Did Jesus exist?

silverharp

Purely in historical terms is there enough evidence to be more or less certain that he existed as a person? is there any debate amongst historians?

Fratton Fred

silverharp wrote: »

Purely in historical terms is there enough evidence to be more or less certain that he existed as a person? is there any debate amongst historians?

I have visited Jerusalem and Bethlehem and the Jewish (I say this because as a Jew I would expect him to be impartial, although he does make a living out of the fact Jesus was a bit of a hero) tour guide gave the impression that his existance was a matter of record and not open to interpretation. He was born in a stable in Bethlehem and crucified 32 years later in Jerusalem between two thiefs.

the only big question from what I can gather, is whether or not he was the son of god, the messiah or just a very naughty boy:D

Despite anynoe's religious beliefs, I would strongly recommend a visit to Jerusalem, it is an amazing place.

Uuuh Patsy

silverharp wrote: »

Purely in historical terms is there enough evidence to be more or less certain that he existed as a person? is there any debate amongst historians?

Of course he did. The Bible says so and it was written by God.. blah blah blah...

PDN

Christians, predictably, all say he did exist.

Most of those who wish to attack Christianity, predictably, say he didn't exist.

What do historians say?

wikipedia wrote:

The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars often draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition. The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to many religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion. A very small minority argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.

A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. Among the proponents of non-historicity have been Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. The non-historicity thesis was somewhat influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century, and has recently been put forward in popular literature by a number of authors. Arguments for non-historicity have been advanced by George Albert Wells in The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth. Popular proponents have included the writers Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their books The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess. Other proponents of non-historicity are biblical scholar Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle ).

The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus' historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ; they are based on a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.

Michael Grant stated that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods:

…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

The non-historicity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

RedPlanet

I love this bit:

Most Biblical scholars hold that the works describing Jesus were initially communicated by oral tradition, and were not committed to writing until several decades after Jesus' crucifixion. The earliest extant texts which refer to Jesus are Paul's letters, which are usually dated from the mid-1st century. Paul wrote that he only saw Jesus in visions, but that they were divine revelations and hence authoritative.

:rolleyes:

silverharp

The reason I asked the question was after watching one of those “well researched” internet docs called Zeitgeist. The first section overlays a whole Astrological explanation for the major events in the NT, it’s a good yarn in a Dan Brownesque sort of way. The crucifixion for instance is a reference to the way the sun behaves on the 3 days over the winter solstice and the like. I guess it would argue against the case if he actually did exist. As a confirmed Atheist, the divinity bit will never fly with me, from memory in the video the case is put that the Roman accounts are vague and that terms are used like "the annointed one" which could mean anything.

Johnmb

There is no contemporary mention of a historical Jesus in any known records. The earliest existing mention comes from writings attributed to Paul, which would have been from about 30 years after his death if he existed, and even then, Paul never claims that there was an actual man called Jesus. The main reason I could give for the existence of a historical Jesus is simply that nothing he is claimed to have done was original. Other "saviours" had already performed all the miracles that he had supposedly done, so why would anyone invent a new name rather than just stick to those already in use? There may have been someone that they used as a basic template before applying all the "saviour" characteristics from the other cults to him. But he was fairly insignificant in his life outside his following, as he didn't get a mention anywhere else for quite some time.

Sand

The Jesus of the gospels is certainly an invented figure. Even if there was a historical figure, the amount of mythology that can be built up around a controversial figure whose still alive [George Bush?], inside 20-30 years doesnt indicate that the life of a supposed controversial historical figure like Jesus [rebel against Rome, Jewish splinter cult leader, supposed miracle worker] would be reported accurately centuries after his death.

Especially when you consider the vast number of early Christian differing schools of thought/philosophy [each of whom would re interpret the Jesus myth to better suit their own views] that flourished prior to the Roman Church slowly crushing them and establishing its own dogma.

The point being, even if there was a man called Jesus of Nazareth it doesnt mean his claims to be the son of god were true, nor his ability to walk on water, turn water into wine and rise from the dead are proven. You either accept the official Biblical account on faith, or you dont.

roxychix

there was a two part documentary on this on RTE 1 on sundays a good while back cant remember what it was called but if anyone could shed some light on this it would be great. it was really interesting cause it used histroical evidence on the above question which was asked. it came up with the idea that jesus mary and joseph all existed and that joseph already had a family before he married mary and yes he was a carpenter. apparently mary lost her virginity before she married joseph thus making jesus illegitimite but joseph brought him up as his own. jesus seen as an outcast treated differently by the locals etc really would love to get my hands on that two part series because i found it very interesting and would like to investigate this more. i am not denying or existed as i have no real view on that matter but it may/ may not be an answer to the question at the start of a thread. just if you had seen the programme it might help with your answer. apologises for the long post.

Tableman

roxychix wrote: »

there was a two part documentary on this on RTE 1 on sundays a good while back cant remember what it was called but if anyone could shed some light on this it would be great. it was really interesting cause it used histroical evidence on the above question which was asked. it came up with the idea that jesus mary and joseph all existed and that joseph already had a family before he married mary and yes he was a carpenter. apparently mary lost her virginity before she married joseph thus making jesus illegitimite but joseph brought him up as his own. jesus seen as an outcast treated differently by the locals etc really would love to get my hands on that two part series because i found it very interesting and would like to investigate this more. i am not denying or existed as i have no real view on that matter but it may/ may not be an answer to the question at the start of a thread. just if you had seen the programme it might help with your answer. apologises for the long post.

I remember seeing this too. It was an excellent documentary

PDN

Johnmb wrote: »

The earliest existing mention comes from writings attributed to Paul, which would have been from about 30 years after his death if he existed, and even then, Paul never claims that there was an actual man called Jesus.

Bit of a schoolboy howler here. The earliest of Paul's letters (Galatians) has been dated to about 15 years after the death of Jesus. Paul refers to Jesus as an actual person on a number of occasions.

Johnmb

PDN wrote: »

Bit of a schoolboy howler here. The earliest of Paul's letters (Galatians) has been dated to about 15 years after the death of Jesus. Paul refers to Jesus as an actual person on a number of occasions.

Perhaps my information is out of date. What copies have been dated to 15 years after the date of Jesus? As for Paul referring to Jesus as an actual person on a number of occasions, when? At the start he mentions the death of Jesus, a death very similar to other "saviours", and which can be read as happening on another plane of existence, as is the case with the other "saviours". After that, Jesus is not an actual person. Paul makes clear that he never met Jesus as an actual person, and even makes references to what Jesus would and would not have been IF he had been a man.

PDN

Johnmb wrote: »

Perhaps my information is out of date. What copies have been dated to 15 years after the date of Jesus? As for Paul referring to Jesus as an actual person on a number of occasions, when? At the start he mentions the death of Jesus, a death very similar to other "saviours", and which can be read as happening on another plane of existence, as is the case with the other "saviours". After that, Jesus is not an actual person. Paul makes clear that he never met Jesus as an actual person, and even makes references to what Jesus would and would not have been IF he had been a man.

Galatians is usually reckoned to be the earliest of Paul's epistles, about 50AD.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

For Paul to meet Jesus' brother, then Jesus must have been a real person. Mythical people don't have flesh & blood brothers.

Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. (Galatians 3:15-16)

Mythical figures do not have human ancestry. If Abraham was a historical figure, then Jesus must have been flesh and blood to be from his seed (Gk-sperma

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Galatians 4:4

Born of a woman, born under law. ie - a Jewish human being

Romans was written between 50AD and 60AD.

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God - the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 1:1-4)

Last time I looked humans were actual people. Paul declares that Jesus had a human nature and was descended from David.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:15-17)

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit - I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (Romans 9:1-5)

Christ was a Jewish man, descended from the patriarchs.

The evidence is clear that Paul spoke of Jesus as an actual person.

Johnmb

Well at least I can see why the dating is different. You are using the traditional figures, which basically are wrong (their underlying assumption is that the New Testament is a historical document, with no errors). The earliest writing of the New Testament is generally agreed to be Thessalonians, dated to the early 50s AD. As for all the highlighted quotes above, so much of that depends on the translation you read, which in turn depends on the translation skills, and the bias, of the translator. I can give quotes such as "if Jesus had been here, he would not even have been a priest" from Hebrews 8:4 and other such quotes. Are mine any more accurate than your? Probably not, but neither are yours likely to be any more accurate than mine. I've never seen the original documents, have you? But at the end of the day, most scholars agree that Paul never discusses Jesus' life in a historical way, only his death and resurrection, and even that is not given a proper context. If it were any of the other "saviours" it would be clear that the death and resurrection occurred in a spiritual world, not earth.

PDN

Johnmb wrote: »

Well at least I can see why the dating is different. You are using the traditional figures, which basically are wrong (their underlying assumption is that the New Testament is a historical document, with no errors). The earliest writing of the New Testament is generally agreed to be Thessalonians, dated to the early 50s AD. As for all the highlighted quotes above, so much of that depends on the translation you read, which in turn depends on the translation skills, and the bias, of the translator. I can give quotes such as "if Jesus had been here, he would not even have been a priest" from Hebrews 8:4 and other such quotes. Are mine any more accurate than your? Probably not, but neither are yours likely to be any more accurate than mine. I've never seen the original documents, have you? But at the end of the day, most scholars agree that Paul never discusses Jesus' life in a historical way, only his death and resurrection, and even that is not given a proper context. If it were any of the other "saviours" it would be clear that the death and resurrection occurred in a spiritual world, not earth.

Translation is not an issue. I have a Greek New Testament, I can read Greek, and the verses I quoted clearly speak of Jesus as a human being.

Scholars do not agree that Paul never discusses Jesus' life in a historical way. That is quite simply untrue.

As to the date of Galatians, theologians and biblical scholars disagree as to whether the epistle was written to the believers in North Galatia or South Galatia. The North Galatian theory would date the letter around 56AD, the South Galatian theory dates the letter around 48 or 49AD. I am unaware of any serious Biblical scholar or historian who would date Galatians to 30 years after the death of Christ. You are also wrong about underlying assumptions - plenty of liberal scholars who do not treat the New testament as inerrant hold to both the North & South Galatian theory.

Johnmb

PDN wrote: »

Translation is not an issue. I have a Greek New Testament, I can read Greek, and the verses I quoted clearly speak of Jesus as a human being.

Translation is an issue, as I have shown with the quote from Hebrews. What are the publication details of your "Greek New Testament"? Is it a copy of the original document, or just a modern Greek translation of them?

Scholars do not agree that Paul never discusses Jesus' life in a historical way. That is quite simply untrue.

Then name me one accepted scholar who says otherwise. No scholar I have ever read who has argued for a historical Jesus has ever used Paul. And even when they argue against Paul showing that Jesus was not historical, they generally use the argument that just because he doesn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen, he (Paul) was simply more interested in the resurrected
Jesus. Examples of scholars agreeing Paul did not discuss Jesus' life in any historical sense are George A. Wells.

As to the date of Galatians, theologians and biblical scholars disagree as to whether the epistle was written to the believers in North Galatia or South Galatia. The North Galatian theory would date the letter around 56AD, the South Galatian theory dates the letter around 48 or 49AD. I am unaware of any serious Biblical scholar or historian who would date Galatians to 30 years after the death of Christ.

As I said above, the earliest attested writing is generally dated to the early 50s AD. How long exactly after the supposed death of Jesus that is depends on when you think Jesus died. The 30 year figure is usually used as an average age of Paul's writings I would imagine. Either way, Pauls writings are the earliest christian writings that we know of.

You are also wrong about underlying assumptions - plenty of liberal scholars who do not treat the New testament as inerrant hold to both the North & South Galatian theory.

Maybe, but most regard Thessalonians as the earliest, and the only date I have seen for that is circa 52AD.

DublinWriter

silverharp wrote: »

The reason I asked the question was after watching one of those “well researched” internet docs called Zeitgeist. The first section overlays a whole Astrological explanation for the major events in the NT, it’s a good yarn in a Dan Brownesque sort of way.

There's a little more going on than that in Zeitgeist.

It describes how customs, practices and folklore all converge down through the ages to become accepted as canonical conventional practice in modern times.

For instance, Christmas Trees. These only came into fashion in the 1840's when Queen Victoria married the Bavarian Prince Albert. Christmas Trees were a tradition in his neck of the woods and he brought the practice over to the UK.

Even the custom of giving gifts probably has more to do with the Roman Feast of Saturn (held at the end of the year) than the Three Wise Men. The Romans even placed dedications and pictures of their loved ones over their stoves and mantle pieces.

The problem was your average Joe wasn't literate at the time of Jesus, so written records are scarce.

There were several other gospels (Thomas, Mary, Judas) with earlier provenance than the traditionally accepted Gospels, but these were declared heretical by the early Christian church and were suppressed.

PDN

Johnmb wrote: »

Examples of scholars agreeing Paul did not discuss Jesus' life in any historical sense are George A. Wells.

Are you trying to take the mickey? George A Wells is a scholar, but not in regard to biblical studies. He is a professor of German who also holds degrees in philosophy and natural science.

He has written about Jesus, not as a biblical scholar but more in a propaganda role as the Chairman of the Rationalist Press Association. I found the following paragraph from wikipedia amusing:

wikipedia wrote:

The one published review of his Who Was Jesus?: A Critique of the New Testament Record (1989), in part, says "Wells contends that the existence of a historical Jesus is, at best, highly doubtful. He begins by questioning the general reliability of the gospels and then focuses on Jesus' virgin birth, public ministry, passion, and resurrection, considering current scholarship and presenting some challenging suggestions. However, his radical thesis negatively affects the selection and interpretation of data: Scholars cited in support of his thesis acknowledge problems in the New Testament but not the necessity or soundness of his conclusions. Wells's previous books have not significantly affected New Testament studies, and it is doubtful that this one will."

You want examples of scholars who believe that Paul discussed Jesus' life in a historical way? Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, NT Wright, Gordon Fee, Geerhardus Vos, Calvin Roetzel, Pheme Perkins, Craig Blomberg, CK Barrett, Bruce Chilton etc. In fact, the vast majority of scholars agree that Paul's argument about the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 hinges on his understanding of the resurrection as a bodily event with a human Jesus. Only a small minority of biblical scholars argue otherwise.

PDN

Johnmb wrote: »

Translation is an issue, as I have shown with the quote from Hebrews. What are the publication details of your "Greek New Testament"? Is it a copy of the original document, or just a modern Greek translation of them?.

My copy of the Greek New Testament is the Westcott-Hort edition. It is not a translation. It is koine (new Testament Greek) not modern Greek. It is based on the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (both 4th Century).

No serious New Testament scholar would ever argue that translation hinders scholarly understanding of what Paul wrote. We have an abundance of manuscripts and New testament Greek is not exactly hard to translate or to understand.

silverharp

DublinWriter wrote: »

There's a little more going on than that in Zeitgeist.

It describes how customs, practices and folklore all converge down through the ages to become accepted as canonical conventional practice in modern times.

For instance, Christmas Trees. These only came into fashion in the 1840's when Queen Victoria married the Bavarian Prince Albert. Christmas Trees were a tradition in his neck of the woods and he brought the practice over to the UK.

Even the custom of giving gifts probably has more to do with the Roman Feast of Saturn (held at the end of the year) than the Three Wise Men. The Romans even placed dedications and pictures of their loved ones over their stoves and mantle pieces.

I am sure there are many religious practices that have their origin from prior beliefs. but given that the bible is treated as a historical document by its adherents, if it can be shown that the major events of the NT are astrological in nature then it is interesting to say the least as it would undermine the whole historical element

PDN

DublinWriter wrote: »

It describes how customs, practices and folklore all converge down through the ages to become accepted as canonical conventional practice in modern times.

For instance, Christmas Trees. These only came into fashion in the 1840's when Queen Victoria married the Bavarian Prince Albert. Christmas Trees were a tradition in his neck of the woods and he brought the practice over to the UK.

Christmas trees are canonical practice?

conor2007

there was a historical jesus

did a course in history in ucd - based partly on this

AckwelFoley

Jesus exist? lol .. no.


If he did, then frodo and gollum do to and they are living in Navan

There is not evidence of his existance

I am perhaps open to the possibility of the existance of a Man called Jesus, a Ron Hubbard type of Guy, but as for the parting sea, blood into wine trick..no

conor2007

tolkien - pff

there is evidence of jesus existence

conor2007

Ask yourself: Could a person who never lived have affected human history so remarkably?

Tommy T

snyper wrote: »

, but as for the parting sea

That was Moses...;)

conor2007

lol - facts as per usual when ''scientific'' people put up their arguments

Lux23

Of course he existed, just not in the way the bible tells us. He never went around claiming to be the son of god as such he was really just interested in social change. Of course the fellas in the temples weren't too happy about it so they asked the romans to top him and thats how he ended up so famous. If he was just left to his own mad devices we would probably all still be jewish or some other religion.

conor2007

so you believe he existed but was not the son of god ?

odd

Lux23

conor2007 wrote: »

so you believe he existed but was not the son of god ?

odd

According to documents called Q written 50 years after he was born he never claimed to be the son of god. So no I don't.

At the end of the day though if you are someone who has faith in God and all that jazz it hardly all matters that its highly illogical that he exists, its all justifed in your own mind through faith alone.

conor2007

have you seen this document?

Lux23

conor2007 wrote: »

have you seen this document?

Oh of course I have, right after I wiped my BBQ sauce hands on the Bill of Rights.

I have read about it in books. The only one that springs to mind is a Joespeh O' Connor Book 'Secret Diary of the Irish Male'. The index would probably show you where you get a more indepth anaylsis of the documents. Im not sure if they still exist in their original today but they have been written about for the last 2000 years or so I read.

I think its the most likely interpretation of events too. But then again im no genius.

conor2007

neither am i - far from it

as from what i have read - it has not been seen - this document

AckwelFoley

conor2007 wrote: »

lol - facts as per usual when ''scientific'' people put up their arguments

LOL... No. Im not even remotely scientific, i just think if there was a god he wouldnt get paedophiles to spread his word.. it just sends out the wrong message imo.

There is nothing at all, to suggest or prove the existance of god or jaysus. If you can give me one, that doesnt require faith.. i'll concede defeat.

conor2007

proove to me ''the big bang'' ?

if you are going to just ask for proof and not give proof for your ''belief'' - i see no point ..

the fact that earth is exactly the right distance for life - pretty unlikely to happen ''on its own''

AckwelFoley

I could give you tonnes of information that the theory of the big bang is well founded, however i think it would be wasted on you.

The difference between a belief in god and science is god requires blind faith, where the laws of science requires evidence, somthing that Religion has failed to do.

I dont think you understand the size of the Universe, and that the size of our galaxy alone is gigantic, yet dwarfed by the known size of the universe.

Fratton Fred

snyper wrote: »

I dont think you understand the size of the Universe, and that the size of our galaxy alone is gigantic, yet dwarfed by the known size of the universe.

But that's why we need a god, because our minds can't comprehend it all.

A man called Jesus did exist, he was jewish and from his existance came Christianity. If you are a good "Christian" does it matter who or what Jesus was? Generally speaking teachings of Christianity are (Along with most religions) pretty good, it is the delivery that has been corrupted.

Lux23

conor2007 wrote: »

neither am i - far from it

as from what i have read - it has not been seen - this document

I have blind faith in it the same way some have a blind faith in God and.

AckwelFoley

A man called Jesus did exist, he was jewish and from his existance came Christianity. If you are a good "Christian" does it matter who or what Jesus was? Generally speaking teachings of Christianity are (Along with most religions) pretty good, it is the delivery that has been corrupted.

Ver batum, you sound like my father

Hagar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But that's why we need a god, because our minds can't comprehend it all.

I could never comprehend Calculus in school but the guy sitting beside me could, do I need a God that he doesn't?

PDN

Lux23 wrote: »

According to documents called Q written 50 years after he was born he never claimed to be the son of god. So no I don't.

At the end of the day though if you are someone who has faith in God and all that jazz it hardly all matters that its highly illogical that he exists, its all justifed in your own mind through faith alone.

The document called 'Q' is a hypothetical document that form critics use to explain literary relationships between the Gospel. Since no-one has ever seen a copy of this hypothetical document it would be impossible for anyone to know what it actually taught. :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

I could never comprehend Calculus in school but the guy sitting beside me could, do I need a God that he doesn't?

Calculus, God, the Universe, the workings of the female mind, some things we just have to accept are beyond us:D

Hagar

Ain't that the truth.

aidan24326

conor2007 wrote: »

the fact that earth is exactly the right distance for life - pretty unlikely to happen ''on its own''

Not really. If the earth wasn't at the right distance from the sun (the so-called goldilocks zone), well we wouldn't be here to ponder that question in the first place would we? In other words it's hardly a surprise that we find ourselves in a universe that satisfies the requirements for our existence.

To say it's "unlikely to happen on it's own", you haven't thought about that. There are countless billions of stars, it stands to reason that some of them would have planets in the habitable zone, just by chance. (remember also that what we consider as a habitable zone is based on current human understanding of life, with no reference other than life here on earth).

Johnmb

conor2007 wrote: »

there is evidence of jesus existence

Where? There is not one independent, contemporary mention of Jesus. All mentions of him from anywhere near his time are those of people trying to spread a cult, and there are numerous factual errors in those writings. Whether a man actually existed or not, there is no evidence of it at the moment.