Is there any historician or historic notification, which proves that Jesus Christ really existed on earth?

Question

Its strange. There are many notifications and historicians which proves that other people: emperors, kings or other important persons really existed. as for christ, it was the most important person for minkind and I couldn't find any notifications about him existed

Answer 1

You can blame emperor Theodosius for that. After the first complete biblical manuscript was completed in 384, and after Catholicism became the Roman Empire's official religion in 385, Emperor Theodosius ordered a purge of the Empire's archives, to remove anything that contradicted the New Testament's version of Jesus' life. If Jesus was ever an actual person, Roman Catholic Emperor Theodosius made certain humanity would never know for sure. It is very likely but uncertain that the suspicious fire which subsequently destroyed much of the Empire's archive at the Library of Alexandria was the work of Theodosius's henchmen.



There was a pre-Biblical Greek philosopher named Celsus who investigated Jesus' origins during the second century and determined that Jesus was actually the bastard son of Julius Tiberius Abdes Pantera (sometimes Panthera), a Roman soldier stationed in Nazareth. Unfortunately, Celsus' work and his purported evidence was destroyed by the library fire previously mentioned. Fortunately, a Catholic father named Origin took serious exception and published a detailed refutation of Celsus that survives to this day. This is how we know what was written on Celsus' original scroll.



You can read it for yourselves, in English, if you google "Against Celsus" by Origin. You can also read it in the original Latin as "Contra Celsus." Keep in mind, all we know about Celsus' conclusion regarding Jesus' ancestry comes to us from a man who disagreed and believed in immaculate conception. Nevertheless, more than a 1-1/2 centuries before the Bible was even begun (in 325) at least one scholar had concluded that Jesus was a perfectly ordinary man of dubious heritage.



I wish the contemporaneous documentary evidence Celsus purportedly found still existed, but Roman Catholic Emperor Theodosius' and his arsonists have made certain the truth would be lost forever.

Answer 2

Yes.



Not to be insulting, but your question shows an ignorance of the gross limitations of ancient historical documentation. It appears you are trying to compare today’s 24-hour news cycle information age to a time when most people couldn’t even read, and a Xerox machine was a man hunched over very expensive parchment with a quill in his hand. I’ll give you four examples.



Have you ever heard of Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene (Lk 3:1)? He was a ruler of a Roman region. He was obviously very famous in first century Palestine. Do a Wiki search on him. There are only about three pages on him. In contrast, there are about 27 pages on Jesus. And there really shouldn’t be any. Jesus was a nobody and the son of a nobody. Now if a renowned Roman ruler of the same period got so little press in his day, what makes you think Jesus should have gotten any?



Next consider the Hittites. They are mentioned numerous places throughout the Old Testament. Until the 1800s, the Bible was the only ancient book that mentioned them. Critics of the Bible used the Hittites as proof that God’s word was a book of fairy tales because it mentioned places that no other engraving, book or culture mentioned--such as the Hittites. So what happened in the 1800s? An archaeologist found their remains in modern Turkey. It turns out they were a great nation and rival to ancient Egypt. So here you have an entire nation as large as any ancient nation of its day or bigger, yet if it were not for the Bible, we may not have ever even heard of the people; nobody wrote about them (except the Egyptians, but their writing was indecipherable at the time). Yet you are shocked some non-biblical historian didn’t write a volume on an obscure carpenter who had a short two- or three-year ministry, and then died as a criminal, being crucified like thousands of others in his day?



Next, wouldn’t you think over 16,000 being killed by a massive volcano eruption would have made headlines at least to one historian? All we have as far as a record of the cataclysmic event are two short letters from Pliny the Younger to the Roman Emperor Trajan written about 25 years after the catastrophe. And we wouldn’t even have those, except Trajan was curious how Pliny’s father died and asked his son about it. For about 1500 years until it was rediscovered in the 17th century, no one knew what had happened in AD 79 to the city of Pompeii by Mount Vesuvius. Now if a famous historian of the time and prolific writer, didn’t bother to write about something like that on his own initiative (something that would be in the 24-hour news cycle today for probably a month or two), what makes you think he would write about some dude that some people claimed healed them?



Last, do you know the difference between a men’s bathroom and a women’s bathroom in ancient Rome? History clearly tells us the sexes did not share bathrooms. Today, the doors are clearly marked. So how were people able to tell back then which bathroom was for which sex? You don’t know? Don’t feel bad; nobody knows. That information has been lost in history. We know a whole lot less about what ancient times were like than we know what they were like. The historical record is so very lacking. In fact, it is so lacking, do you know where historians go to the find out what life was like on the high seas of the Mediterranean in the first century? Believe it or not, the Bible, especially the latter part of the book of Acts.



Now that you have an idea how abysmally lacking the historical record really is, what you should be feeling is absolute utter amazement that we have as much information as we actually do about Jesus, and not only from the scriptures, but other extrabiblical sources too. (See the vids below; enjoy.)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bLlpiWh9-k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlp63Lxrxi0

Answer 3

Apparently there's enough to convince the vast majority of historians that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. But hey, they're just the experts, why listen to them, right?



"These views are so extreme (that Jesus did not exist) and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology."

- Non-christian historian Bart Ehrman



"This view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fueled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. …. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent."

- Non-christian professor of theology Maurice Casey



"Most atheists are historically illiterate"

Atheist historian Tim O’Niell

Answer 4

No, there are no historians (which I think is what you meant) or historic notification, which proves that Jesus Christ really existed on earth, from a time when Jesus was alive. All such accounts were from long after Jesus lived.



But that does not mean there was no Jesus. The problem is that the Jesus of the NT is a result of myth building in the years after Jesus was executed.



The fact is that Jesus was a Jew and died a Jew. He had no thought of bringing about a new religion, only in helping to fulfill his own religion. He certainly would have been horrified if he had learned that a new religion would be formed with him as its basis and that it made a deity of him.



Jesus was proclaiming that god would imminently overturn the existing order and establish a new kingdom--the kingdom of righteousness.



And the Romans executed him because they perceived him to be a rebel who was seeking to establish a new kingdom. That is why they placed the placard saying "The King of the Jews" on the cross. They wanted him to be an object lesson to those who would seek to overthrow them and establish a new kingdom.



By the time the gospels were written, there had been a schism between the original Jewish followers of Jesus and those who followed Paul, who was the actual originator of Christianity. Paul brought in many esoteric and pagan ideas and added them to the myths about Jesus that had developed in the years following his execution. Paul also expanded his church by preaching to and bringing in Gentiles, who did not hold any particular allegiance to the Jews.



In addition, the Christian church at the time was trying to make their way in the hostile Roman world, and they did not want to antagonize the Romans (see Romans 13:1-2), so they minimized the Roman involvement in the death of Jesus and laid the blame on the Jews, which furthered even more the separation of the new religion from its Jewish roots.



That resulted in the origin of Christianity.



Here is some relevant material relating to the above.



There is no contemporary account of Jesus at the time he was living. Even the New Testament accounts were written after his death. As far as non-biblical sources, all the Christians can do is to refer to documents that were written long after he died.



It was only several years after his death that his followers eventually became numerous enough and influential enough that he became more well known. By then, the myths that had developed about him after his death magnified his persona and made him something he wasn't.



The trial of Jesus by Pontius Pilate was a later fabrication by the Christian leaders that they devised, by blaming the death of Jesus on the Jews, to prevent their followers from instigating actions against the Romans. Pilate was a Roman official and he was hardly the kind of person he was made out to be in the gospels. He would have had no compunction against condemning Jesus as a rebel. In fact, if he had let Jesus go free, he would have had to answer to his superiors for not condemning a rebel against their authority. As Josephus makes it clear, Pilate was arrogant and brutal as procurator. See also Luke 13:1.



The Jewish leaders could have had Jesus executed if they found cause to do so. They did not need to turn him over to the Romans to be executed. Read Acts 6:5-15 and Acts 7:54-60, which clearly indicates that the Jewish leaders could have those they condemned to death executed without the need to turn the condemned over to the Romans. The claim that they did not have the authority to execute those they condemned to death, and that was the reason they turned him over to the Romans, was a later fabrication to lay the blame for the death of Jesus on the Jews and to explain why the Romans, rather than the Jews, executed him.



The fact is that the Jewish authorities did not have cause to execute Jesus. Jesus did not actually claim to be god-- that claim was one of Paul's additions to the myths about Jesus, and the writers of the gospels wrote them accordingly by putting words into the mouth of Jesus.



So what it boils down to is that Jesus was executed solely for being a religious agitator who was proclaiming god's imminent overthrow of the existing order, and not because of the later fabrications that were added to his message.

Answer 5

TONS over and over! Back in 1947 when ALL of the Bible was found hidden in caves in Israel; there were also over 30 other books confirming this! Plus writings shortly after Jesus time found in other places! for over 1,000 years!

How about out of ALL the predictions in the Bible to happen before WE cause the end, as of a decade ago 87% had happened to the exact words!

Have you seen any reports on the "Bible Code"? How did YOU get coded into the Bible? (I'll give a hit - GOD DID IT!) There is the computer program for one to buy and locate themselves and others coded in the Bible!

Answer 6

Virtually all historians of the period are both Christians AND Historicists. But they are parroting the assumptions they inherited from theologians. The Mythicists have a pretty compelling scholarly case to make, but it always takes quite a bit to completely upend an academic paradigm, especially when the guardians of that paradigm have a personal stake in belief in that paradigm.

Answer 7

Well, some athiests say yes, but does not prove anything more then he was ? and they have their suggestions



Then some athiests say no way,



if they cannot even come to a conclusion themselves?



Some in Judaism say never existed



Some say yes, but he was a phony

Answer 8

First, "historician" is not a word. There is no historical evidence of any kind for the existence of Jesus.

Answer 9

Jesus was not a rich person with political power so there wouldnt have been any offical records or accounts of him. History records the rich and powerful, not the carpenters. When he died his body was removed from the tomb and no one ever found his remains and because of that no shrine could ever be built for him either. They did discover the shroud his body was wrapped in

Answer 10

There is far more near-date material referring to Jesus than anyone else of that era.

No serious historian doubts the historicity of Yeshua.

Plainly,you gave no no serious research

Answer 11

There is as much "proof" for Jesus being real as there is for any ancient figure. As for "evidence", there is even more. The bottom line comes down to the choice of believing such evidence or not.

Answer 12

If there is proof, it hasn't been presented.

A lot of people talk about this "proof" such as "yesmar" discusses in his/her answer, but did you notice that he/she did not present it?

Answer 13

There can never be proof for things that never happened.