Besides the four accounts of his life preserved in the Bible, he is also mentioned by the 5 greatest historians of his time period. Josephius, a non-Christian Jewish historian born during Jesus' lifetime records information on not only Jesus, but his cousin John the Baptist and Jesus' brother James who pastored the church at Jerusalem.
He tells us that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected.
Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), another historian of first-century Rome, and considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world, in an excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus (the other three great historians from the first century) also wrote about Christ, Christian worship and persecution that is consistent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, certainly not biased toward Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God.
So all five of the greatest historians from the time when Jesus lived agree that he was a real person. Both Josephius and the Talmud state the Jesus was a Jew born in Israel. The other historians do not address the question of his racial heritage
2007-06-08 05:03:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by dewcoons 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
History is often capricious about the fame it accords people. Facts can be lost outright or they can be distorted by legend. No one is born with the word "important" tatooed on their forehead.
There is no indisputable historical record of Jesus' existence, just like a thousand other wandering, self-styled rabbis of his day. There is evidence in the gospels, particularly Mark's, that when people first heard the preaching of the apostles they wondered why they had never heard of this Jesus before. You may have read in the gospels of the many times Jesus ordered his disciples not to talk about his miracles.
But negative evidence is not evidence. Even if Jesus had been a complete fabrication of his disciples, his teachings and example form a complete ethical system. That's hard to convincingly fake around an imaginary person. The simpler explanation is that there WAS someone that has come to be known as Jesus, someone who at least inspired the developers of the Christian message, if it was not indeed his own. So, without the benefit of evidence, I'd say he probably did exist.
We have only the gospels to document his life, but they solidly agree that he grew up in Galilee, a region that was technically Jewish but well out of the legalistic influence of the Jerusalem Pharisees and the temple cult. It was actually quite cosmopolitan, a mixture of Jewish and Greek towns and villages that easily switched between the Greek and Aramaic tongues. This would have provided an opportunity for real-Jesus to widen his religious perspective beyond the narrow circle of true-Jews, to Samaritans, and even gentiles, a necessary step in the survival and spread of Christianity.
However, a real person can't be from everywhere. There is no tradition that Jesus ever went to Arabia or had Arabian ancestors. Even the Egyptian journey is likely legend, an attempt by Matthew to identify Jesus as a new Moses. But idea-Jesus is inclusive, transcending geographical and ethnic boundaries. People are more important than their pedigrees. It is not necessary to be OF a tribe to care about that tribe.
Jesus did and does exist, at least in our minds. We can't be certain of who or what he may have been then. We can only respond to what he has become.
2007-06-08 05:22:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by skepsis 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jesus is a historical figure. He existed. No question. He was born of Jews but there is no evidence that he was Arab.
It seems to me that the real question is:
Is Jesus the Lord?
To this, I can only say: It depends on how much you understand and how willing you are to believe in the supernatural.
Jesus is nothing, if not supernatural.
Were his miracles real or myth?
Is he God or not?
Did he die for our sins, then ascend to heaven?
Are the biblical accounts of his life anywhere near the truth?
We may never know.
But we do know that nobody in recent history can do the things Jesus supposedly did.
So, your choice is: Believe the bible . . . or not.
But before you decide, REALLY look into the matter. Research the religions that preceded Jesus. In particular, you may find Zoroastrianism a very fruitful religion to investigate. It precedes Christianity by at least a thousand years and it contains many features borrowed by Christianity.
Don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself. The Internet has all the information you need. Just try to use reputable sources.
So, in summary, yes, Jesus really existed. Was he the Christ...the Messiah? I personally can't believe it, given the nature and purpose of religion in the first place.
The ultimate question is: Is there a God? Good luck finding an answer.
2007-06-08 05:12:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Seeker 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
It is clear that Jesus existed, if for no other reason than that the early Christians would not, if they were simply inventing a Messiah, have claimed he had been crucified. That meant automatic disqualification from being seriously considered as possibly the Messiah for most people, and so no one would have invented it. Clearly their claims were about an actual person who had been crucified. (This is not to prejudge the difficult historical questions about what he did and did not say or do, but you only asked about existence).
If the tradition that Jesus was descended from David has even a shred of historical basis, then he was not an "Arab" Jew - although I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Do you mean a Jew who lived in Arabia? An Arab who converted to Judaism? Your meaning is not clear.
For more information about Jesus as historians view him, try reading one of the many excellent books on the subject by a reputable historian specialized in the subject: E. P. Sanders, John Dominic Crossan, John P. Meier, Marcus Borg, N. T. Wright, Paula Fredriksen...
2007-06-08 05:01:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by jamesfrankmcgrath 4
·
3⤊
1⤋
1. I believe there are Roman records that account for Jesus' existence. I think He really was on earth. 2. No, Jesus was not an Arab Jew. He was Semitic, not Arab.
2007-06-08 04:57:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by 12th 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
Although the stories surrounding the life and actions of Jesus are somewhat politically founded, there is no doubt that He existed. He was removed from the cross after crucifixion and taken to a safe house. From there he went to Asia where he carried on teaching and healing. He left behind in Israel a myth that He was the Christ, and that he had died on the cross to fulfill the prophecy, there is a tomb in Asia somewhere that is claimed as Jesus' tomb. Although he lived as a jew, he was in actual fact a buddist. He was taught in their tradition as a child until he went back to Israel in his 30's to try to educate the warring jews. That's why there are no childhood records, as he lived in Asia and not in Israel as some would have us believe. Whatever your religious bent, if you want to find out about Jesus, there are 1000's of books and commentaries that you can read that will make you realise that your question is stupid
2007-06-08 05:49:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by rickymeo 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Josephus wrote about a man that fits Jesus' description and his actions that also match some of the stories written in the bible, there is other evidence that Jesus actually existed from other sources that talk about a man with revolutionary thoughts and a strong following. All of this merely suggests that Jesus probably did exist it does not however tell us that he was what Christians believe him to be i.e. the Messiah. He could merely have been a revolutionary individual.
2007-06-08 05:01:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Well it just goes to show that many of the people on here don't know what there talking about, and don't bother with facts.
There is evidence that a man called Jesus did exist although the Hebrew text was translated to Jesus, there is no proof hat this man was the son of God, but it is known that he went about helping people, and it is said that he also healed people, this is part of History, and not words of the bible
2007-06-08 05:02:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by ringo711 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yes Jesus did exist I have no doubt about that,and he was a Jew I don't know if he was a Arab Jew.
2007-06-08 05:00:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
I believe that he did exist thousand of years ago, in the form of a jew. I also believe in john the baptist, judas, and mary magadalene too. I am a very strong believer. He was persecuted for trying to help the jews and went through all that uffering to redeem mankind from sin.
They believe they have found the shroud of christ. Its absolutely remarkable, you can see him in the shroad. There is no way it could be a clever painting or carbon copy.
And how do you explain such events like saint bernadette, whose body is preserved in Lourdes in France. She has been dead for thousands of years and her body hasnt decayed. You can even go and see her in Lourdes if you like. If that is not a sign of the existence of god , then i dont know what is.
Is certainly is no fake, scientific tests have been done on her body. It is divine intervention.
2007-06-08 05:02:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by sarah 6
·
0⤊
1⤋