• He was supposed to be around in ancient times, so he is historical.
  • If you mean îs "Jesus in the history books"? the answer is no. Archaeology has a few, albeit disputed, mentions of the name "Jesus". But if you look at the history around the "Jesus" in the Bible, you would see that it (the history) is verifiable. For instance The Bible says that Jesus was born in the time of King Herod, at Matthew 2:1 says "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king" KJV. History shows us that King Herod, sometimes called "Herod the Great" (circa 74 to 4 B.C.) was a king of Judea who ruled the territory with Roman approval. While Judea was an independent kingdom it was under heavy Roman influence and Herod came to power with Roman support. So history supports the Bible' reference of King Herod. Also as noted in the reference to king Herod, the Roman world power was in place at that time. At Matthew 22:19-21 say's "Show me the tax coin.” They brought him a de·narʹi·us.He said to them: “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said: “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them: “Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.” again History verifies that Caesar Augustus is a historical figure (63 BC – 14 AD) that He was the first Roman emperor and one of the most successful. He reigned for 45 years and was ruling at the time of Jesus Christ's birth. These are a couple of examples of the verifiable facts that history supports around the time of Jesus birth, life and death. If you remember that in the Bible, He (Jesus) is depicted as a common man, so history, even in our day, does not keep up with the "common man". So historically? No, Jesus is not. But if you compare the historical facts around the life of Jesus depicted in the Bible, hopefully that would lead you to the conclusion that Jesus was a real historical figure. I hope this was interesting and helpful, if you would like more information on Jesus or other topics in the Bible, please login to
  • Taking an objective standpoint: in the same way that there "is an historical" Muhammad, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Boudica, etc. etc. In other words: "more historical" (better said: more sound and near-contemporary historical evidence for) than important figures in history such as Cincinnatus, Homer, Mahapadma Nanda (legendary ruler of the Nanda empire of India), Jimmu (legendary first emperor of Japan), etc. etc. That is: with regard to the first group, people from about the same period in which the said person was supposed to have lived, or shortly (within one generation) after that person was supposed to have lived, people who supposedly had direct contact with said person, wrote (at least very briefly) about said person. In the case of the religious figures mentioned we have more writings (and more fanciful claims)...but one would expect there to be more writings from a religious caste about a religiously important person than from - say - a ruling class or military class. The second group includes true legends, people who are mentioned in writings dating at least several generations, often several centuries, after the person is supposed to have lived. *** Of course the first group is not a group that could be titled "people that we can be absolutely certain existed". In general: we don't have their remains or can't be certain that was is claimed to be their remains actually is. We don't have contemporary monuments or depictions. We don't have official (government) records describing their acts. We only have contemporary or near-contemporary accounts from authors who supposedly had first-person contact, and/or we have written works attributed to the person themselves. Consider the very (historically) well-known and well-regarded persons of the second group, for whom we have nothing more than supposed historical accounts authored significantly later than the person's actual lifetime.
  • I look at it like this: "better to believe and be wrong than not believe and be wrong." If you believe and you're right, it's 100% certain that good things will happen. If you don't believe, you may be spending the rest of eternity kicking yourself in the ass. If you believe and you're wrong, you're no worse off - nothing ventured, nothing gained.
  • The Bible is indeed one of the only surviving two contemporary historical document that says anything about Jesus. The other is more focused on John the Baptist. There are some mentions of someone being martyred by crucifixion or someone from Galilee teaching, so it is likely that the Biblical account was based on a real person in some way. Actually, if you consider that the version of the bible we have today can only be traced back to the late 1st century, at the oldest, it doesn't even really count as contemporary with the stories it tells. It all depends on what you believe, I suppose.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy