Apparently that there are no good historical sources. \nThe events described in the Gospels are of such magnitude that they would warrant more than a casual mention. Much smaller things are mentioned by Roman historians. Meanwhile no clear records exist. The authenticity of the one in Josephus is considered to be forgery by practically all non-Christian historians. For one, Josephus, a practicing orthodox Jew, could have never referred to Jesus as “Christ”.\nAre there any other sources?
207811
You don't need historical evidence to belieive in God. Its a matter of your level of faith, you either believe in him or you don't. Sure, there may not be a lot of proof, but I know he is there, I know he exists, without him where do you think you came from?
175027
Christians will argue that it was not suicide but rather him giving himself to "save" you. trust me There are better augments against Christianity especially if you use their own texts against them.\n\nhear is a small sample\n1) The Gospels teach that Jesus appeared to the disciples after his resurrection. We are unclear, however, whether those appearances took place in Jerusalem or in the Galilee (or at both locales). According to our reading, the Galilean accounts seem to rule out prior Jerusalem appearances. Where did Jesus actually appear? If he appeared in Jerusalem, how should we read the Galilean accounts?\n\n(2) We find the genealogy of Jesus provided by the Gospels confusing. Who was Jesus’ paternal grandfather? (We notice that Matthew says that his grandfather was Jacob, but Luke says it was Heli). Also, we notice that Matthew declares that Jesus was separated from King David by only twenty-eight generations, but Luke’s list shows a forty-three generation separation. What does this contradiction mean?\n\n(3) The genealogical line linking Jesus and King David seems to pass through Jesus’ father. But since Jesus was the product of a virgin conception, then he does not share in his father’s Davidic ancestry. How is Jesus a descendent of David?
361458
The book itself is definitely fiction.  Some of the theories posed are palusible.  The Catholic church claims that Jesus wouldn't have been divine if he was married, yet Christ was a rabbi (or considered such by the masses).  To my understanding of Jewish beliefs at that time, rabbis or any teachers of faith would have needed to be married to have any credibility.  Simply put, the Jews probably wouldn't have listened if he was single.\n\nWhen it comes down to it though, there's no scriptual reference to a wife of Christ, so it's not important to salvation and it's not important to us in the larger scheme of things.
253095
These are all part of the same myth.\nNot much is known about the life of Jesus as he was unimportant in his own lifetime. Subsequent generations have filled in the gaps with their own speculation.\nAs you can see from some of the answers.
605037
Amazing how so many people actually believe there is evidence supporting the Jesus myths.\n\nThe only evidence anyone has that a person named Jesus of Nazareth existed is the bible itself. The primary reason people believe it to be true is because the Roman Empire executed anyone who refused to accept it as true.\n\n"Christianity"  is the biggest fraud in the history of mankind.
608747
Do you people not realize that "Jesus" was just a man like any other man. Historical facts. Let me guess, the bible? The word of "God"? What did they hold a press conference so that they could get all the facts from "Jesus" and print them in one "historically accurate book"? I don't think so. I'm sorry but the bible is nothing more than a person or group of peoples perspective on a point in time. \nJesus was a human being! He had needs and desires just like every one else. Religion doesn't want to admit that because what, it will make him seem less "God like"? \nI think you people need to re-read the book. Yes "The Da Vinci Code" is a work of fiction. But I believe that a lot of the historical premises is based in truth. To what extent I don't know. The same with the bible. There may be a lot of truth there, but just like so much other written history, facts get lost or changed to suit the intentions of the author. \nCall it what you will, but I like to believe that maybe, just maybe the bloodline of Christ still exist out there today. What would be so wrong with that?
325675
BlackFedora wrote:\n"all of the new testament was written after Jesus' death"\n\n...and none of it by anybody who lived when jesus was alive.  It's all second-hand.  You can't prove it's credibility.
629559
Man, I understand where your coming from.  I've studied other religions and looked into this Jesus and I've asked the same question and many more.  Jesus is special for a number of reasons.  Yes, there were many people who crucified as saviors before and after Jesus.  We still get people popping up claiming divinity.  The real question isn't so much as is Jesus the savior because he got a few books written about him, its why were there books written about him in the first place.  The most basic point anyone can show you is this...its not that Jesus died, its that he rose after his death.  And there is more evidence that he did actually rise 3 days later and not just Biblical evidence.  First off, the fact that the Roman leaders and armies wanted him gone, because it was the time of Pass Over which is the celebration of Jews getting out of Egypt, and at this time of year, the Jewish community gets a little out of hand, for the are now under the Roman rule.  So when Jesus comes in, and he's claiming to be their savior...the crowd thinks he's going to be a king and run the Romans out.  So, if Jesus didn't rise again, why did the Romans say nothing?  Why did the Jewish Pharaseas (please excuse my spelling) who pushed to have him killed, not stand up and say..."he's still dead!"?  What was it that gave Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the confedance to step out of their hidding, for fear they were going to be crucified, and boldly speak of a living God, Jesus...and welcome their death?  These questions may seem weak, but if you really think about them and look at the history and try to get in the minds of all these people...only one thing makes since...Jesus is not dead...he rose, becoming a savior that no one expected, but a savior from ourselves.  Thats why Jesus is special, the others were saviors...they were fanatics.  There are a lot of other reasons why Jesus is special, but I honestly have the feeling that if this thought doesn't at least make you rethink the history, then anything else I say, will truly be pointless.
205582
Yes! I love that I've found someone else who knows this. (I watch a lot of History Channel and learned a lot about lost gospels that weren't included simply because of the politics of the day.) \n\nThe earliest gospel about Jesus was actually written about three decades after his death, and yet it speaks as if it were a first hand account. The author wouldn't have known Jesus. \n\nAnd I don't know why it's such an atrocity for Jesus to be depicted as human. He was. And he very well could've been married. Jewish men two thousand years ago were expected to marry. You couldn't be a rabbi without being married, and he was called rabbi. \n\nAlso, many Old Testament stories were much older in origin. Like for example the flood story came from the Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient Sumerian epic poem. The bible is not history. It's a collection of myths and tales. \n\nAnd it's true about the older holidays. When the early church was trying to convert everyone to their religion, they overshadowed old religions' holidays to make the conversion easier for the pagans. Christmas is at the winter solstice when pagans celebrated the return of the sun, when the days would get longer. In the bible, it clearly says that Jesus was born in the spring when sheppards were out with their flocks. So it's obvious that they deliberately put the birth of their savior in the winter.\n\nReligions have always been fluid. They mix and interact with other religions and myths they come in contact with. Tales have been passed down for thousands of years and always change as they go. Nothing is original anymore.
195578
I haven't heard of anything like this. There seems to have been little contemporary references to Jesus in Roman sources so such a letter would be priceless. \n\nHowever, Dennis Lemon of Gay News was convicted of blasphemy in 1978 in Britain for printing a letter from a Roman centurion claiming that he loved Jesus. There is no basis for thinking that such a document existed. For a start, many centurions were illiterate.
615772
Obviously you are taking things out of context --and even from two separate Gospels at that-- just to propose your question, or to confuse the uninitiated who has not read the Bible yet. And I'm sure you also know the texts before and after the captioned ones you've selected.\n\nWe know that Jesus was a Teacher and Great Communicator who could parlay the message of His lessons within the parables that He gave to the commonfolk and non-Jewish publicans, one whose lifestyle was predominantly agrarian. \n\nI presume that some of the Apostles were --as most first time readers would be-- perplexed by the morals of the parables and they needed to understand them better since they were all tasked to preach the Word to the rest of the people later...\n\nPeace be with you!
161947
The "Dead Sea Scrolls" don't prove that the Jesus of the Bible was a real person, nor do they prove that such a person performed the miracles attributed to him. \n\n"Noah's Ark" has never been found. That was a hoax and has been well-documented. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax.html\n\nJust like all the other gospels, Judas' gospel proves nothing. The gospels in the Christian bible as we have it today, were written by anonymous authors, decades after Jesus' alleged death, with numerous contradictions, and they weren't eyewitness accounts.\n\nLaws aren't based on Christian principles. The idea of not killing one another, and treating others as you'd have them treat you, have been around much longer than Christianity has. In fact, the so-called "golden rule" was taught by Buddha hundreds of years before the Jesus story popped up.\n\nIf you want to look at Christian principles, let's see what Jesus allegedly said:\n\nLuke 14:26\nIf any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (The word "hate" in that verse is "miseo", the Greek word. The same one from which we get other words that indicate hatred, like "misogynist." It definitely means HATE.)\n\nMatthew 10:35-36\nI am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.\n\nLuke 19:27\nBut those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (This one is a parable, but read it and make no mistake: who do you think the king is?)\n\nMark 14:3-7\nYe have the poor with you always. (Here, expensive oil is used on Jesus. Instead of using the oil to sell to provide money for the poor, this was his response: "You'll always have the poor." How compassionate.)\n\nThe fact that the Christian religion is supposed to fulfill Judaism, yet completely contradicts it should be more than enough evidence to undermine Christianity, but the ignorance of Christians when it comes to the origins of their own religion prevents them from looking beyond what they're taught at church.\n\nChristianity is supposed to be the "fulfillment" of the "Old Testament" - if so, the Jewish Bible is what must be used to determine what such fulfillment will consist of. Using the Jewish Bible, it can be shown that to date, no one has come who has fulfilled the requirements of the Jewish Messiah. Furthermore, the Messiah was only ever for the Jews - not the Gentiles - so even if Jesus *had* been the Messiah, it wouldn't concern a non-Jew, anyway.\n\nOutside of the Christian bible, which was written by a combination of anonymous authors and Paul (a self-confessed liar), there is nothing to support the existence of an historical Jesus whatsoever. There is nothing that is both historical and contemporary to show that there ever was a Jesus of the Christian bible at all. The so-called Josephus passage that is often cited, was not contemporary (Josephus never saw Jesus, let alone met him), and that single passage is agreed by the majority of historians to be a forgery. After all, if he truly believed Jesus to be "the Christ", why was only ONE sentence devoted to Jesus in all his writings, and why did Josephus himself remain a Jew? Not very convincing.\n\nExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I, too, was once a wide-eyed believer. I truly believed with every fibre of my being that Jesus was Lord. Then I saw the light.\n\nI strongly recommend you research your claims and your supposed evidence a little more thoroughly. They're the same pieces of "evidence" that I once believed existed as well.\n\nGood luck on your journey.
230599
There is no evidence at all that the Council of Nicea was infallible. There is no evidence at all that what we presently have as "the Bible" is what G_d intended mankind to have as the total picture of the message to humanity from G_d. When one reads, as a example, The Gospel of Thomas, it's clear that the sayings there are for the most part the earliest and clearest renditions of the words of Jesus the Christ. I say that first of all because of how they hit my inner man and the Holy Spirit within me and secondly because they are the only words attribited to Jesus the Christ that make sense and jibe with the historical record. The Jesus of the Roman Catholic approved Gospels is if not a total Systemoid, at least not very threatening. In fact its impossible to imagine that anyone encountering the guy in the four Roman Catholic Gospels would want to crucify him, BUT THE GUY IN THOMAS whould anger any entrenched powerful institution. He has the Hard edge to him of a prophet of G_d, just like one would expect Messiah to have.\n\nBut then I dont believe Pauls letters are scripture, nor do i believe he was a Apostle, or even a Pharasee.....So I'm a "heretic" so what?
352599
I think religious wars and squabbles can be the most violent, Sol.  I do believe that Jesus is a real Person, but that SO many people have given Him such a bad name that not many people want anything to do with Him anymore.  However, history actually proves that the Person called Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, and that the Jewish leaders of the time planned a coverup story with the Romans to say that Jesus' body was stolen by His followers.  There's a book called "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" about the real, historical life of Jesus, His death, His resurrection, and His ascension out of earth to Heaven.  What I tell you is based on writings both outside of the Bible as well as from nonChristians.  You can do some research on it if you want to find out more.
92500
We cannot really argue who Jesus was according to the Bible, because of the agreed lack of a process of authentic transmission. Can we really put our faith into an English translation of a Greek/Latin translation of another translation of another translation of Aramaic/Hebrew/Syriac writings of Hellenistic Jews who never met Jesus and, according to the Bible actually fought against the Original Disciples and their teachings? Even the sincere men who put together the most accurate translation to date (NIV) say that we still know very little about Jesus. \n\nHence as much as it is great to see passion in believing in Jesus, I hope that we can be sincere enough to review our beliefs for the sake of God. May God guide us all.
599773
It's all a load of nonsense. The whole 666 thing came from the Bible, which was put together by a bunch of Romans who wanted to control people. Why is it people still believe in the Bible despite the fact it is just a selective history? They take it as gospel, at face value. There were hundreds of books but only a few were chosen to go in the Bible, the ones that reflected the view of the Romans and gave across the views that they wanted to give across. Know a story when you read one!
150439
#2 first.  There are contradictions in the two genealogies.  Thus it would be a mistake to take them as an accurate historical record.  Think of them instead in terms of what the Gospel writer is trying to accomplish.  Both are trying to show Jesus' place in the history of salvation, moreso than in chronological history.\n#1 this one requires faith.  It is well known that the Resurrection accounts are not consistent in the usual sense of time and space.  Depending on how we read them there may have been 40 days between the Resurrection and the Ascension, or both may have happened on the same day.  Well, which one is it?  The answer is BOTH!  Jesus is risen in a glorified, physical body.  In some ways he is subject to the normal laws of the physical world.  He can be touched.  He eats.  He walks.  In other ways he is not subject to normal laws.  He passes through locked doors.  He disappears before the eyes of the two men at Emmaeus.  Most striking, he seems to be present in the upper room with the apostles at the same time (or at least very close to it) as he is with the disciples in Emmaeus, 8 miles away.  The Risen Christ is not subjec to time and space.  He can be in two places at once.  Think about it in modern terms.  We say that Christ is with us.  Wherever two or three are gathered in his name.  That means that he is all over the world, simultaneously.  There are twos and threes all over the world gathered in his name and he is with all of them.  At the same time we say that he is seated at the right hand of the Father.  He is in heaven and on earth at the same time and all over the earth at the same time.