<blockquote><b>Quoting ♡Sarah♡ + 2:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting MysticWitchKat:</b>" Directly contemporary no there is not, ... [snip!] ... when I'm back into a corner during a debate and I obviously cannot back up my beliefs with facts, I'm ok with that though. :)"</blockquote>
I truly believe and have faith that Jesus was/is who He says He was/is.
There may never be "proof" and I'm ok with that. :D
as I just posted on my FB actually, Faith is not about seeing to believe. While I believe that Jesus Christ lived, and was literal Son of God, and atoned for our sins, I have no more proof that he did exist or did what The Bible or the Book of Mormon claims he did than any person can claim that he did not do those things. However my faith is not based upon what I can temporally see or prove with tangible evidence. I can not prove or tell someone who to have faith in God or his son. its a personal experience and one that has to be gained by the individual to gain ones own personal spiritual testimony. You can prove your testimony to be true, and i dont try to. I bear it for others to hear, so that maybe they too can feel the spirit that is in me so that it can possibly open their hearts to recieving the truth, but i cant make someone believe, just as no one can make me not believe. There is a verse in the Book of Mormon in Ether 12:6 that says, " And now, I , Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are HOPED for and NOT seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye revieve no witness until AFTER the trial of your faith." obviously I added the capitialized parts for emphasis lol. but this describes what faith is to me perfectly, I dont believe in God because I want to see his miracles, I believe in God because I have already witnessed them.
Sorry that was so long but yes, long story, well still long, yes I believe in Christ, I believe him to be the Son of God, and I believe that he was born to atone for our sins, to be apart of Gods plan of salvation, so that we may once AGAIN live with him.
It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate.
It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line. But historians can never dismiss sources simply because they are biased. You may not trust Rush Limbaugh's views of Sandra Fluke, but he certainly provides evidence that she exists.
The question is not whether sources are biased but whether biased sources can be used to yield historically reliable information, once their biased chaff is separated from the historical kernel. And historians have devised ways of doing just that.
With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.
Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).
Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah. But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well that he was crucified. The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.
One may well choose to resonate with the concerns of our modern and post-modern cultural despisers of established religion (or not). But surely the best way to promote any such agenda is not to deny what virtually every sane historian on the planet -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, agnostic, atheist, what have you -- has come to conclude based on a range of compelling historical evidence.
Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.
Quoting Trup.sebteri:" It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against ... [snip!] ... we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html"
Josphephus was not a contemporary of jesus, and pilate was mentioned by a few authors. He also was not the most influential, and powerful person of his day. There are also no sources in aramaic dated to within a year or 2 or his death. Esp since we don't know the year he died :-P.
I really dislike the Huffington post. They post a lot of garbage.