Historical Jesus?

Question

Many people deny that Jesus even existed. So, for those of you who do not believe that Jesus was a real person, do you believe that Alexander the Great was a real person? The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written 50-90 years or so after the death of Jesus. However, the most reliable source concerning the historical record of Alexander the Great was written in the 2nd century AD (4 centuries or so after his death). It was written by Arrian of Nicomedia. With this said, why is it hard to believe that Jesus was a real figure? His history was written much sooner after His death compared to Alexander the Great.

Answer 1

Lee Strobel researched this in his book The Case For Christ and validated his actual existence.

Answer 2

Alexander was a regular guy. Led an army around the Middle East, won a few battles and then he died. Nothing special about that. Easy enough to believe. I'll accept that story without question...

But now take a look at the story of Jesus: He turned water into wine, walked on water and raised Lazarus from the dead. Already I'm having trouble believing that this is a true story about a real person who actually existed --- and it gets even more difficult when I read that he died on the cross, came back to life after three days, and then took off from a mountain and flew straight up to heaven.

You ask "why is it hard to believe that Jesus was a real figure?"

Hard? It's bloody impossible!

Answer 3

There is extensive archeological evidence that Alexander the Great existed. Although there is anecdotal evidence that persons somewhat like the biblical Jesus (with names like Yeshua and other derivations of the name "Jesus") existed (and the Romans in fact supposedly did keep extensive documentation about what was going on in their territories and who they considered messianic provocateurs--much like the US FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security), there is no archeological or historical evidence the Jesus--as portrayed in the New Testament in the timeline given for the New Testament existed. People often refer to the writings of Josephus or Tacitus to make a point about the existence of the Biblical Jesus but the validity of these documents have been critically questioned and they are cited out of context and as heresay by people who have never actually read them anyway.

So I "believe" in the idea of Jesus. I believe in the idea of an archetypal Redemptive Principle, which is found in many early belief systems that existed at the same time as Christianity--but, at this time, I question the historicity of the biblical Jesus.

Answer 4

Um, you are kidding right? Did you ever hear of a city named Alexandria? It was founded by Alexander the Great, you know the guy who conquered the known greek world. There are many other historical facts such as writings by contemporaries of Alexander that come from the time of Alexander that validate that he was a real person. In sharp contrast, there is not one artifact from jesus time that suggests any such person existed. No carpentry, sandals, thorns, nails, writings, nothing nada zilch. Quite a loud silence from a person who preached to the multitudes. Your argument is even weaker when looking at the historians who wrote about Alexander. If those are valid then the gospels written about jesus should also be valid since they fall within your acceptable time frame. Of course they show him to be a man, not a god. And one more detail, Alexander did not purport to create a religion.

Answer 5

It isn't about the time period during which the stories were written. It is the fact that there is nothing else written about the Jesus character when he was supposed to have been alive. The only accounts are those from the bible fairy tales. Comparatively, Alexander the Great had both friends and enemies writing about him, along with other historical artifacts. The Jesus character has nothing else, Josephus's writings about Jesus were shown to be a forgery, and Pliny and Tacitus wrote about christians not about the Jesus character. This argument has been hashed out many times, and yet the fundies keep asking the same questions with nothing new to back it up. Are they just ignorant or completely delusional?

Answer 6

I do not "believe" any of Alexander the Great's teachings nor do I base a religion on him. If it was shown that Alex did not exit, I would not be overly heart broken.

I certainly would be very suspicious of accounts written 50 to 90 years after a person died especially quotes of what they said.

Edit:
Contrary to Xian beliefs, there is not compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus. There are no contemporary accounts of him and there are a few historical references in latter centuries, most of which are somewhat disputed. However it would not be surprising if he had existed as there is quite a bit of evidence for his early followers. On the other hand, there is no evidence for his divinity i.e. we do not have any confirmation of the 6 hours of darkness with an earthquake, the temple curtain is not recorded as being destroyed until 70 CE, there is no confirmation of the star of Bethleham, etc.

Answer 7

The records , if you study your religious history were written later than 90 years. As to the historical Jesus. Yes there was a prophet named Yeshua (Joshua in Greek) that was crucified at the time of the existance of Jesus. But according to Roman records and Jewish text from that time there is no record of anybody by the name Jesus. And the word Christ comes from the Greek for 'anointed one' or 'king'.

Answer 8

There is also such historical record of Jesus. The most well known is the work of Josephus who was a Roman and did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. There were also many others, and I would not be surprised if Arrian of Nicomedia made mention of him as well.

In fact, we he the same Arrian who supported the non trinitarian doctrine? It seems to me that would have been in the fourth century.

Answer 9

There were a number of Historians alive during the time that Jesus was supposed to have existed and none of them wrote about him, however, Historians did write about Alexander the Great.

Answer 10

Alexander the great was a remarkable person but he never "walked on water, turned water to wine, or raised the dead." His exploits were witnessed by many people and many historians. If it wasn't for Paul Jesus would be forgotten as an insignificant small Jewish religious cult.

Answer 11

It's called hyprocacy. Every organized religion tells us Jesus is coming soon. How soon is soon?

They talk about the second coming, but forget their math.

The initial resurrection was the second coming. Now as an explaination of the resurrection, it's possible that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, but fell into a deep coma because of blood loss. Lying in the tomb for three days allowed his body to heal itself and blood supply to replenish. Now the rolling of the stone, if it was a circle rolled like a wheel so it's possible that Jesus himself rolled the stone away to get out.

I believe in the life and teachings of Jesus, not the teachings of organized religion. They still can't get it right.