Did Jesus Exist? 2 of 4

[Kesky16]

The best evidence for his existence does come from the bible:

If Jesus was a made up figure, it is unlikely early church fathers would include 4 gospels with different narratives in the bible.

Evidence for resurrection: People 2,000 years ago were still people. They weren't more gullible than people today are. Would you really follow a religion based on a man that died in shame, as a criminal, not proving his divinity thereafter by any means??

[YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva]

@Kesky16 Exactly. A dead guy hanging on a cross that claimed to be eternal; promising eternal life to others, on top of your reasons.

Christianity is so riduclous in one sense, that the only reason it could have survived (let alone prosper) for the past 2000 years is because God is behind it and glorifies the name of Jesus (again, like Jesus said he would in the bible).

Man's idea of God is ruling, riches...not humility and dying for enemies. Man would never invent a God like this.

[ShadyAbyss]

Wow ,very well put together and i am now a true believer. Also i am now subscribed for life. Thanks for the very well thought out documentary. You have taught me to open my heart to new life.

[slgilley]

@Rotebuehl1: I'm saying that sources that were written 80 or 150 years after the events they are describing can't be completely trusted. In Celsus' case, since we don't have the actual manuscript, it's even more difficult to assess validity.

No, I don't think that stating that a culture with only a verbal tradition, not written, is unlikely to have the exact facts of an event 80 years after the event took place is anything but realistic.

[slgilley]

Okay, Pliny the Younger wrote of Jesus in about 112 AD, meaning about 80 years after the death of Jesus, should he have existed. Celsus wrote 70 years later than that, and we don't even have the manuscript he wrote, just references to it.

With all our media, historical records, etc, we can't agree on what happened 50 years ago. How can one expect a primitive culture with a verbal tradition to accurately know what happened 80 years prior?

[Rotebuehl1]

@slgilley This is an argumentation insinuating what? That he may existed or that couldn't possibly have existed?

P.S.:

...that comment on illiterate traditions is really a tiny, little bit outdated, or how would you put it?

[KillFpietros]

@redlightdeath HAHA! LIAR! I said that God gave men the power to forgive sins when He breathed the Holy Ghost. I never implied that Peter is Jesus rather the CHOSEN head for the flocks and AUTHORITY when Jesus entrusted:

"Peter, do you love me?

- Yes you know my heart... You know everything... you know that I love you etc"

Jesus replied - Feed my sheep, lamb etc

HAHA! PWND! It is Authority overall creations and when gave the keys. The language use was just a SOLID ROCK. Never add.

[KillFpietros]

And most of them are THEIR successors, THEIR students, THEIR actual eye witnesses. They were there personally!

[KillFpietros]

It required in History the term known as Apostolic Tradition OUTSIDE of the Bible and the Early Catholics BEFORE the Bible. In contrast your dumb mind can't just understand that The Bible came from Catholic and that, it is the true cannon with the purgatory and sign of the cross and the real creeds and real presence of the Body blood soul and of God. So apostolic traditions EXIST in history. By the time of the apostles there were already church fathers because Peter and Paul was in Rome

[KillFpietros]

Where in the Bible writes the word Bible? The other history. Hitler, Kennedy's assassination, protestants, Martin Luther, and world war 2 and 1? You're getting to my point eh? The frigging Bible is only compiled by the Early Christian Fathers which are ALL Catholics, not as a 100% historical usage (which you wrongly commit) but to teach the actual words that requires yet infallible interpretation which means that the Bible alone does not give you the word of God. (cont)

[KillFpietros]

I'll leave you with your lies. Time to research more of my facts.

[KillFpietros]

(cont)

If you read that passage more, it basically indicate that the Catholic Church is the VISIBLE church that Jesus Christ established and the result of Peter and the apostle Paul When they were there in Peter 5 it says, "The bishops in Rome welcomes the chosen one(Peter) the rock."

Now, unless you refute that Peter wasn't in Rome, I'm the default position in the correct stance and you're of the atheists.

[KillFpietros]

(cont)

HAHA! You are surely just listening to these anti catholic, best regard, anti CHRISTIAN deceits. They aren't historical. How About Peter was in Rome? You can't refute that?? WEAK. Also there are 7 hills in Rome not mountains. 7 mountains you say? It was JERUSALEM! where Jesus was killed.Vatican also was on the side of the hills. GUESS what the Bible says:

"The Church that is built beside 7 hills IS visible"

(cont)

[KillFpietros]

* First century

[jesusvagina]

Flavius Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. He wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E after the first gospels got written. Even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

[itsGagaBitch]

YOU PEOPLE are NOT aware what you are doing.... this is just how the world is gonna end... all the people that belived in him for years... that loved him as possible are now gonna think what am i gonna do now... my life doesnt make any sence... there is no good or bad..... so this is how we are just gonna kill eachother..... i SWEAR that this is BAD.. REALY BAD!

[jackdevonarason]

Thank You--You my friend have done a great service for all you are to lazy to do there homework. May the Creater of all bless you and your work. In all my studies the most profound thing that I have found is that those who would refute the very existence of Jesus do not understand that everything points to the divinity of Jesus without which there is no reason for anything that we do today for the whole world is at war and not peace simply because they have forgotten who their Creater is.

[KillFpietros]

Flavius was closest ONE to write Jesus Christ. You say that he lives after jesus was crucified but look 37 ad. It was almost close to 33 ad where Jesus Christ build the Catholic Church. Now, even if He wrote AFTER Jesus, THEN that's a red herring sinnce most historians write things that happened that are before their very existence! RED RIDICULOUS HERRING! EXEGESIS! The Apostle witnesses are solid. They were considered great historians

[redlightdeath]

@KillFpietros erm. Jesus didn't start the catholic church. His followers became known as "Christians" because they followed after Christ, but rome actually started the catholic church about three hundred years after christs' death. the catholic church, at first, was actually an attempt by rome to silence Christians. That's why the catholic church put many real followers of Christ to death, burned the bible, and kept the bible hidden for over 1000 years (the dark ages). do some research...

[KillFpietros]

@redlightdeath research your ass. The Catholic church IS Christianity and IS always will be the first and only Apostolic tradition kept from the apostles. Read Ignatius at 1st century. You'll see that Catholic and Christians is used interchangeably by the time 1 AD. Inn your face. Don't spout out shit, wicked protestant!

[redlightdeath]

@KillFpietros lol, ok dude. that right there is telling you've never read anything. real Christianity follows teachings of Jesus, not the apostles. Read REAL history, not Catholic history. Catholicism was created by rome ot maintain power. that is why Catholicism uses paganistic practices like using Sunday to keep sabbath instead of Saturday, that's why you worship idols/the Pope (1st commandment violation), and pray to Mary. don't be butthurt because I'm right. just accept it and move on.

[KillFpietros]

@redlightdeath hahahahhahaha! You think I don't any of the lies you will put on to this!? I even know who made that lie and the very people who use this absurdity! It was use by ATHEIST against CHRISTIANITY overall. But it turns out to be a fallacious notion. Non of those bull shits are REAL! WAKE UP! You didn't but hurt me! I refuted the Catholic only at 4th century via ignatius. Want more? How about your wicked deciet that Catholic is created by Rome. Laughable!(continued)

[redlightdeath]

@KillFpietros dude, you have got to be the most historically ignorant person on the planet. if you think i'm lying you've obviously been brainwashed beyond repair. Athiests think catholics ARE Christians, when you are NOT. catholics are pagan romans. the "visible church" you're talking about are those who follow the teachings of Christ. catholic tradition was invented 300 years after Christ at the councel of nicea. (continued)

[KillFpietros]

@redlightdeath listen, I already pwnd you in this and you remain at 0 credibility. HAHA! I'm trying to laugh as much! Apostolic tradition was started by the apostles. Did you know that there was also NO Bible by the time of Christ??? Guess who Compiled it! The TRADITION! The Tradition of the Catholics! Catholics mad the New testament cannon. That's right! By the time, only Apostolic traditions was followed. No Bible to read, PWND! We were really Christians. Go by the side of the atheist.

[redlightdeath]

@KillFpietros all you "pwnd" is making yourself sound like an idiot. read history, dude. look up the council of nicea. and if catholics (romans, who speak italian and latin) wrote the new testament... THEN WHY IS THE ORIGINAL SEPTUAGINT IN KOINE GREEK?? you have got to be kidding me. the only reason the satanic catholics TRANSLATED the bible into latin is so no one would understand it and realize the catholic church is the anti-christ. you are truly ignorant. go get molested by the pope.

[KillFpietros]

@redlightdeath Greek the one antioch? Catholic was in there. Notice Antioch, Cathilic and Christians were used as 1 by the time of Ignatius in the 1st century. Another pwnage. I will read more about that and to expose more of your lies. Again the New Testament canon was in Catholic I think latin. Also, why are you reading English Bible? Does that mean it's inaccurate? The only inaccurate thing about your Bible is that you removed maccabese which contains purgatory and others to break up!

[redlightdeath]

@KillFpietros catholicism twisted the teachings of Christ, and killed innocent people in the name of God. catholic law claims that the pope (the antichrist) is equal to or greater than God, and is the "vicar of" Christ, or "in place of Christ." this is apostic. additionally, the catholic church contains many pagan rituals, like worshipping on sunday (pagan sun worship day) instead of Saturday, the commanded Sabbath. you worship idols. priests say they can forgive sins, when ONLY Jesus can.

[KillFpietros]

@redlightdeath HAHAHA! Blatant assaults with no BASIS! First We can find that Jesus established a visible church WITH authority by making Peter the first Pope. Peter then hold the keys. Notice bounding or losing are VISIBLE actions. So the Pope is the successor of Peter, the Bishops and the power to forgive sins was given by Jesus himself when he said: "I give you the power to forgive sins as the Father sent me, I send you bishops and priests, and breath into you the Holy Spirit."

PWND!

[redlightdeath]

@KillFpietros uhm, they have historical basis. show me any scripture in the Bible that talks about peter being a pope. there is none, because it never happened. and i don't know what book you are taking that quote from, but it's definitely not in the bible. however, if you are quoting from the catholic canon law, THAT'S NOT BIBLICAL. John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." nothing about bishops or popes. PWND.

[KillFpietros]

@redlightdeath Are you going to contradict ME with all these? Again prove to me that Jesus did not established a Visible Church over Peter. Prove to me that He didn't give him the keys and another thing, prove to me that Peter was NEVER in Rome. That He didn't breathe the Holy spirit to the apostles and told them to make priest. Then I ask a question:

Did the word Bible was IN Bible? No it's not because the Bible ALONE doesn't include everything including history! Bible alone your ass!

[redlightdeath]

@KillFpietros and after all the HISTORIC evidence that catholicism was created by rome, and all the Biblical evidence that proves the catholic church is satanic and full of the spirit of the antichrist, you're STILL trying to tell me i'm a liar? you're a delusional blind man if you can't see the truth, and i pity you. but i will pray for you.

[KillFpietros]

@redlightdeath pray for me that I may hold to the true church THE CATHOLIC, the only infallible rule of Christianity.

Nothing outside the church including dimwits like you are will ever be saved unless you read actual history of Christianity. Who found your religion btw? As I said, no one believes that the Bible is the ONLY rule faith. John refutes that by saying,:

"Even the world may not contain the books that should be written."

ULTIMATE PWNAGE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA, Protestant devils!

[redlightdeath]

@KillFpietros lol, that's why you have no argument. how old are you, 13? your claims are unfounded, and you still have not cited ANY scripture pointing to Jesus assigning apostolic succession or giving "bishops" the power to forgive sins. you belong to a false pagan ritual mystery religion that worships idols and prays to false gods. but don't believe me, that's fine. i'll be smiling when The Lord casts your synagogue of satan into the lake of fire.

[KillFpietros]

@redlightdeath To the lake of fire which protestants are thrown. Not the true one Catholic. You missed to answer my question, condemning devil! All of those succession of keys are in peter. the breathing of the holy ghosts to the apostles. Now you ask me, where in the Bible can be found Bishops? Popes? In Peter 5 where babylon refers to Rome. Now let's go back and answer me:

(The real question. Cont)

[redlightdeath]

@KillFpietros dude, you are trying to prove catholic dogma with... catholic dogma. it doesn't work. Peter is not Jesus. Jesus never gave peter any kind of authority other than to spread the Gospel. Rome invented the catholic church, you need to actually open a [real] bible and see what it has to say. and ANYWHERE in the bible, when it refers to babylon, it's referring to Rome - even the beast with 7 horns in David/Revelations. the little horn is the pope. you are a pagan. deal with it.

[KillFpietros]

@redlightdeath it refers to rome in Peter 5! You are never worthy of my opponent. You believe that the Bible is the only rule faith, yet you claim that your own tradition are true tradition. I claim that apostolict tradition is the true existing tradition from the apostles and it apostolic. You never read the Bible? Peter? Small pebble? Ridiculous! The language was in Armiac which just means a SOLID ROCK. Not little pebble! HAHA! How then would you believe in literal meaning of the Bible

[redlightdeath]

and by the way, this is 1 Peter 5: In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,“God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” I'm assuming you meant 1st Peter because 2nd Peter is only 3 verses long. as you can see, you obviously have never touched a bible or even know what it says, and that's why you belong to an apostate Church. and for the record, i'm not "protestant," I'm CHRISTIAN

[KillFpietros]

@redlightdeath No it wasn't liar:

h t t p : / / w w w d o t catholicapologetics d o t o r g / ap050400 d o t htm

DARE READ IT!

[redlightdeath]

@KillFpietros oh and by the way, if you really knew history, you would know that in the 1st century A.D. the word "Katholika" in greek was used to mean "universal" when speaking of gentiles that had come to follow Christ, not speaking about the catholic church. you really need to learn how to read and do some unbiased research.

[KillFpietros]

@redlightdeath this by far doesn't mean anything. Catholic means universal because God wants His church to be for all. Any one who may fall outside it may perish as people outside Noah's ark, when Noah already hardened his hard at the siren of screaming knocking people. The same stern doctrine applied by your Jesus Christ Himself when said:

"If you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sins."

Stern doctrine. Stern in a sense that Jesus' stern words is the same love for souls.

[redlightdeath]

@KillFpietros dude you are the biggest hypocrite ever. first you try to tell me that the bible says Peter is Jesus because Jesus gave Peter the holy spirit. Then you quote John 8 (which, if you read the whole thing, you would know that Jesus is saying HE is God and only HE can forgive sins). try reading the whole bible before you idiotically quote it and prove yourself wrong. You worship the pope, and not Jesus, and you don't believe that Jesus is God, so YOU will die in your sin. not me.

[CantDeleteMissiles]

Christ actually existed. However the virgin birth does not. Christ comes from the seed of David

Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the FRUIT OF HIS LOINS, according to the FLESH, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Also Christ has a genealogy in Matt 1st chapter.

[RetSquid]

@CantDeleteMissiles

You can trace back Jesus' lineage from Mary or Joseph back to David. Also "the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh' refers to the idea that according to the 'flesh' i.e. physical bodies, and the law, Jesus was Joseph's son.

[CHECKrayrobionson]

@CantDeleteMissiles HA HA! Mary is virgin! I'm a KING!

[Londron]

I doubt an atheist cares if Jesus ever existed in the first place.

He exited? Ok, the more wise mens the better.

He didn't? Who cares again

[TheEruditepolymath]

if we assume this passage.....

yawn......here we go again

[Woting14]

God DOES exist!

But of course, you superficial occidental atheists will never understand that.

[Godiswonderful100]

no matter how much evidence Christians give some people will still deny God for their own reason...Christians will still be hated for the faith we chose to believe or for other people's own mistakes.

if your a real Christian than you shouldn't care if your hated or w/e,the only thing that matters is telling the world about God.

peace out ya'll

[tonyteb]

@Godiswonderful100 thats right on bro

[Jerz1983]

We cud give non-believers evidence, and they wont believe. But It is written in John ch 3 ver 18 "he who does not believe has been condemned already."

And they will continue 2 hate us 4 believing. This is why it is written in John Ch 15 ver 18-19 If the world hates you, know that it hated me before you 19 if you were of the world, the world would love its own, but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world therefore the world hates you"

But they think we're ignorant

[SerpentSlayer1]

Great research . One cant argue against documented history all tho some morinic atheists and people that dont WANT to hear it, will try.

[ccollymore]

If I were to testify about the Charles Manson Crimes 40 plus years ago...would my testimony be valid.

Even if I was an upstanding and outstanding citizen?

[catofninetales91481]

Until there is something found that was written during his life, rather than way later...i will never believe. ALL writings and evidence of Christ come after he supposedly lived. Why is that you think? If he was as important as these people claim you think someone might have scribbled something down somewhere about him. Instead they all waited till long after he was dead.

[catofninetales91481]

Seriously...in this WHOLE DOCUMENTARY can you find one example he gives that was written in the year 33ad or earlier. NOPE!

[catofninetales91481]

Furthermore all other historical figures during the first century who were of any significant importance have evidence of their existence while they were still alive. Why not Christ? Open your eyes people!

[neo379]

thats not true christ died in 37 AD the people who this guy is citing lived when he was ALIVE

[catofninetales91481]

Where did you get your information? He was supposedly killed in his thirties, and born around 1ad. Do the math, and then look for one example in this video of someone talking about Christ in the 30's ad, or 40's or 50's even???

[stephbensam]

there is more material available for the life of Jesus, outside the gospels, than for any other historical person, yet we all acept that these historical people existed. The proof of the Christian faith is overwhelmingly evident in the fact that the disciples were completely transformed from people without hope to people prepared to die for their faith - would anyone be prepared to die for what they knew was a lie? most of the New Testament was written within 30 years, less than Hitler!

[mikdalton]

@stephbensam What a stupid comment. Why don't you check out somebody call Cicero and then see if there is more evidence for Jesus.

[wizzy2k4]

i was always a Christian and went to church and all that stuff and until i sat down myself and read the teachings of this man. This man they call Jesus. I was amazed. So bold and confident, Jesus was not a soft spoken man, like portrayed in those movies. He spoke with confidence in his voice. Simply amazing.

[CBALLEN]

Thank God that Jesus has saved Chris White.Love you Brother.

[Rastamanlives420]

can i see that report?

[barakahasard]

Flavius Josephus!! A jew Historian!! A very credible source.

[nakedchickens]

You miss the point.

1. The Jews demanded that Pilate put Jesus to death. That means they did not believe Jesus was the savior but rather a man and a blasphemer, a belief that exists today in Judaism. Pilate said he found now broken law by Jesus, but put Jesus to death anyways to placate the Jews, that's why he washed his hands. To emphasise that the guilt of Jesus' death belongs soley to the Jews.

2. He makes no attempt to deny the existance of Jesus.

[ccollymore]

There is ZERO verification of this account. Try again.

[doaftheloaf]

@barakahasard except that the jesus passge sticks out in his writings like a gay couple in the westboro baptist church. an obvious forgery.

[doaftheloaf]

not ONE contemporary reference to jesus, and no shortage of people whose writings we do have that lived then and there and wrote about just the kind of things that jesus is said to have done.

face it, all you have is the biased gospels.