women (Mary Magdalene was the first to see him) to Cleopas (a follower) and his friend on the road to a village called Emmaus, to the other 72 'hangers on', and, at one time to over 500 Christians gathered together. So it is hardly possible that they could have made it up. Lastly he appeared to Paul, a persecutor of the Christians, who was converted as a result and helped to plant Christian churches all over Europe. He appeared as a body - not as a ghost. A body that could eat a meal with the disciples and yet could appear and disappear at will.

5. The disciples, from being a scared group, meeting in locked rooms for fear of the Jewish authorities and Romans, were transformed into a vibrant energetic band of evangelists who spread all over the world (from India - Thomas, to Africa - Philip, to Rome - Peter and to Spain - James) . Most died for their beliefs.Would they have done this knowing that everything was a put-up job?

6. The church spread like wildfire throughout the then known world in a very short time. Let's not forget that the Gospels record that Jesus, after the resurrection, returned to Galillee in the north - and therefore the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would not have recored any resurrection. But the disciples knew. After Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit, they were fired up so much that the Christian church spread across Europe from this tiny backwater of a desert country, where communications were poor, and travelling dangerous, and any deviation from the religion of Rome (e.g. worship of the Emperor) was a sure death sentence, to such an extent that Chrisan churches were present over most of the Mediterranean area, Africa, India, the Middle East, Spain, Italy and other places by the end of the 1st century, and in many cases just 10-20 years after the events. All this hardly possible if everything was based on a lie.

.

Another answer from our community

There is no historical evidence for the resurrection nor that any such Jesus as described in the New Testament gospels ever existed.

Then again, there is no evidence for Moses, Abraham, or Mohammad having existed, either. Nor Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, Kukulkan, or Marduk for that matter. Seems to be a common thread among so-called "holy" types.

Another answer from our community

The utter silence by those opposed to Jesus is a strong argument in favor of the literal historical resurrection.

Normally an argument from silence is invalid for a variety of reasons, since it makes false assumptions based on no evidence whatsoever. In the case of the resurrection of Jesus however, we can argue positively from the silence of His non-believing opponents for a number of reasons:

1. They had just crucified Jesus and had power and authority on their side (in human political terms).

2. Their antagonism to Jesus who they regarded as an 'impostor', led them to set a guard over His tomb to prevent any lies being told that He was risen from the dead.

3. They felt the necessity to concoct a story to 'cover' the soldiers, in case Pilate the Governor heard heard they had neglected their duty - except if he had heard of it they would normally have been executed for such neglect.

4. No body was ever produced, even though the opponents of Jesus undoubtedly knew where the tomb was.

5. No torture or interrogation or even executions were ever undertaken to force divulgence of the 'plot' to steal away Jesus' body and its new location.

6. No counter-claim by eyewitnesses was ever recorded even though they had both the motivation and the ability (as mentioned above) as well as the opportunity to do so.

7. The authorities were certainly made aware of the claims of Jesus' followers that He had risen from the dead, at an early time, both from the testimony first of the guards and then from the preaching of the believers.

The inescapable conclusion from all of this is that they knew what really happenned. Acts records that on a number of occasions how the authorities expressly forbade the teaching or preaching 'in this name' but they never denied its historical reality. A Non-believer's viewThe utter silence by those supposed to be opposed to Jesus is also a strong argument against the literal historical resurrection. They made no counter-claim because they knew nothing about claims that Jesus had been resurrected.

Some scholars say that the original version of Mark was the earliest gospel (written around 70 CE). The earliest versions of the gospel that we have, did not claim that the resurrected Jesus appeared to anyone after his crucifixion - simply ending with a young man saying that he was risen. In support of this:The United Bible Societies' 'The Greek New Testament' (4th Edition, 1993), regarded as the consensus of Bible Scholars, omits the verses 16:9-20 (known as the "longer ending" to distinguish it from another "shorter ending" that has also been used), commenting that they had been assimilated from sources in Matthew, Luke, John and Acts. The Roman Catholic New American Bible includes the "longer ending" verses, but with a footnote that says that this ending has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the Gospel since the Council of Trent, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was not written by Mark.

Mark's Gospel is said to be the major source used by the authors of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels, for the life of Jesus. If the author of Mark's Gospel knew nothing of the resurrection appearances, then it is reasonable to say that they did not occur. Counter argument on the above....What about John's gospel? You did not mention this. And yet, in this Gospel, the resurrection is clearly mentioned and described in detail. let's not forget that John as the disciple closest to Jesus, was an eye witness at the crucifixion, was one of the first disciples at the empty tomb, and who wrote his gospel in isolation probably on the Isle of Patmos - and yet it agrees remarkably with the others. Polycarp, one of John's disciples, left us with a wealth of information and writing on Jesus. Polycarp himself was executed for his belief - is this something he would do if he knew John's teachings were lies? Further counter arguments on the above...RE: "The earliest versions of the gospel that we have, did not claim that the resurrected Jesus appeared to anyone after his crucifixion - simply ending with a young man saying that he was risen."

Answer 2

The Bible clearly records Jesus as performing miracles, for example:

Luke 5:12-13

While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" And immediately the leprosy left him. and

Mat 11:2-6

When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples 3to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"4Jesus replied, "Go back and report to John what you hear and see: 5The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. 6Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."

The only question is whether the bible is an accurate record.

The bible's record of miracles is questioned for its objectivity. Near-contemporary historical accounts (e.g. Josephus) also record Jesus as a worker of miracles, although the writers do not neccessarily agree with his divine status.

Those who experience miracles in the name of Jesus today obviously have little trouble believing Jesus performed miracles while on this earth, while those who do not have such an experience must make their own judgment on the veracity of the biblical texts.

Answer 3

The Talmud The ancient Babylonian Talmud, in Sanhedrin 43A, refers to Jesus and the fact that he was crucified on the eve of the Passover. The same document scornfully refers to Mary his mother as an "adulteress," proving that the story of the virgin birth was well known. Historian Flavius JosephusFirst-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus made references to Jesus. Although some critics say that other versions of Josephus' writings were altered to favor Christian claims, even this version, accepted as accurate by the most critical historians, proves that the person known as Jesus actually existed. Ossuary engravings Many first century Jewish coffins, or "ossuaries" are inscribed with the sign of the cross or the name of Jesus. In 1873, ossuaries were found near Bethany containing the inscribed names of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, each with the sign of a cross. Mary, Martha, and Lazarus were followers of Jesus described in the Bible. Another was inscribed in Greek, "Jesus, the Redeemer." Still another was inscribed with "Jesus, the LORD (Jehovah)." The ossuary of Matthias (possibly the disciple who replaced Judas) was inscribed "Jesus is [Jehovah]." It would be inconceivable that so many ossuaries would attest to faith in Jesus Christ as God if his claims were mere stories. Ancient historical references Many first and second-century historical documents refer to Christians, their belief in Jesus, and their values (honesty, purity, faithfulness). These writers, many of them Roman, also refer to the belief of Christians that Jesus was resurrected and their willingness to die horrible deaths for what they believed. Cornelius Tacitus wrote in AD112 that Nero, to suppress the rumor that he ordered the burning of Rome, and acknowledge that a man named Christus (Jesus) the founder of the name of Christians was put to death by Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.

Several historians wrote that there was a mysterious total eclipse of the sun--during a full moon--when Jesus was crucified. As many people know, it is impossible for an eclipse of the sun to occur during a full moon, yet this event was supported by more than one writer. This is astonishing evidence that something supernatural took place that day. ----

You're earliest references are from years after he died. We have no first-hand reporting or evidence. Men in Ancient Greece wrote about Zeus and Oedipus.. it doesn't mean they were real people.

Answer 4

No physical proof exists. Only 3 mentions of Jesus christ in the first century in any writings. All of these occurred after the earliest writings of Paul which are considered by historians to be the first writings regarding Jesus. Paul claimed to have seen a Jesus only after he had died.

Answer 5

There were no doubts that Jesus existed until only recently (the past couple hundred years). calendars don't revolve around myths. outside of biblical resources you can find references to the life of Jesus by first century authors such as the Jewish historian Josephus and pliny the younger. Aside from that, the Romans had historians who recorded everything. including the masacre of thousands of Christians or "people of the Way" during the first few centuries A.D. It's well known that Nero hated the Christians and blamed them for the great fire of Rome. He had them tarred and impaled and lined the steets with their burning bodies at night to light the roads. You see, this is all still in the 1st century just years after Christ's death. If Jesus did not exist, i ask you to ponder this question: why would the early Christians, who would know good and well if Jesus was a real man or not,(some actually having been followers of Christ before His death and resurrection or having relatives that were), become martyrs for something (Christianity) or someone (Jesus) if they knew it was all a fake? being boiled in oil, crucified upside down, fed to lions, and burned alive. that's a lot to go through for a lie...answer: they wouldn't.

Answer 6

There is biblical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, but no historical evidence. Josephus mentioned that there were those who believed Jesus to have performed great works, but did not mention a resurrection. By the second century, other historians were beginning to mention the Christians but did not suggest that Jesus had risen from the dead.

The gospels might provide some historical evidence if they were written independently of each other by eyewitnesses, or at least from eyewitness accounts. However, this was not the case. A quite substantial majority of New Testament scholars say that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were substantially based on Mark's Gospel, with a somewhat smaller majority saying that John was loosely based on Luke, with some material taken direct from Mark. This means there is only one independent gospel source, that even conservative theologians agree was not written by an eyewitness.

Mark's Gospel originally ended at verse 16:8, with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they fled in terror, telling no one. The 'Long Ending' (verses 16:9-20) that follows in most modern versions was added much later, but there was also a 'Short Ending' and a somewhat different version of the 'Long Ending'. So, our original gospel said nothing of a physical resurrection of Jesus, merely alluding to what might have been a spiritual resurrection. In his epistles, written some time before the gospels, Paul also seems to have believed that the resurrection was spiritual.

Nevertheless, the four New Testament gospels now all contain detailed stories that provide evidence of the physical resurrection of Jesus. The accounts are actually so different that they provide mutual evidence that they are not historically true. Even the four gosple stories of the empty tomb are so different as to prompt Archbishop Carnley to say:

"The presence of discrepancies might be a sign of historicity if we had four clearly independent but slightly different versions of the story, if only for the reason that four witnesses are better than one. But, of course, it is now impossible to argue that what we have in the four gospel accounts of the empty tomb are four contemporaneous but independent accounts of the one event. Modern redactional studies of the traditions account for the discrepancies as literary developments at the hand of later redactors of what was originally one report of the empty tomb...
There is no suggestion that the tomb was discovered by different witnesses on four different occasions, so it is in fact impossible to argue that the discrepancies were introduced by different witnesses of the one event; rather, they can be explained as four different redactions for apologetic and kerygmatic reasons of a single story originating from one source."

That one source was Mark's Gospel, and we know that Mark's Gospel, as first written, did not tell of the resurrected Jesus.

Answer 7

If the gospels are to be believed, Jesus most certainly worked miracles, just as, if the pagan records are to be believed, the Greek gods worked miracles. If we reject the pagan records, we may have to reject the biblical records on exactly the same grounds.

It used to be said that the existence of four independent gospel accounts was good evidence that the gospel events really did occur. Now that scholars have demonstrated that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were substantially based on the Gospel of Mark, and even that the Gospel of John was loosely based on Luke, we no longer have that ground for confidence. Because Matthew, Luke and John are actually dependent on Mark, the only independent record that we have is Mark. So, if Markis not literally true, we have no reason to believe in Jesus' miracles.

Answer 8

A primary source of historical evidence would be contemporary documents that prove Jesus of Nazareth to have lived, but no such documents have ever been found. The Apostle Paul often mentioned the life of Jesus, but does not seem to have realised that Jesus lived in Palestine in the recent past, so his epistles are of no real help in proving that Jesus really existed.
The gospels prove that people were taught that Jesus had lived, but these were written decades after the time he would have lived. Similarly, the books of Josephus and Tacitus refer to Christians of their own time who believed that Jesus had lived, but these books are not primary evidence. We may accept the evidence of the gospels simply because it is easier to believe a person lived if that person is mentioned in ancient writings.

Answer 9

Any such evidence that exists is hearsay and taken from religious sources. There is no historical, provable evidence.

Answer 10

The tomb is there , the inn and manger to are there.