Is there actual evidence that Jesus Christ really lived and what is in the Bible is all actually?

Question

Or do Christians only follow whatever is said in the Bible just becuase it's written there?

Answer 1

Jesus Christ is mentioned by Josephus, a contemporary historian (although there are strong reasons to suspect that the mention is a latter insertion, not written by Josephus.) There are currently no other mentions of these momentous events, which is puzzling. One would have suspected that there would be some mention of what are said to be miracles.

Pilate and Herod are definitely historical figures.

The earliest gospels are dated about 80 years after the events they purport to record.

Make up your own mind.

Answer 2

I believe that Jesus Christ actually lived. I don't know of any findings of evidence that Jesus excisted, but their has been evidence on other events that took place in the Bible that archeilogist has found.
Like in Genesis 11:31 The existence of a city that Abraham once lived called Ur were was uncovered it's ancient ruins. Temples, houses, and Kings, and Queens tombs have been discoved.
In Genesis 15:20 A great nation called Hitties were mentioned in a discovery of Egyption records. So a nation that was called Hitties did exsist as a great Nation. In Exoduce 1:11; 5:7 A city that is metioned in the Bible called Pithom was discovered by archeologist, and found the pharaoh in the book of exoduce was discovered, and his name is Meneptah II, and on his tomb it discribes the death of his son possibly the one that was mentioned in the last plaue. Exodus 12:29, and many more discoveries. I can't really list them all.

Answer 3

It depends upon what you accept as "evidence".

Using documents written between 0 CE and 70 CE, by hostile witnesses, we have the following::
* There was a Rabbi Jesus.
* He attracted a large following;
* He claimed to be God, and the Son of God;
* He trial held to decide on his crucifiction met illegally;
* After his death, his followers could be found throughout the Roman Empire, and beyond its boundaries;

Including documents written by neutral witnesses, prior to 100 CE, we can add:
* His followers were a major PITA for the Roman Empire;
* Killing his followers simply increased the number of followers he had;

Christians accept the Bible as God's \Cord, because they are convinced that it is. Different Christians arrived at that conclusion by using different methods.

I'll skip the Tanakh, not because it is relevant, but because it is the easier book to prove to be God's word.

A typical approach is:
i) Is it historically accurate;

No discrepancies between the New Testament, and the archaeological record have been found. There are several points where the time line of the New Testament is, to describe it tactfully, very confused.

ii) Does it contain any prophecy, and if so, has
a) that prophecy been fulfilled,
b) was it self-fulfilling prophecy,
c) was it so obvious, that calling it a prophecy is simply making it sound good,
d) does it fulfill prophecies from earlier/elsewhere?

The New Testament does contain self-fulfilling prophecy.
It also contains prophecies that are so obvious that calling them a prophecy is simply to make them sound "good".
It also contains prophecies that have been fulfilled, but are not self-fulfilling prophecies.
It also fulfills prophecies from earlier/elsewhere --- in specific events prophesied in the Tanakh. [I'm taking this from a Christian perspective. ]

Somewhere at this point, most people stop and say: "yes", this proves that the Bible is God's word. The curious then take apart the theology of the Bible, to see if it violates its own commandments. If it does, then look at the commandment, and look at the passages that violate the commandment. If the two cn not be reconciled, by simple logic, then the book does not warrant veneration.
Both the New Testament, and The Tanakh pass that test.

Some people use the story of the miracles, as evidence of Jesus' Divinity, and hence the theological accuracy of the Bible. On the flip side, I'll simply note that any Fakir worthy of that profession has/can do the same thing. Miracles aren't miracles if every Tom, Dick, and Harry can do them. [One of the data points used to support Jesus spending time in India, is that his miracles were commonplace there, but not in Jerusalem.]

Then there are a myriad of idiosyncratic tests that people decide on. Everything from "Does it scale?", to "What happens if i choose wrong?"

In terms of Christians following the Bible, I question whether they have studied it enough to know what it teaches.

Answer 4

Jesus was a real person. This is historical fact. All major religions acknowledge him. He just wasn't their Savior. He is acknowledged as a great prophet, but not the Christ.

As far as your part of the question about the Bible being true...which Bible? There are so many different versions, interpretations and languages its hard to tell anymore. Martin Luther left out a few books to suit his arguments during the Protestant revolution and things have just kinda gone downhill ever since. Only hardcore fundamentalists believe every word is actual truth. What's real is somewhere in between. The Bible was written by humans; humans divinely inspired and guided by God to share His word and His love. I guess He had to present it in a few different versions to give us lesser beings a crack what what He is trying to tell us.

Answer 5

Some believe that the Bible is the literal truth but cannot read it and make logical, rational sense of it so they need a preacher who changes the literal meaning of what was written and interprets it any way he wants as long as the parishioners give him ten per cent and some additional offerings.
Literal or not literal? Most Christians follow that which is convenient.

Answer 6

Glad you are curious. Keep searching. Do research on your own. Lee Strobel who was formally athiest and a writer for the Chicago Tribune, turned Christian when he tried to prove the bible was false. CS Lewis was an athiest too, you might want to check out their books. You may want to read a book of the bible yourself. One of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) perhaps which takes an hour or so www.biblegateway.com. The bible is accurate historically and prophetically. God bless you.

Answer 7

There actually is proof (proof and evidence are not the same) that Jesus Christ existed, however there is no proof that God exists.

There were some articles in National Geographic, and I think there were even renderings of what Jesus actually looked like, as opposed to what we believe he looks like.

Answer 8

I hesitate to direct you to these sites because the reality is proof, in historical terms, is a relative concept. That statement always precedes an argument but that's a subject for another discussion. Anyway, here's a bit of information over which you can mull and if you feel so inclined you can follow the thread, as it were, that you dislodge.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

Answer 9

There is no supporting evidence that anything in the Bible actual happened, including the exsistence of Christ. Religion is about faith, if you don't have it then you wont get it.

Answer 10

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus actually lived. No serious historian that I have heard of doubts that Jesus was a real historical figure. Whether he was God is a big matter of debate, and not part of what historians can do.