Quote Originally Posted by killerweed420
thereâ??s never been a shred of proof that Jesus ever existed.
Actually, there's a ton of historical evidence that Jesus existed. If you're looking for tangible proof, like some old bones lying in a tomb, then don't expect "proof" like that to ever surfaceâ?¦ but if youâ??re looking for historical evidence, wellâ?¦ thereâ??s plenty of it.

We'll put the Gospels and Epistles aside, because even though those are indeed historical documents dating back to the time of Jesus (and the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that Old Testament manuscripts have been meticulously preserved - so one would think the New Testament manuscripts would be just as accurate, if not more so), I already know where raising that argument will lead me and I'm not here to debate theology anymore. (Too many dead-ends, needless insults, and wasted time.) Regardless, there really should be no debate over this particular area of recorded history, because even secular historians nearly all agree that Jesus did exist... again, they just canâ??t agree on whether or not He was actually divine.

Flavius Josephus (c. 37ADâ??c. 100AD) was a Roman citizen who wrote "Jewish Antiquities" somewhere around 93AD, and mentioned Jesus at least twice that I know of. Read "Testimonium Flavianum" for the exact quotes, which I can't remember off the top of my head, but there's no mistaking who he was talking about. And Josephus was also a Jew, who would have had absolutely no reason to lie about the presence of Jesus... which would only have served to prove that Jesus' life, ministry, and crucifixion by the Romans was based on historical fact, not legend.

Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56AD-c. 115) is another historian (a secular one) who wrote in his most popular work, "The Annals", of Christians "who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius" and wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44) to whom the persecution could be attributed to. Again, Tacitus was vehemently opposed to religion, preferring instead to worship Ceasar, and would have had no reason whatsoever to fabricate the story of Jesus. In fact, just writing about Jesus during Roman rule could have potentially subjected a person to arrest, or worseâ?¦ so Tacitus deliberately wrote from the perspective of a skeptic, but a skeptic who was convinced 100% that Jesus existed.

Those are just two of the most common references, but there are many, many more. Pliny the Younger, Justin Martyr, Julius Africanus, and many more, all wrote about Jesus' life less than 150-200 years after Jesus' crucifixion... which most historians agree would have been too early for grandiose mythological ideas to spread. Even the Babylonian Talmud speaks of Jesus' crucifixion on the day of Passover, and speaks very negatively of His character. Regardless, it does speak of His character, which it would have absolutely no reason to do if Jesus never existed. Again, what logical reason would any secular or Jewish historian have to fabricate a story that's only going to further the Christian cause? They acknowledged His existence in attempts to shine a bad light on Him, calling Jesus an apostate, heretic, etc., but what they really did was just serve to prove what I've been saying all along: That the man, Jesus Christ of Nazareth did, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exist.

...whether or not you want to believe in His divinity is a decision that's entirely up to you.