Were there any contemporary historians, either Jewish or otherwise, who wrote about Jesus during or shortly after his supposed lifetime?
125141
Jesus is the repeated story of, Osirus and Horus which 30.000 before ,already was a symbolic story of the movements of celestrial bodies ,that were given characters and gender  in order to pass on the story more easily to the people.\n\nthe names are changed for different cultures and indifferent times but the formula of the story ;of one plus twelve ,and one into three.has always remained the same.\nJESUS represents the sun (halo)the twelve disciples or iluminati represent the stars(light,halo)\n\nAnd all One God religions are ofshoots of sun worship ,as it being the Father of all life.\n\nChristians and Muslims rather die than admit that in effect they are a ofshoot pagan cultures .\n\nOver the milliniums their symbolic stories with their  characters have become real people or godlike people \n\nTo dispute that or take that away would shatter their faith and leave them even more confused than they already are.\n\nIn desperation they cling to biblical quotations and stories of suposedly other ,real ,objective writers in the past as writing additional true accounts of these peoples existance.\n\nin fact apart from the bible there is practically no evidence that most of the biblical figures were no more than fiction.\n\nsome people mentioned did exist,the best way to tell a lie is by lacing it with truths.\n\nThe church in its quest for power has done everything to  protect and enhance the Myth ,making it real and adding details .Because all of their money , political power and control ,stems from this.\n\nmost of this was done many years after the alledged birth of Christ and if you check out which people confirm the Myth you will see that they were people belonging to the same power structure that benefitted by the control,including people like --Plato ,Socratus,Leonardi da vinci.Aristolle ,Pythagarus to name but a few
608747
Do you people not realize that "Jesus" was just a man like any other man. Historical facts. Let me guess, the bible? The word of "God"? What did they hold a press conference so that they could get all the facts from "Jesus" and print them in one "historically accurate book"? I don't think so. I'm sorry but the bible is nothing more than a person or group of peoples perspective on a point in time. \nJesus was a human being! He had needs and desires just like every one else. Religion doesn't want to admit that because what, it will make him seem less "God like"? \nI think you people need to re-read the book. Yes "The Da Vinci Code" is a work of fiction. But I believe that a lot of the historical premises is based in truth. To what extent I don't know. The same with the bible. There may be a lot of truth there, but just like so much other written history, facts get lost or changed to suit the intentions of the author. \nCall it what you will, but I like to believe that maybe, just maybe the bloodline of Christ still exist out there today. What would be so wrong with that?
88440
I think that many people will start to pray for you from making a statement like that...\n\nWell, I can't realy convince you one way or the other on this topic being that it's not a forum for discussion, just a single answer for your one question...\n\nI can tell you what i believe...  I believe in Jesus.\n\nI can also say, there have been many people in the past that sought to prove Jesus was either just a man, or that he's fiction, and many of them, after everything, became christians...\n\nOne other thing to note, outside of current events (and say for the past could hundred years), Jesus being real, dieing on the cross, then comming back is one of the most (if not the most) documented events in history...   The Romans, who at the time didn't care about Jews for the most part, even recorded it into their records of history...\n\nThat's all i can realy say for now with out discussion...\n\nThanks.
67220
I think the question becomes: "Is the creation story as written in the Old Testament to be taken literally or figuratively"?\n\nRemember, in the New Testament, Jesus often used parables to illustrate a point.  My opinion is that the writer of Genisis did the same thing and used a story to make the point that God created the universe.  I don't believe that it was intended to be an historical record.
219889
Absolutely...a really good book to read is "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman.  He did a lot of research on this topic.
453013
Two of the most meticulous record keepers of Ancient Times were the Romans and the Jews, and as you rightly point out, the events recorded in the Bible somehow seemed to escape their notice.  Pontius Pilate's court records still exist, and there is no mention of the trial of Jesus or of the supposed custom of allowing the crowd to free a prisoner.  It is a tradition among the Egyptian Coptic's that their Church was founded by the Apostle Mark, in 42 ad, certainly the first major Christian Chatecal School was in Alexandria, but not until 190, so there could have been several generations worth of revisions.  Hadn't heard that one about about the Sun metaphor, Jesus didn't even get a nimbus in religious art until the 5th century, and then it was part of political deal the Emperor was cutting, The three main religions in Rome at the time were Christianity, the scribes and record keepers, Mithra ism, the army, and Sol Invites (the Unconquerable Sun), the wealthy landowners.  He couldn't afford to make any of them mad, so he declared Mithra and Jesus were two names for the same being, and that YHWH was another name for Sol Invictus.  That is why the rays of the Sun became a Christian symbol of holiness.  The Bible, in it's current form, only dates back to the Vulgate, which was completed in 405.  Personally, I think we should go back to traditional values, this new fangled Christianity stuff just ain't working out.
392881
This is only a theory. The facts that we know is that he was single during the time that was recorded in his life. Biblical history tells the story of Jesus as a child and then goes straight to him performing miracles later in life . Theres a big age gap that wasnt recorded so officially no one knows. My advice is take american best sellers as un-researched bedtime stories
586820
Jesus wasn't white, he was a Jew, and from what I've read, he was probably black or very dark-skinned.
205582
Yes! I love that I've found someone else who knows this. (I watch a lot of History Channel and learned a lot about lost gospels that weren't included simply because of the politics of the day.) \n\nThe earliest gospel about Jesus was actually written about three decades after his death, and yet it speaks as if it were a first hand account. The author wouldn't have known Jesus. \n\nAnd I don't know why it's such an atrocity for Jesus to be depicted as human. He was. And he very well could've been married. Jewish men two thousand years ago were expected to marry. You couldn't be a rabbi without being married, and he was called rabbi. \n\nAlso, many Old Testament stories were much older in origin. Like for example the flood story came from the Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient Sumerian epic poem. The bible is not history. It's a collection of myths and tales. \n\nAnd it's true about the older holidays. When the early church was trying to convert everyone to their religion, they overshadowed old religions' holidays to make the conversion easier for the pagans. Christmas is at the winter solstice when pagans celebrated the return of the sun, when the days would get longer. In the bible, it clearly says that Jesus was born in the spring when sheppards were out with their flocks. So it's obvious that they deliberately put the birth of their savior in the winter.\n\nReligions have always been fluid. They mix and interact with other religions and myths they come in contact with. Tales have been passed down for thousands of years and always change as they go. Nothing is original anymore.
59885
There are few mentions of Jesus outside religious sources.\n\nThe Roman historian Tacitus mentioned the followers of Christ, in his Roman Annals(written around 115 AD)He states that Christ was executed by Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.\n\nChrist is also mentioned by Pliny the younger in his correspondence with Trajan, about 111 D.\n\nJosephus, a jewish historian also mentions Christ in his writtings on the Jewish War.\n\nA large library of Gnostic gospels and literature found in Egypt around 1950's also tells of Christ from a religious view point.
676303
Jesus is included in other historical documents than just the Bible.  I personally have read about Him in Josephus.  And yes, He is the Christ.  How many people do you know of that would die for a lie?  ALL of the disciples except one died for saying that Jesus is the Christ.
126984
The Gospel of Judas was written many many years after the apostles lived and their associates (Timothy and Luke). Where did you get your historical research? \nGive me a break. \n\nThe gnostic gospels are from beliefs that began in the 2nd and 3rd century, which meens that the writings come from a time period more than 100 years after Jesus ministry, far later than any New Testament book. Why in the world should we believe that these later documents tell us more about events than the earlier documents? They are simply not useful for trying to understand Jesus ministry and the shape of very early Christianity. (1)\n\nThe gnostic gospels were late arrivals, which is ONE reason why church leaders rejected them ... they lacked authority since their authors were neither (a) apostles of Jesus nor (b) persons associated with apostles of Jesus... and no one knows who wrote those gnostic gospels. (2)
256169
yes, I am intersted. I also have to remember that other writings outside of the Bible aren't always true. If what those "early Christians" wrote doesn't match up Biblically, than I have to choose to reject it. not to say that you can't learn things about the time period and culture from these writings.
200159
Christian Prophecy - Seeking the Jewish Messiah\nChristian prophecy is really Jewish prophecy. I'm a Jew, and here's how I discovered that incredible truth… \n\nI grew up in an orthodox Jewish home in New York, and several years ago I came to believe that Jesus (Yeshua is the Hebrew way to say the Greek name Jesus) is truly the Jewish Messiah. Believing that Yeshua is the Messiah wasn't easy. I had many, many questions, and I spent months examining the evidences and seeking G-d's answers. During my journey, I constantly reminded myself of a very important verse from the Jewish Scriptures (the Tenach). The Jewish prophet Jeremiah records the words of G-d, "And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart. (Jeremiah 29:13) \n\nThe Jewish Scriptures (The Torah, The Prophets, and The Writings, which make up the Tenach or the Jewish Bible) paint a very clear picture of who the Moshiach (Messiah) will be when He eventually comes to the nation of Israel. In fact, there are over 300 prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures, which detail many facts about this coming Messiah/king. Here is just a sampling (and remember, all these verses come from the Jewish Bible): \n\nMessiah was to be born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:1.\nMessiah would be from the tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10. \nMessiah would present himself by riding on an ass: Zechariah 9:9. \nMessiah would be tortured to death: Psalm 22. \nMessiah would arrive before the destruction of the Second Temple: Daniel 9:24-27. \nMessiah's life would match a particular description, including suffering, silence at his arrest and trial, death and burial in a rich man's tomb, and resurrection: Isaiah 52:13-53:12. \n\n\nChristian Prophecy - Fulfilled in the Jewish Messiah\nChristian prophecy is remarkably specific. In detail as to lineage, birthplace, time and lifestyle, Jesus matched the Messianic expectations of the Hebrew Scriptures. The record of this fulfillment is to be found in the pages of the New Testament. As you review the more extensive list of Jewish Messianic prophecies, allow G-d to speak to your heart and your mind as you seek HIS truth. \n\nInterestingly, the Jewish Scriptures paint seemingly two different pictures about the Messiah to come. For one, they talk about the Messiah who will come as the reigning King, who will usher in a period of unprecedented peace on earth. But many verses talk about the Moshiach who will be a suffering servant, who will suffer and die for the sins of the people. For many hundreds of years the rabbis believed that there would be two Messiahs, the King Moshiach ben David, and the suffering servant Moshiach Ben Joseph. The rabbis, unfortunately, were not able to see that one Messiah would accomplish both missions. \n\nChristian Prophecy - The Jewish Messiah Stands at the Door and Knocks\nChristian prophecy was indeed fulfilled in the Jewish Messiah. Yeshua came to the "lost sheep of the House of Israel" 2000 years ago. He came as Isaiah chapter 53 so clearly states, to die and "suffer" for the sins of the Jewish people. He came to the nation of Israel, but was rejected. If the Jews would have accepted His "once for all" atonement for sins, Yeshua would have ushered in the Kingdom of Heaven at that point in history. But the Jews did not recognize Him. Even though they had the Word of G-d in their own Scriptures, and more than 300 descriptions of who He would be when He comes, they missed Him. As a result, the Good News of God's Kingdom went forth to the Gentile world, and for 2000 years both Jew and Gentile have come together in Moshiach, looking forward to His soon return as reigning King, just as the rabbis have always expected. \n\nAlthough the nation of Jews rejected Yeshua when He came, G-d has always, through the last 2000 years, kept a "remnant" of believing Jews for Himself. I and many thousands of Jews alive today, have received Yeshua as the
437780
No one who ever wrote anything about Jesus ever knew or saw Jesus, so everything about his life is hearsay and pure speculation written many decades after Jesus died.
117120
There were lots of writings around, and none of them were called "gospels" at the time--they were just writings from different people.  The word "gospel" just meant "good news."  For example, if you look in your New Testament, you'll see that the Apostle Paul's writings are called "epistles" (another word for a letter or written message).\n\nThe first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written in the early days after the death of Jesus.  (The book of Luke and the book of Acts were originally one book.)  These three are called the "Synoptic Gospels" ("Seeing Together Gospels") because they have a lot in common, including some of the same source material--scholars  believe that the writers of all three of these gospels had read a document called the "Q Source" or"Sayings Source", which was a collection of things Jesus had said.\n\nThe fourth gospel, that of John, was written much later than the first three--no earlier than 90 C.E.--and is very different from them.  It contains a lot of visionary poetic imagery, and seems to reflect Gnostic teachings.\n\nA lot of other people wrote accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus.  If the Bible had included them all, it would fill a bookcase.  Many of these other accounts have been lost, though some (such as the Gospel of Thomas) have been rediscovered.\n\nIn the beginnings of Christianity, there was no unified organization;  there were just a lot of different individuals and congregations who had heard about Jesus from different people.  So there was no real agreement about what books were sacred and/or authoritative. \n\nOn several different occasions, Christian leaders organized councils to discuss these questions.  A key council was the Council of Nicea.  There were a lot of arguments and politics there, and some doctrines were adopted and other conflicting ideas were declared heresies.  The Nicene Creed originated there.\n\nThis is how both the official doctrines and the official canons (declarations of what books and writings were holy) were formed.  Some Christian groups never affiliated with the Catholic Church (for example some of the Ethiopian and Coptic groups, etc.)  Some of these groups had other ideas about which writings were important.\n\nMuch later, when Martin Luther established Protestantism, the Protestants threw out some of the Bible materials they did not believe was authentic.\n\nI suggest you do a web search on the phrases "Council of Nicea", "Nicene Creed", "Bishop Arrius", "Bishop Athanasius", "Emperor Constantine", and "Early Christian heresies" and do some reading.  The links suggested by some of the people who have already answered this question are good, too.\n\nI'm not listing any links because I am writing from memory;  I studied religion in college, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth.  ;-)
118738
Here it is another 15 year old sermon from an unbeliever . . . and for an unbeliever . . . I am more familiar with the scriptures and historical documents than some of these believers.\n\nWHO IS JESUS CHRIST?\n\nSince Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah) walked this earth as a human 2,000 years ago, there has been a controversy over who he really was. The Bible tells us in many places that there is only one true God (Deu. 6:4; Mal. 2:10; Mark 12:32; Rom. 3:30; Jam. 2:19; etc.). So where does Yeshua fit into the Godhead? \n\nMost modern Christians have been taught that Jesus is the second co-equal "person" in a triune Godhead composed of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. However, many (if not most) Christians don't really understand the Trinity. Other believers today, perceiving problems with the Trinity doctrine, have adopted a belief in the "Oneness" of God which is similar to the ancient doctrine of Modalism. \n\nBefore we can truly understand who the Messiah is, we need to look at the historical background of first-century Jewish religion and subsequent philosophical/religious doctrines that arose to explain his identity. This is going to examine the beliefs of first-century Jews regarding the Godhead and present the succeeding theories put forth to define who Yeshua is. Then we will discuss by harmonizing the Scriptures with this information to better understand what the Bible really says about the identity of the Messiah. \n\nFirst, let's start by looking at what first-century C.E. Jewish religion believed about the Godhead. There has been a tendency by scholars to define first-century orthodox monotheistic Judaism in rather restrictive terms. Jewish literature or beliefs from that time frame that seem to stray from the accepted norm have been reinterpreted to accommodate Trinitarianism or used to prove that Judaism was derived from the polytheistic religions surrounding Israel. \n\nRegarding how modern scholars tend to view first-century Jewish religion as either totally monotheistic or essentially polytheistic, University of Manitoba Professor Larry W. Hurtado wrote: \n\nI suggest that on both sides of the issue . . . there has been a tendency to proceed deductively from a priori presumptions of what monotheism must mean, instead of building up a view inductively from the evidence of how monotheism actually operated in the thought and practice of ancient Jews. There seems to be an implicit agreement on both sides that more than one transcendent being of any significance complicates or constitutes a weakening of or threat to monotheism. Those who see first-century Jewish religion as monotheistic tend, therefore, to downplay the significance and attributes given by ancient Jews to any transcendent beings other than God. For these scholars often, ancient Jewish monotheism must mean that the descriptions of such beings are largely rhetorical. Though I am convinced regarding some examples, I am not sure that the descriptions are always purely rhetoric . . . \n\nThose on the other side of the issue tend to emphasize the honorific ways in which transcendent beings other than God are described and the prominent positions they occupy in the religious conceptions reflected in ancient Jewish texts, alleging that first-century Jews were not really monotheists after all. It is clear that ancient Jews were not characteristically monists or unitarians, but does this mean that they were not monotheists? That is, on both sides there is a tendency to proceed as if we can know in advance what "monotheism" must mean, which turns out to be a very modern, monistic form of monotheism, and can accordingly evaluate ancient Jewish texts and beliefs as to whether or how closely they meet an a priori standard of "pure" monotheism. ("What Do We Mean by 'First-Century Jewish Monotheism'?," Journal for the Study of the New Testament) \n\nAs the above quote shows, Profe