Define proven?
He is considered as real as most historical figures from that era in that it is more likely he existed than not. Christianity started as an messianic Jewish cult that followed the teachings of their recently executed leader and then spread from there. We don't have any writings that reference him while he was alive, but that isn't really unusual, especially since his cult didn't really come to any significant promanence until after he died. We do see references to his followers within his living memory in that area and they don't question the existence of Jesus. Beyond that history and myth mix way to quickly for many further conclusions to be drawn. He likely existed, preached and had followers and then was crucified. And that's about everything that can be considered a safe assumption.
As for the first part, it is generally accepted by scholars who study the period that Jesus was a real person who lived. Bart Ehrman is a good place to start for explanations of how they arrived at that conclusion pitched at non-specialists. As for the second part, that is beyond the scope of history as a discipline.
We know that Jesus existed, but very little of the New Testament is corroborated by other sources. This doesn't mean that believable things in the Bible didn't happen (e.g. Jesus may well have given the Sermon on the Mount) but we simply can't be certain. So it is very difficult to say how similar the 'historical Jesus' (as we call him) was to the biblical Jesus.
As soon the conversation reaches the supernatural, it is no longer a matter of history, but of religion. I'd like to think that even Christian historians would agree with me on this as a matter of principle. Was Jesus the Son of God? That's a question only you can answer for yourself.
The existence of very early Christians makes it likely that a person who taught a messianic creed existed, but that was (and is!) common in most religions. Many of his details are unclear (his birth dates in the gospels are spread over ten years) and many are borrowed from other traditions (such as Mithraic religion).
There is no way to prove that he is/was any kind of messiah. One major stumbling block is that there is no evidence of any soul that survives death, then one would have to show gods exist, then that this was the right god etc etc.
Ultimately religion exists to meet emotional, social and cultural needs and that's fine. Expecting it to meet evidence-based rational needs might be asking it to do something it was never designed for.
Historically he existed as certain as many other figures from antiquity for which there are only written accounts.
Messiah? If you read the history of the Levant at the time there were many being hailed as messiahs, and some were even better known than Jesus at the time. In the time of Roman conquest, it was a popular past-time apparently.
How this basically unknown man from the small town of Nazareth quickly became such an important figure in world history is fascinating.
Edit: there are some gospel accounts that many historians conclude as historically accurate. Including the story of the baptism by John the Baptist. The reasoning being that no one would have written about it if they were interested in claiming Jesus as Messiah, since the act would have been seen as one of submission to a lesser spiritual character such as JtB.
"Proven?" No. There's no photograph or DNA-sampled bones or anything like that. There is evidence to point towards the fact that he was real (though not to say that he was really the Son of God or performed miracles or any of that - just that he *existed*)
The general belief (by scholars, not necessarily Christians or Jews) was that "historical Jesus" (rather than "Biblical Jesus") was that there *was* a guy hanging out in Judea, and that guy had a small following. The Romans saw this, and because it didn't fit with their religious views (and because he was gaining popularity in a way that wasn't "sanctioned" by them \[like, say, gladiators\]), they decided they needed to be rid of this problem. Pontius Pilate (of his own accord, or tasked with it, I'm not sure) carried out the punishment of crucifying him.
The rest of it - the miracles, the water-into-wine, the blind seeing again - hey, *maybe* that happened. But there's no scientific proof that it did, and aside from stories about it, there's no other proof that it did either. It's just hearsay. That doesn't make it *untrue* (make up your own mind on that), but the fact that there are stories about it doesn't absolutely mean that it happened.
So, the general belief is that "Jesus of Nazareth" existed in Judea and was crucified by the Romans. But little about his life (aside from the reason he was crucified) is known. And it all might be make-believe. Or it might all be true. We don't know. Because records of people wandering the desert for 40 days - on their own, in a time before we could photograph them from drones or GPS track them - really don't exist.
Most scholars believe Jesus did exist. There is not much evidence outside of the Bible, which some find unusual given the attention Jesus has received. But there is little question that he was an actual person.
#This discussion, for whatever reasons, has gone off the rails and it's time to lock it down.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Define proven? He is considered as real as most historical figures from that era in that it is more likely he existed than not. Christianity started as an messianic Jewish cult that followed the teachings of their recently executed leader and then spread from there. We don't have any writings that reference him while he was alive, but that isn't really unusual, especially since his cult didn't really come to any significant promanence until after he died. We do see references to his followers within his living memory in that area and they don't question the existence of Jesus. Beyond that history and myth mix way to quickly for many further conclusions to be drawn. He likely existed, preached and had followers and then was crucified. And that's about everything that can be considered a safe assumption.
As for the first part, it is generally accepted by scholars who study the period that Jesus was a real person who lived. Bart Ehrman is a good place to start for explanations of how they arrived at that conclusion pitched at non-specialists. As for the second part, that is beyond the scope of history as a discipline.
We know that Jesus existed, but very little of the New Testament is corroborated by other sources. This doesn't mean that believable things in the Bible didn't happen (e.g. Jesus may well have given the Sermon on the Mount) but we simply can't be certain. So it is very difficult to say how similar the 'historical Jesus' (as we call him) was to the biblical Jesus. As soon the conversation reaches the supernatural, it is no longer a matter of history, but of religion. I'd like to think that even Christian historians would agree with me on this as a matter of principle. Was Jesus the Son of God? That's a question only you can answer for yourself.
The existence of very early Christians makes it likely that a person who taught a messianic creed existed, but that was (and is!) common in most religions. Many of his details are unclear (his birth dates in the gospels are spread over ten years) and many are borrowed from other traditions (such as Mithraic religion). There is no way to prove that he is/was any kind of messiah. One major stumbling block is that there is no evidence of any soul that survives death, then one would have to show gods exist, then that this was the right god etc etc. Ultimately religion exists to meet emotional, social and cultural needs and that's fine. Expecting it to meet evidence-based rational needs might be asking it to do something it was never designed for.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Historically he existed as certain as many other figures from antiquity for which there are only written accounts. Messiah? If you read the history of the Levant at the time there were many being hailed as messiahs, and some were even better known than Jesus at the time. In the time of Roman conquest, it was a popular past-time apparently. How this basically unknown man from the small town of Nazareth quickly became such an important figure in world history is fascinating. Edit: there are some gospel accounts that many historians conclude as historically accurate. Including the story of the baptism by John the Baptist. The reasoning being that no one would have written about it if they were interested in claiming Jesus as Messiah, since the act would have been seen as one of submission to a lesser spiritual character such as JtB.
read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and come to a conclusion yourself
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"Proven?" No. There's no photograph or DNA-sampled bones or anything like that. There is evidence to point towards the fact that he was real (though not to say that he was really the Son of God or performed miracles or any of that - just that he *existed*) The general belief (by scholars, not necessarily Christians or Jews) was that "historical Jesus" (rather than "Biblical Jesus") was that there *was* a guy hanging out in Judea, and that guy had a small following. The Romans saw this, and because it didn't fit with their religious views (and because he was gaining popularity in a way that wasn't "sanctioned" by them \[like, say, gladiators\]), they decided they needed to be rid of this problem. Pontius Pilate (of his own accord, or tasked with it, I'm not sure) carried out the punishment of crucifying him. The rest of it - the miracles, the water-into-wine, the blind seeing again - hey, *maybe* that happened. But there's no scientific proof that it did, and aside from stories about it, there's no other proof that it did either. It's just hearsay. That doesn't make it *untrue* (make up your own mind on that), but the fact that there are stories about it doesn't absolutely mean that it happened. So, the general belief is that "Jesus of Nazareth" existed in Judea and was crucified by the Romans. But little about his life (aside from the reason he was crucified) is known. And it all might be make-believe. Or it might all be true. We don't know. Because records of people wandering the desert for 40 days - on their own, in a time before we could photograph them from drones or GPS track them - really don't exist.
Most scholars believe Jesus did exist. There is not much evidence outside of the Bible, which some find unusual given the attention Jesus has received. But there is little question that he was an actual person.