Was Jesus married?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Exactly. Some 2,000 year old book is considered concrete evidence now? When was it proven that he existed?

Several 2000 year old books written by different sources. The Bible is just a collection.

Kahran, you're an insanely intelligent guy, perhaps you could provide some proof that Jesus existed?

Aside from the Gospels there isn't any account of his actual life. There are writings from his followers. There is no archealogical evidence of Jesus having actually lived (at least nothing that can be proven, there are holy relics and whatnot). In a way it is similar to the search for the real King Arthur. There is no direct evidence of him either, although there are several written sources that refer to either Arthur or someone who could very well be him. Most historians seem to agree that Jesus did exist, but it isn't proven by any means, only likely.

Edited November 3, 2003 by Kahran Ramsus

[chaosrage 0]

A fair site.

 

Did Jesus Exist? All Sides to the Question

 

"Documents written during his lifetime which mention Jesus: There are none that date from the period 7 BCE to 33 CE."

 

"Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, he described Jesus' as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate. Most historians believe that the paragraph in which he describes Jesus is partly or completely a forgery that was inserted into the text by an unknown Christian. The passage "appears out of context, thereby breaking the flow of the narrative." 18

Josh McDowell, Don Stewart and other conservative Christians accept the passage as legitimate. 8

 

There exists no consensus on a second passage in Antiquities which refers to Jesus' brother James, having being tried and stoned to death. Some consider it legitimate; others assess it to be a forgery.

 

Cornelius Tacitus: He was a Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120 CE and wrote a book Annals, circa 112 CE. McDowell and Stewart accept his writings as a strong indicator of Jesus' existence in the early 1st century CE. 8 However, the information could have been derived from Christian material circulating in the early 2nd century.

Suetonius: He was the author of The Lives of the Caesars circa 120 CE. He wrote to "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." This passage is often used to support the historicity of Jesus, assuming that Jesus' title was misspelled. But Chrestus was in fact a common Greek name. It is likely that the reference is to a Jewish agitator in Rome by that name.

Other ancient Roman historians: There were about 40 historians who wrote during the first two centuries. 5 With the exception of the above, none stated that Jesus existed in the 1st century. '

[Justice 0]

Interesting site, but in all honesty, it doesn't really convince me much that he didn't exist. I dunno why, but maybe how the Christians were suppressed could his name have possibly been purged or erased from records after a while? I suppose for him not to exist and then suddenly spring up out of nowhere just rings odd to me.

[justsoyouknow 0]

.....SPOOKY LANGUAGE!

[Guest JMA]

Those are fairly biased sites. You can tell just by the language used.

Can you find an UNBIASED site? The fact is there isn't any concrete evidence that the man known as "Jesus Christ" existed. If there was, most people would know about it. I myself am an atheist, but believe someone like Jesus existed. This is just my opinion, though. There is no real proof. We don't even know Jesus' real name.

[justsoyouknow 0]

But....the big, old book written in SPOOKY LANGUAGE says that his name was Jesus...and that he walked the Earth...are you implying that it's...GASP...all lies?

[Justice 0]

.....SPOOKY LANGUAGE!

And an idiotic poster.

[justsoyouknow 0]

.....SPOOKY LANGUAGE!

And an idiotic poster.

Not a big George Carlin fan, are we?

[Justice 0]

.....SPOOKY LANGUAGE!

And an idiotic poster.

Not a big George Carlin fan, are we?

Well, you look like you are trolling at the moment. It'd didn't click until now, though :\.

[justsoyouknow 0]

No, not trolling. Just doubting the existence of Christ, that's all.

[Justice 0]

No, not trolling. Just doubting the existence of Christ, that's all.

Oh, I understand that, though you come off as prickish and inciteful rather than insightful. Just a tip there.

[Guest JMA]

But....the big, old book written in SPOOKY LANGUAGE says that his name was Jesus...and that he walked the Earth...are you implying that it's...GASP...all lies?

No. I'm just saying that there is no concrete proof of the man known as Christ existing. I'm not attempting to upset or incite Christians. I believe there was a Christ-like figure (maybe more than one) who was killed by the Romans, but that's just my opinion.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Those are fairly biased sites.  You can tell just by the language used.

Can you find an UNBIASED site? The fact is there isn't any concrete evidence that the man known as "Jesus Christ" existed. If there was, most people would know about it. I myself am an atheist, but believe someone like Jesus existed. This is just my opinion, though. There is no real proof. We don't even know Jesus' real name.

And you've found the problem with having the discussion. Everyone who goes out there starts at either "I'm going to prove his existence" or "I'm going to stick it to all those Christians and prove he doesn't". Every study I've ever seen is pushing someone's personal opinion and biase.

 

And the trials of Jesus are an ify thing to look up. Any Jewish trial of him was done in secret as he was going to be guilty no matter what. And Pilat's "washing his hands of it" could also mean it also removed public records of the trial.

[chaosrage 0]

Interesting site, but in all honesty, it doesn't really convince me much that he didn't exist. I dunno why, but maybe how the Christians were suppressed could his name have possibly been purged or erased from records after a while? I suppose for him not to exist and then suddenly spring up out of nowhere just rings odd to me.

Well it's not supposed to convince you he didn't exist. Only that there's no proof of it.

 

The myth of Mythra and Jesus are so similar that some scholars think the early christians just adapted the religion. (for example, Mythra was born of a virgin, was visited by Magi, was followed by twelve companions, shared a last supper with his disciples, was crucified to save mankind, rose from the dead like a zombie, etc.) But no one knows for sure.

 

And if you can't be sure he even existed, how can anyone seriously take anything he might've said with more than a grain of salt?

[justsoyouknow 0]

And the trials of Jesus are an ify thing to look up. Any Jewish trial of him was done in secret as he was going to be guilty no matter what. And Pilat's "washing his hands of it" could also mean it also removed public records of the trial.

That's an excellent point...I never thought of it that way.

 

The myth of Mythra and Jesus are so similar that some scholars think the early christians just adapted the religion. (for example, Mythra was born of a virgin, was visited by Magi, was followed by twelve companions, shared a last supper with his disciples, was crucified to save mankind, rose from the dead like a zombie, etc.) But no one knows for sure.

 

And if you can't be sure he even existed, how can anyone seriously take anything he might've said with more than a grain of salt?

 

It just seems a little strange to me that we have this supposed "record" of the events of that day, yet we have no concrete proof of it. Had Jesus actually been a man who walked among us, there should be at least SOME record of it. But then again...if he didn't exist, those that wrote the Bible, a collection of stories from his followers, would have been writing pure fiction.

[Justice 0]

And if you can't be sure he even existed, how can anyone seriously take anything he might've said with more than a grain of salt?

... That doesn't really mean anything, man. It shouldn't matter if he exists or not, it should be the substance of what he 'supposedly' taught and said that should matter. That's a real superficial way of looking at it.

[Justice 0]

It just seems a little strange to me that we have this supposed "record" of the events of that day, yet we have no concrete proof of it. Had Jesus actually been a man who walked among us, there should be at least SOME record of it. But then again...if he didn't exist, those that wrote the Bible, a collection of stories from his followers, would have been writing pure fiction.

Then again, we are talking about a difference of 2000 years. Records lost, changed, erased, no eyewitnesses that can be called upon. Weren't the stories of Alexander the Great written something like 200 years after his death?

[justsoyouknow 0]

Exactly what's wrong with this situation. There is absolutely NO way to be sure of the validity of the life and times of Jesus. I mean, he goes into the Temple and is teaching the elders, and then he disappears for upwards of thirty years. For all we know, it's an entirely different Jesus.

[Justice 0]

Exactly what's wrong with this situation. There is absolutely NO way to be sure of the validity of the life and times of Jesus. I mean, he goes into the Temple and is teaching the elders, and then he disappears for upwards of thirty years. For all we know, it's an entirely different Jesus.

So what if we aren't sure? That doesn't mean he's automatically invalidated along with all his teachings. This is a real piss-poor argument to somehow invalidate what the man supposedly preached.

[chaosrage 0]

... That doesn't really mean anything, man. It shouldn't matter if he exists or not, it should be the substance of what he 'supposedly' taught and said that should matter. That's a real superficial way of looking at it.

It's fine if all you take it as is a good philosophy book, but there's plenty of people that worship the guy, believe it or not.

[chaosrage 0]

Exactly what's wrong with this situation. There is absolutely NO way to be sure of the validity of the life and times of Jesus. I mean, he goes into the Temple and is teaching the elders, and then he disappears for upwards of thirty years. For all we know, it's an entirely different Jesus.

So what if we aren't sure? That doesn't mean he's automatically invalidated along with all his teachings. This is a real piss-poor argument to somehow invalidate what the man supposedly preached.

Everything he says about God should kinda be invalidated because not only are we not sure if he told the truth or if he performed real miracles, but we're not sure if he ever WAS to begin with.

[Justice 0]

... That doesn't really mean anything, man. It shouldn't matter if he exists or not, it should be the substance of what he 'supposedly' taught and said that should matter. That's a real superficial way of looking at it.

It's fine if all you take it as is a good philosophy book, but there's plenty of people that worship the guy, believe it or not.

Yes, they worship him for what he represents: That particular philosophy. You really can't seperate the man from his teachings.

[chaosrage 0]

... That doesn't really mean anything, man. It shouldn't matter if he exists or not, it should be the substance of what he 'supposedly' taught and said that should matter. That's a real superficial way of looking at it.

It's fine if all you take it as is a good philosophy book, but there's plenty of people that worship the guy, believe it or not.

Yes, they worship him for what he represents: That particular philosophy. You really can't seperate the man from his teachings.

You don't worship a guy because of his philosophy. You worship him because you think he's the son of God.

[Justice 0]

... That doesn't really mean anything, man. It shouldn't matter if he exists or not, it should be the substance of what he 'supposedly' taught and said that should matter. That's a real superficial way of looking at it.

It's fine if all you take it as is a good philosophy book, but there's plenty of people that worship the guy, believe it or not.

Yes, they worship him for what he represents: That particular philosophy. You really can't seperate the man from his teachings.

You don't worship a guy because of his philosophy. You worship him because you think he's the son of God.

You can't even prove that he didn't exist, so how can you prove he wasn't the son of God?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Christianity isn't a matter of fact, it is a matter of faith.

[Justice 0]

Personally, I don't see the point in this argument besides people trying to push each others' opinions on one another (And yes, I'm guilty of this as well). For something 2000 years old, we'll never likely never to have definitive proof to whether he existed or not; it's like trying to guess the picture behind a 2,000 piece puzzle with only a few dozen pieces. Kahran is right: the only real deciding fact is what we believe to be true.

[Highland 0]

Almost every fable, aspect and story of the Judeo-Christian mythos have been usurped or derived from other mythologies. This is nothing new and certainly not exclusive to this religion. Every single religion has taken it's ideas from others and changed them to their own.

However, the Romans were a largely military and secular society, they gave little more than lip services to their gods; also they kept meticulous census records.

There are records of Jesus of Nazareth's life, and before anyone repeats the 'How do you know he existed at all? He supposedly lived over 2000 years ago!" I'll just point to the ancient Egyptians. Ramses II lived many millenia before Christ, yet no one doubts he existed.....or do you?

[chaosrage 0]

You can't even prove that he didn't exist, so how can you prove he wasn't the son of God?

The point is there's nothing to make you think he existed.

[chaosrage 0]

Personally, I don't see the point in this argument besides people trying to push each others' opinions on one another (And yes, I'm guilty of this as well). For something 2000 years old, we'll never likely never to have definitive proof to whether he existed or not; it's like trying to guess the picture behind a 2,000 piece puzzle with only a few dozen pieces. Kahran is right: the only real deciding fact is what we believe to be true.

What I'm getting at is why believe it? If you're going to believe something at least believe Mythra. It's the same story, but he was around first.

 

It's one thing to wonder about if he was telling the truth, its another to think he might've not even have existed at all.

[chaosrage 0]

Almost every fable, aspect and story of the Judeo-Christian mythos have been usurped or derived from other mythologies. This is nothing new and certainly not exclusive to this religion. Every single religion has taken it's ideas from others and changed them to their own.

However, the Romans were a largely military and secular society, they gave little more than lip services to their gods; also they kept meticulous census records.

There are records of Jesus of Nazareth's life, and before anyone repeats the 'How do you know he existed at all? He supposedly lived over 2000 years ago!" I'll just point to the ancient Egyptians. Ramses II lived many millenia before Christ, yet no one doubts he existed.....or do you?

We probably have records of him doing stuff from people that lived in his lifetime. For Christ, we don't.