2006-12-27 11:30:14 · 18 answers · asked by azz 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
There is only scant evidence from the historical writings. The overwhelming weight of evidence as to the existence of Jesus comes through the New Testament writings and the commentaries of early believers. The weight of manuscript evidence supporting the authenticity of the New Testament is literally one hundred times greater than the next closest ancient writing. The entire New Testament could be reproduced with the exception of less that 100 verses solely on the evidence of the writings of others, even if no ancient manuscripts of the New Testament existed. Furthermore the New Testament was based on first hand eyewitnesses according to the internal evidence of the documents, and all of their testimony agrees.
2006-12-27 12:05:43 · answer #1 · answered by wefmeister 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES. The historical Jesus and the Biblical Jesus are not one and the same. Historians in general agree that Jesus probably lived. History cannot validate that he performed miracles.
2006-12-27 19:49:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, but it depends on your religious faith or lack thereof. I heard a minister preach on this question: "Why do you not doubt the existence of Jesus?" This would include references of both historical documentation and Biblical statement.
600 years prior to the birth of Christ, and up to His birth, over 300 prophets all arrived at the same conclusions--From Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Nathaniel, etc., etc. Remember this was way before consistent communication between churches. To the letter, they clearly stated His name, His family lineage and who is family members were, His place of birth, the facts of His birth, the date of His birth, His life as a minister, His arrest, flogging, and method of death, which the Romans did not even use 600 years prior to His birth, and His resurrection. 300 prophets in different lands came up with the same identical facts from this period, all the way to the time of His death and resurrection. The odds that all of these men coming up with all identical conclusions and facts are 1 to the 17th power! 1:17,000,000,000,000,000. Based on this all facts, historical and Biblical, are accurate--one and the same. If you don't believe in the faith aspects at least look at the physical facts. Even Islam mentions Him. Not in the same dimensions or stature, but He did exist. That's a physical reality, not just one based on faith alone.
As for "talking" like Shakespeare, Christ spoke Aramaic. The Bible was translated into English by King James of England in the 17th century.
2006-12-27 19:46:18 · answer #3 · answered by gone 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes - the Biblical one is a fictional character in a book. The historical one was a real guy who was later made into a God by men.
2006-12-27 19:40:07 · answer #4 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
historical Jesus is mentioned in history books and the Biblical Jesus is mentioned in the Bible
2006-12-27 19:33:04 · answer #5 · answered by cybercranberry 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes. The historical Jesus didn't speak like a Shakesperean actor.
The biblical Jesus spoke English. The real one didn't.
2006-12-27 19:33:49 · answer #6 · answered by Ashley 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, the only truth about Jesus is found in the Bible. There is no other source for accurate information about Jesus.
2006-12-27 19:33:40 · answer #7 · answered by tas211 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Historical Jesus didn't say he is the only son of God.
Some of his followers today claim that as Bible interpretation.
.
2006-12-27 19:35:04 · answer #8 · answered by Honest Opinion 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
same person> Jesus of Nazareth is the son of GOD>
2006-12-27 19:32:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Only one Jesus...The son of God.
2006-12-27 19:38:23 · answer #10 · answered by jasmin2236 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋