You DO realize that Jesus was a real, biological person, right?

No, I do not realize that.

There is actually more than one alleged tomb for Jesus, both "discovered" by Christian believers (isn't that convenient?). The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built around a tomb discovered in the 2nd Century, long after any eyewitness would have been dead. The Garden Tomb was likewise "discovered" in 1883...you know, because the Catholics couldn't have the right tomb. Furthermore... Having found a first century tomb doesn't do anything to establish who was actually buried there.

By burial cloth, I'll assume you mean the Shroud of Turin which has failed to be proven genuine with alternate explanations and debate among experts. I don't have an opinion one way or another on this, but it is well known that medieval Christians found lots of "artifacts" and there was a booming trade in them, so I would doubt anything that is not conclusive.

Blood? Do you mean on the Shroud of Turin or is there some other blood I don't know about? Again, experts debate whether or not the "blood" on the shroud is actually blood at all and even if is WAS blood, that wouldn't be proof of who it came from.

Also, there are no accepted, contemporary citations for Jesus existence that are not disputed as later Christian insertions. In fact, there is more contemporary evidence for John the Baptist, though what sources there are don't match the Biblical narrative either.

Then there's Paul's letters that don't identify Jesus as ever having been on Earth and the gospels are later writings. The gospels in turn are all derived from Mark and Mark has many signs of being deliberate fiction derived from The Odyssey, such as parallel events, narrative structure, third person omniscient perspective and the use of the hidden identity motif to create dramatic irony.

Tell me... Which one of us needs to do their research again?

The evidence that supports the physical reality of a man called something like Jesus, whose story is told (however approximately) in the Bible, is exceedingly flimsy.

A bloody piece of cloth could be evidence of any bleeding person (or animal). But, at least it could be DNA tested to find out of the body was human and male. That hasn't been done, because the 'blood' turned out to be red artist's pigment.

There are many graves, How do you know that any particular one is where this hypothetical Jesus was buried?

Your standards of evidence are the sort of thing that has unjustly convicted innocent people, many times.

There is no undisputed or even well corroborated evidence that the hypothetical Jesus, that you are imagining was a real person, as described in the stories in the Bible, which were written after everyone who might have been a witness had conveniently died. You are extremely gullible, if you have been convinced otherwise.

--

Regards,

John Popelish

As with most people of that time, the historical evidence is such that we cannot verify his existence with complete certainty. However, given his influence and the documentation surrounding his life we can be relatively certain that the story was at the very least based off of a real person.

Also, do you mind presenting evidence for the "Blood, burial cloth, and grave?" I have yet to see any documents suggesting that any of those things have been found. If your referring to the Shroud of Turin, that has been debunked. Likewise, all supposed "tombs" of Jesus are indistinguishable from any other tomb. The blood claim I haven't heard before.

...xcept for the fact that there is no blood, burial cloth, grave, or yadda yadda, blah blah blah

if you really think the catholic 'relics' are genuine...lol...

Its not like saying Napoleon was fake because theres a lot more evidence that Napoleon was a real person.

You have items that people "say" are evidence of the existence of the biblical jesus. None of these items have actually been verified by anyone even the church. The are interpreted as having been associated with jesus just as his supposed burial sight. There have been many who have carried the name and none of them were divinely influenced.

He may or He may not have existed. There is proof for both. The Gospels are an exaggerated account of the life of Jesus and many things in the Gospels are blatantly untrue.

yes thats from the word of God

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Short answer: I note that you didn't provide any of this "scientific evidence" that you claim exists. The evidence shows that Jesus is just a mythical character and never existed.

For Jesus-believers, here's the long answer (with evidence), which is needed to cover all bases:

All reliable evidence points to Jesus Christ being just a myth. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, and significant evidence that he didn't. The evidence is in the Bible, the other religions of the time, and the lack of writings about Jesus by historians of the time.

The story of Jesus can be shown to be just a myth created to fulfill prophesy, cobbled together out of stories from the Old Testament and previous gods and myths -- created in the 40's and 50's by Paul of Tarsus (who exhibited symptoms of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later, and many other people. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming.

Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, or his moral teachings. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god, who existed in the spiritual past.

If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, and teachings. Paul did not write about any of this. Note that to Paul, Peter was another (competing) epistle writer. Paul referred to James as the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother. This is much like people of a religion who refer to each other as brothers. Paul wrote (in Romans 16:25-26, Galatians 1:11,12) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy and delusions. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Romans 3:5-8.

If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written in third person fiction format like a Harry Potter story, with Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarizing from Mark. The gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts, and were written in Greek - which the disciples would not have known. In fact, there are no claimed eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus - anywhere. All we have are hearsay witnesses.

If the Jesus story were true, his trial would have been legal. Instead, the purported trial was illegitimate under both Roman and Jewish law. The story of the trial is just a re-telling of the Jewish ritual of scapegoating, where one goat is set free (i.e. Barabbas, which means "son of the father") and one goat is sacrificed (i.e. Jesus). In addition, many scholars have pointed out that the entire crucifixion scene is created out of material extracted from the Psalms.

If Jesus had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him. No historian of the first century (including Josephus and Philo of Alexandria) wrote about him or his disciples.

Therefore Jesus didn't exist.

The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Horus, Mithra, Osiris, and Dionysus). For instance, baptism into the death and resurrection of Osiris washed away sins so the soul could obtain the best place in heaven. Some early Christians attributed these similarities to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity.

Jesus is worshiped on Sunday because he is a sun god, like over a dozen others whose birthdays were also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.”

There were also over a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected (often after violent deaths). Christianity just told the story the best, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine.

For much more evidence, see the links. There are also several good books on this, including:

"Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed At All"

by David Fitzgerald

"The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty

"Not the Impossible Faith" by Richard Carrier

And if anybody still thinks that Jesus actually existed, please send the information on the reliable evidence supporting this position (not just somebody's opinion).

-

There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed.

That grave stone from his brother James is a hoax.

No evidence that Jesus had a brother named James!

And even if he did, don't you think it strange that his infamous brother's grave could survive, but Jesus' didn't?

It makes no difference if he did or did not exist.

All the "power" comes from God..;so you need to prove this God exists