There is no historical evidence for Jesus aside from the bible, which is not a historical text. The bible is a fictional book for the most part. The fact is, if there was a man named Jesus that performed miracles like raising the dead and curing the blind, there would be many other sources confirming it. There were at least 21 well known historians living around the time and place where/when Jesus was said to be living. Not a single one of them wrote anything about such a person.
Many people will not simply believe something they are told, it's one of the benefits of human intelligence. Without some kind of sight or direct observation many people are not willing to accept an idea that seems questionable to them.
And simply pointing to 'the world around you' is not necessarily evidence, either, as other faiths have justifications for the same thing.
Sorry, Pablo. Jesus' existence and exploits are neither obvious nor proven. No facts support Biblical claims, which rely on faith, which itself is a form of hope or wishful thinking. One wonders why no corroborating accounts exist from Jesus lifetime.
There is not one shred of contemporary evidence for Jesus' existence, much less crucifixion or resurrection. Not a peep from the Romans, arguably the best record keepers of the ancient world. Nothing from the Jews, and nothing from the dozens of historians and scholars in and around Jerusalem at the time. Funny, since there is contemporary evidence for Pilate, John the Baptist, and several dozen other claimed Messiah figures of the time- but no Jesus. Nothing was written about him until decades later by people trying to secure tithes for an offshoot of Essene Judaism.
In all the research I have done, I have not found one single solitary bit of evidence for the existence of Jesus. He supposedly held a huge concert(sermon) where he passed around a couple of fishes and loaves of bread. Yet NOT one historian thought a gathering of thousands of people was worth recording. That's like no one mentioning or reporting that Martin Luther marched on Washington DC and gave a speech.in front of thousands.
So if you have seen some credible evidence, I'd love to see it
The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ. He showed himself to some of the ancient inhabitance there after His resurrection and established His gospel among them. About 400 years they were destroyed but left a record of it. More proof He existed.
The best evidence that Jesus even existed is the fact that the story is so full of obvious fabrications, designed to shoe-horn it into old testament prophesy. It can be argued that if Jesus was entirely a fictional character, then he could have been written to fit perfectly. So the story might well be based on a real person.
But it can also be argued that the writers of the bible knew very little of the old testament that the story had to be changed at a later date to make sure it was consistent. It isn't even certain that the old testament was the same back then.
We live in a fallen world and "the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel" (2 Corinthians 4:4). As history moves forward, many will move further away from sound biblical doctrine. "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons" (1Timothy 4:1). There are plenty of false teachers to keep the lost blinded and aid them in their flight from God (Matthew 24:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:3; 1 John 4:1). The sad truth is that most people do not see the Bible as the absolute authority anymore. As God's Word continues to be marginalized, unbelief will continue to increase around the world.
1 year ago
Last edited at 7:48PM on 1/17/2013
The time of Jesus Christ's supposed advent and the subsequent century are among the best documented times in history by reputable scholars of Rome and Judea. And at this time there is supposedly a man born of a virgin who walked on water, healed lepers, fed multitudes with veritable table scraps, changed water into wine, and even raised a man from the dead. His teachings supposedly spread like wild-fire and attracted throngs of people from hither and yon to the extent that those in power in Judea became so fearful of him that they conspired to have him executed. His death was supposedly accompanied by earthquakes, the blotting out of the sun, the rising of the dead to walk among the living, as well as his own resurrection. Given all of this, you would think that some of the Roman historians of the time would have made some mention of him, his followers, or related events, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
Well, it's important to recognize that in 70 A.D, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. With being said, we should not be surprised then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus. Sadly, some Christians have removed alot of credibilty for the existence of Jesus by adopting and adding alot of mythical ideas to his story. Also, his simple teachings became lost in the metaphysical fog of Paul's theology. We have absolutely no teaching of Jesus in the Gospels to prove his divinity or the claim that he came to die on the cross to redeem mankind from a mythical Original Sin. So, realistically there is too much evidence showing Jesus the Christ did exist.