By that, do you mean the perception of Him outside of the Christian view of Him as Savior? If yes, then history decribes Him as a revolutionary teacher and rabbi. He was the first to preach of a loving and kind God. History says that He was executed, but His movement continued, grew tremendously and still exists today.
2007-01-22 08:26:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by Apple21 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Believe it or not, if you go to Wikipedia they have a pretty thorough article on it. When you go to the sight, just type in the 'historicity of Jesus" . Historians as a group will only say that Christ probably lived. While there are sources outside of the NT that talk about a man named Jesus, all of them for one reason or another do not constitute reliable proof of his existence. Tacitus, Josephus and Livy, the men in history often sited as people who "confirm" the life of Jesus, did not live during the time that Jesus was alive. So historians have made their judgment based on the New Testament.
2007-01-22 16:29:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Josephus, a Jewish Historian - writings roughly 60 years after Jesus' death.
Tacitus, a Roman writer - around 64 c.e.
Pliny the Younger - govenor of the Roman provinces of Asia Minor - about the year 110 c.e.
,
Suetonlus- a Roman Historian and Lawyer - around 120 c.e.
2007-01-22 16:58:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is none.
1. Nazareth did not exist at the time claimed in the christian fairy tale. It is less than 1800 years old.
2. More than forty writers and the Roman empire existed 2000 years ago of whose writings survived, and NONE left any mention of the mythical "jeebus".
3. There are at least 16 known "saviours" that predate christian mythology, and all contain claims that were borrowed and passed along from one religion to another. The "jeebus" myth is simply a tenth hand copy cat of buddha and krishna. It's the biggest game of "telephone" ever invented.
.
2007-01-22 16:26:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
There are a few theories on Jesus
1. That he was a wandering philosopher with a following of adherents similar to Ghandi.
2. That there was no such person, but the early church wanted to have a "founder" so they invented Jesus
3. That there was no such single person, but an amalgam of several different people and sayings.
I'm assuming you aren't interested in the laughable "he's the son of god" theory?
2007-01-22 16:24:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
there is a mention of Jesus by a jewish historian and he was recorded in history.
Jesus never wrote a book
he never owned a home
he never traveled 200 miles away from where he was born
while still a young man the tide of popular opinion turned against him and he was nailed to a cross. when he was dead he was placed in borrowed grave.
Nineteen centuries have come and gone and today he is the central figure of the human race.
I am far within the mark when i say that all the armies that ever marched have not affected the life of man upon earth as powerfully as this one solitary LIFE.
Anonymous
All the above is historical fact there is no theology involved it is simple truth
2007-01-22 16:30:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rich 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
Of the historical references of the period (such as those by Josephus Flavius), there is no mention or record of Jesus Christ.
While that doesn't mean that he didn't exist, it does mean that in his day he was not a significant political or religious force. The development and growth of christianity came much later.
2007-01-22 16:27:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by Morey000 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
No known contemporary source on Jesus historical existence.
2007-01-22 16:22:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 6
·
6⤊
1⤋
There is none. Two small references in Roman Archives and the big reference in Josephus has been show to be a latter inclusion and not part of the original work.
2007-01-22 16:22:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
1⤋
Other than the myth of the new testament, no such historical record of him exists. p.s. The Romans of the time kept good records. Nothin' about such a fellow. 'nothing.
2007-01-22 16:27:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by BIGUS_RICKUS 4
·
4⤊
1⤋