do we have any historical prove of jesus beyond the bible?
600670
I don't know how to answer your question because I have never doubted the existence of Jesus - physically or spiritually.  But I do know my opinion on the Bible being a work of fiction... Think about it this way for a second : Why would the writers of the Bible put so much work into it if it were a work of fiction?  Why would men die for their belief in Jesus if he weren't 'real'?
657134
Regardless of whether Jesus was a real guy, I think that the meme we see today was started by Peter and Paul.  It seems unlikely that Jesus could have come up with all of that stuff about eternal salvation on his own.
986923
You just said that "the bible can't be proved as fact" and you derived "the bible is a lie" from that, in the law of deductive logic and reasoning, you can't derive the latter from your previous phrase.  \n\nTruth be told, you can't prove the whole Bible at all, either way, no matter what.  You can prove the history that the Bible has supplied.  You have to have faith and the Holy Spirit to fully understand scripture, and even with these things, not everything is meant to be known.  God has a revealed will and a hidden will and we are not meant to know everything.  In fact, most of the things that have happened in the Bible have been proved fact.  The great battles in the Old Testament, the life of Jesus has even been proved by historians.  There's irrefutable evidence in support of his life, and his dying.\n\nCurtis
928543
There is both Biblical and non Biblical evidence. Josephus was a Jewish historian of his day. Never a christian BTW. He gave an account of Jesus is his record. Biblically, David the King wrote a Psalm all about the crucifixion a method of execution not used until the Romans invented it some 500 years later. Proof there is not. If there were we would all be damned because proof makes faith of no effective and people as saved by the grace of God through faith. Without faith we die...   Jim
313748
1. It would have to be proven (not merely suggested) that the Bible is subsantially different today, than when it was originally written. \n2. At least one historical event recorded in the Bible would have to be proven (not merely suggested to be) false.\n3. The over 400 fulfilled predictive prophecies of the Bible would need to be proven (not merely suggested) to have been written AFTER the fact.\n4. A real, honest-to-goodness contradiction would need to be shown (and I'm not talking about the 'straw men' that get set up every single day).\n5. At least one major miracle of the Bible would have to be shown to have been a fraud contrived by mere men.\n6. I would need a memory wipe to remove the miracles I have seen/experienced which correspond to Biblical miracles (healings, multiplication of food, etc).
1051730
The proof is not just on paper, it's written on my heart.  When you experience Jesus, when you get to know Him personally, there is no question.  \n\nDo you think thousands of people around the world would give their lives just for something written on paper? The proof is in the heart my friend.
1186318
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.
1008625
We are saying that the story of Jesus was probably embellished alot down the line. Perhaps he did not claim to be the son of god, maybe he was just a prophet or political activist who gained people's admiration - and ended up being persecuted by the politicians of the time for spreading his political message.
460066
You don't need historical evidence to belieive in God. Its a matter of your level of faith, you either believe in him or you don't. Sure, there may not be a lot of proof, but I know he is there, I know he exists, without him where do you think you came from?
356966
First, I don't think anybody can definitively "prove" Jesus' existence.  But, I do know that I admire the mythology of Jesus and his teachings.  I also admire other great humans from antiquity.  Whether you choose to believe in Jesus or not, don't disregard the wonderful parables and teachings of the man.  You can choose to learn from a variety of sources without having to be a Christian or Muslim or Atheist.  There is good knowledge out there.  Seek it.
991169
To address each of your individual questions:\n\n1) Jesus was not a mortal, he was sent to earth in the form of a mortal.\n\n2) There is proof of Jesus physical existence, there are lots of historical accounts of this.  It would be harder to prove that he didn't exist.  Historians/Critics don't question Jesus's existence; they question whether Jesus was actually God or not.\n\n3) There are no "codes" in the Bible; this is a fiction created by man.\n\n4) Refer to #3\n\n5-6) Its called "faith" not "seeing is believing". /  John 20:29 "...Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."\n\n7) The men who wrote the various books of the Bible lived in different places and different times.  The miracle is that they all communicated the same information (which came from God) without having seen each others works.\n\n8)  We follow God because he has shown his love for us in the greatest possible way - by sending his son to die so that we could have eternal life instead of being punished to an eterinity in hell.  We obey him out of love and appreciation.  Why wouldn't you love and respect someone who has done something this great for you?
557088
Seems right. However, no one really knows the truth as to Jesus' real appearance. Isaiah gives a brief description but nothing was ever recorded when He walked the earth in human flesh.
982221
There is no ( or at the very least, precious little) evidence of a person called Jesus outside of the bible.  Xians will say Josephus mentioned him, but in fact, the only translation we have of Josephus was done by a christian writer in the 4th century...we don't have it in the original Latin.  And what is mentioned is very weak and open to interpretation and very likely was subject to interpolation.\n\nThe Romans were meticulous record keepers.  If Jesus existed, and had fostered the kind of revolution that would get their attention by threatening Roman rule, performing miracles, there would be copious writings about him from the Romans, and other sources.\n\nPaul the Apostle is agreeably the earliest christian writer, and he wrote probably a couple decades after the putative events.  Yet Paul makes no reference to a recently living Christ...and if you read his works separate from the rest of the NT, he seems to be writing of a supernatural creature who fought a battle, died and rose again in a spiritual realm, eons ago.  Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and yet he makes no mention of a pilgramage to Golgotha, or the tomb or any sites that would be shrines to a real person recently living, crucified and risen again ascending into heaven. Paul is bizarrely disinterested in anything relating to a real physical Jesus.\n\nAll other accounts, were written much later.  The earliest Gospel of Mark (by the way, it wasn't written by anybody called Mark, it is anonymous) couldn't have been written any earlier than 40-50 years after the events.  The Gospels all contradict each other as to Jesus life, miracles and death.  I recommend any of Randall Helms books on the New Testament and Gospels for a detailed overview of the problems.\n\nIt really is quite interesting if you are prepared to have an open mind about it.  Jesus, if he existed, was at best a wandering prophet/holyman/philospher.  We have lots of legendary heroes with stories about them, like King Arthur, William Tell...but we know they never actually existed.  I think it more likely he never actually existed, and was created as a "founding father" in the heroic tradition by the early church.
710720
Dude, you've been smoking too many Dan Brown books. \n\n\nI've heard all kinds of crazy theories about Jesus but that doesn't mean they're true. Where's the documentation? Where's the historical proof? Where's the corroboration from witnesses? That's the problem with too many people: They hear something totally out in left field and believe it without any sort of evidence or even despite evidence to the contrary.
226984
We cannot really argue who Jesus was according to the Bible, because of the agreed lack of a process of authentic transmission. Can we really put our faith into an English translation of a Greek/Latin translation of another translation of another translation of Aramaic/Hebrew/Syriac writings of Hellenistic Jews who never met Jesus and, according to the Bible actually fought against the Original Disciples and their teachings? Even the sincere men who put together the most accurate translation to date (NIV) say that we still know very little about Jesus. \n\nHence as much as it is great to see passion in believing in Jesus, I hope that we can be sincere enough to review our beliefs for the sake of God. May God guide us all.
707252
I found this ,it may answer some of your questions.(these or not my writings)\n\nA would-be historian and wannabe scholar by the name of Hugh Schonfield who did a book titled something like, “In Search of Historic Jesus.” It didn’t take long to realize that this man was out to prove that the divine Jesus, the Son of God, didn’t exist, and that he – Schonfield – had an anti-God, anti-Faith agenda behind his writings. He made the outrageous supposition that “the early Church fathers may have rewritten some of the New Testament books and influenced others to rewrite the story of Jesus” despite a total absence of any historical or documentary proof to support such a thesis.\n\nAnother wannabe historian, Gary R. Habermas, took it even a step father with his claim that “the Gospels represent the teachings of the early church and not those of Jesus himself.” These kinds of spurious claims are johnny-come-lately efforts of liberals and leftists who neither know, nor have a relationship with Jesus Christ, nor have they ever even made an effort to personally put Jesus’ claims to the test.\n\nThat said, let’s examine some of the historical evidence that does exist. \n\nMany years ago, my father made reference to a volume of historical documents he had looked at when he was studying in Bible College. He later obtained a copy and sent it to me. The book was titled, The Archko Volume, and represented the culmination of many years of effort of two eminent scholars, Drs. McIntosh and Twyman of the Antiquarian Lodge in Genoa, Italy. Published in 1887, the work provided copies of writings and works taken from the Talmud and the Sanhedrin contemporary to the time of Christ, along with a copy of “Acta Pilati,” which was a report sent by Pontius Pilate – the Roman procurator or governor of Judaea – to Caesar detailing the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Some of the other documents included Gamaliel’s interview with Joseph and Mary concerning Jesus. Gamaliel, you may remember, was the Pharisee at whose feet Paul the apostle sat while he was yet a Pharisee, being instructed in the ways of the sect.\n\nThe Archko Volume also includes some documented reports of Caiaphas, the High Priest who presided over the Jewish trial and judgment of Jesus prior to His being brought before Pilate, as well as his report to the Sanhedrin concerning the resurrection of Jesus.\n\nAccording to the testimony of the two researchers and archeologists who came up with the documents, the sources of these documents were ancient libraries in Constantinople and the Senatorial Docket in Rome.\n\nWhen you read these documents, it provides an interesting perspective and an otherwise not-considered view of others who either participated in or observed events and people who were involved in some way with Jesus Christ.\n\nOne of the things often overlooked by those who seek to authenticate the historical Jesus is the fact that what we now refer to as the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written as personal testimonies of men who walked and talked with Jesus. These were eyewitness accounts. What makes them all the more intriguing is the fact that they were written at different times, in different places, and in three different languages (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic), and yet they agree with each other. Each of the writers has a distinct personality and a perspective that differs from the others; and that personality comes through in the writing style. Nevertheless, there is synoptic agreement between Matthew, Mark and Luke. \n\nJohn writes from a totally different perspective as Jesus’ best friend, and the majority of what he writes details the final week of Jesus’ life and what He taught before He was crucified.\n\nBut, let’s step away from the accepted canon for a moment and look at the works of historians who were contemporary to the time.\n\nPhilo Judaeus of Alexandria, Egypt was a contemporary of both Jesus and the apostle
1168324
Yes, it is proven in the same way you would claim to prove that George Washington or Christopher Columbus existed. Based on evidence provided by witnesses. \n\nNo one now alive has ever seen Washington or Columbus, but we all accept that they lived based on accounts from the period.  Same as Christ and God-- we can know Christ walked on Earth based on accounts written by witnesses (even those not included in the Bible, since you're so against that--there are secular reports of His earthly life as well, read Josephus among others). As for God, we see the order and beauty in the creation around us and see His handiwork & know that He exists.