Is there any proof that Jesus existed?

or at least, the majority of scholars can find nothing to indicate that it's non authentic. however, the first mention of jesus is pretty widely agreed to be tampered with at the very least.

that second mention comes from this passage:

"1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

here he's mentioned the name jesus twice. one is jesus christ, one is some other jesus. it's not hard to imagine that a scribe could have inserted "who was called christ" instead of "son of xxxx". but it's certainly not something that is provable.

in general, i can't imagine where the name jesus would come from if it wasn't from an actual person.

 

Yeah, but you get an assist from technology. There was no media then...everything relied upon word-of-mouth.

 

Don't knock word of mouth. Word of mouth then and word of mouth now can't be compared. Oral tradition at the time was so important that it was not like playing the telephone game like you did in school. Studies had found current cultures with important oral traditional remarkably accurate.