is jesus real

[jesus_cod]

can u support any evidence of jesus actually existing plz im serious

love your brother

 

[Scott1]

I'm not sure we have many (if any) Lutheran members..... would you like me to move this to an area where you are more likely to get some replies?

 

[linwood]

I would answer his question in religious debates Scott.

I`d answer it in a manner that you might actually like as well.

 

[Scott1]

Moved to debates..... go ahead linwood!

 

[Saw11_2000]

I'm pretty sure Jesus was a real person. That is verified by other people at the time, however the debate remains about whether he was the son of God, and is superhuman.

 

[Jaymes]

Past or present tense? I'd say there's evidence for him existing in past tense, and none in present tense.

 

[linwood]

I too believe Jesus was a real person.
I have searched extensively and have found little to support this belief however.

The evidence of my belief is not very strong but it`s enough for me.
I believe he was a living breathing man simply because of his influence on the world.
Granted that influence was promoted by those other than he himself but it` s hard for me to believe his existence was entirely fabricated considering so many wrote of him.

Historical proof of the existence of Jesus?
There isn`t much.

Google
Josephus [size=-1]Testimonium Flavianum.

[/size][size=-1]Be warned the passage is hotly disputed by theologans and myself.
I don`t believe he wrote it as it is commonly published.
I believe it`s structure is a fraud .

Google
[/size][size=-1]Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica[/size]
[size=-1]Eusebius [/size][size=-1]Testimonium Flavianum

And you will find the person who may have propigated the fraud of the Testimonium Flavianum but Eusebius also wrote of Jesus in a historical context.

Other than the Bible itself these are the only historical references I know of that any theolgians have any faith in.

There may be others I`m unaware of.
Where`s Deut?
[/size][size=-1]He`d know.[/size]

 

[Scorn]

Interesting linwood. You might try "The Pagan Christ" By Tom Harpur. I mentioned this in my book thread and included a small opinion. Perhaps not as scholarly but some interesting possibilities nonetheless.

I found this in the bibliography listed in Testimonium Flavianum

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/marston2.htm

So which primary sources did Luke use? Luke/Acts never names Jesus, Peter, James, John, Thomas etc as a source. Luke 1:2 claims merely that these things have been handed down to 'us' ie Christians generally, not just to Luke specially. Luke's Gospel uses at least 580 verses of previously written material by anonymous authors. At least the Hadith name the eyewitnesses who say Muhammad split the moon. The Gospels are anonymous.
Why didn't these primary sources write anything themselves? Were they illiterate? Did they not think it worthwhile to record the words of the Son of God for posterity?

 

[linwood]

Why didn't these primary sources write anything themselves? Were they illiterate? Did they not think it worthwhile to record the words of the Son of God for posterity?

I said it was weak, I meant it.