Is There Any Proof That...?

Short answer: The evidence shows that Jesus Christ 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, the lack of writings about Jesus by any historians of the 1st century, and the lack of writings about Jesus by anyone until a decade or more after his supposed life.

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 (ne Saul 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, teachings and miracles. Paul did not write about any of this. Paul even wrote (1 Cor. 1:22-23) that Jesus did no miracles. Also, Paul thought that Peter and James were other (competing) epistle writers. Paul referred (Gal. 1.19) to James as the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother. Note that "brother" is used about 130 times in the Pauline epistles - with no use meaning blood brother. Paul wrote (in Rom. 16:25-26, Gal. 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 Rom. 3:5-8.

If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written (in Greek) in third person fiction format, often with the supposed thoughts of Jesus. The gospels should also have been original. Instead, Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarized from Mark. The gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts. All we have are hearsay accounts.

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, like over a dozen sun gods 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. With control of the government, the ruling Christians were able to stomp out competing (heretical) versions of Christianity and enforce their doctrines.

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

"Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus" by Richard Carrier

-

No, not at all. Of course, there is more than just the Bible that says Jesus existed. Even the Koran says it somewhere but it did not speak of Jesus as the son of any god.

Proof? No.

One can also not prove that Attila the Hun ever existed in the flesh.

Or Hannibal of Carthage (the man who attacked Rome with an army that included African elephants).

Or dozens of other well-established and prominent historical figures whose grave locations are unknown and who have not had any extant documents attributed to them.

- Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

The Bible is the best proof, and can not be completely dismissed as an historical document. Outside of the Bible, the best proof is that Jesus was mentioned in one sentence, that is accepted to be real, by the Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews, which he wrote about 60 years after Jesus is thought to have died.

Historians still debate whether or not a man named Jesus who proclaimed himself as the son of god existed. However, whether or not the man existed is irrelevant, as there is no evidence of his alleged divinity.

Ok, what is our whole year system based on? 2013AD. 2013 years after Christ's birth.

BC means before Christ.

Why would anyone start the year system on an event that never happened? Because it did happen.

God on earth with 150% proof says' yes.

Some say yes, others say no. However, I don't know. I'm not a historian.

There's more historical evidence for it than against it according to historical scholars who dont have any interest in proving it one way or the other.

Maybe, but it is well hidden if it is.

It isn't likely he existed. It is not possible that he existed as advertised.