What does the historical record say about Jesus?

[Cassandro]

Historical Premise:

Jesus was a real person who claimed to be the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies regarding a messiah for the Jewish people. His preaching offended the Jewish authorities, who caused him to be executed by the Romans. After his death, a small group of his followers spread tales of his resurrection. The Jewish authorities discredited these accounts, but non-Jews were receptive to this message. After his death, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and the Jewish people were disbanded throughout the Empire. Christianity eventually became the dominant religion of the Western World and remained so for almost two thousand years.

Assumptions:

Jesus sought to reform Judaism by establishing a new covenant with G-d, whom he often referred to as a Heavenly Father. When his preaching was rejected by Jewish authorities, he broadened his message to include non-Jews. He did not condemn the Jewish people, but promised to return in the future. They are still waiting for their messiah, but have not received any new prophesies about when and how this will occur.

Conclusions:

A blending of Roman, Christian and Jewish accounts of Jesus' life and times suggest that he came to redeem the Jews but ended up giving to all people the concept of the worth of the individual. This eventually resulted in the amazing achievements of Western civilization and the recognition of human rights around the world. For these alone, Jesus is the most important person in history.

When and if he will return is a matter of personal belief and speculation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Historical Premise:

Jesus was a real person who claimed to be the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies regarding a messiah for the Jewish people. His preaching offended the Jewish authorities, who caused him to be executed by the Romans. After his death, a small group of his followers spread tales of his resurrection. The Jewish authorities discredited these accounts, but non-Jews were receptive to this message. After his death, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and the Jewish people were disbanded throughout the Empire. Christianity eventually became the dominant religion of the Western World and remained so for almost two thousand years.

Assumptions:

Jesus sought to reform Judaism by establishing a new covenant with G-d, whom he often referred to as a Heavenly Father. When his preaching was rejected by Jewish authorities, he broadened his message to include non-Jews. He did not condemn the Jewish people, but promised to return in the future. They are still waiting for their messiah, but have not received any new prophesies about when and how this will occur.

Conclusions:

A blending of Roman, Christian and Jewish accounts of Jesus' life and times suggest that he came to redeem the Jews but ended up giving to all people the concept of the worth of the individual. This eventually resulted in the amazing achievements of Western civilization and the recognition of human rights around the world. For these alone, Jesus is the most important person in history.

When and if he will return is a matter of personal belief and speculation.

Define "historical record". Was the Bible intended as a historical record, or was it intended as a bunch of stories?

 

[Cougarbear]

Define "historical record". Was the Bible intended as a historical record, or was it intended as a bunch of stories?

Give us your opinion? Whatever you say will be your opinion and your opinion only. Just another story by haters of God.

 

[1srelluc]

Or, it just could just be that hard times flush the chumps, and I guess everybody was lookin' for answers back then too.



Just remember, you may be square with the Lord but the State of Mississippi is a bit more hard-nosed.

 

[Crepitus]

What does the historical record say about Jesus?​

I don't think there is one.

 

[Cougarbear]

Historical Premise:

Jesus was a real person who claimed to be the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies regarding a messiah for the Jewish people. His preaching offended the Jewish authorities, who caused him to be executed by the Romans. After his death, a small group of his followers spread tales of his resurrection. The Jewish authorities discredited these accounts, but non-Jews were receptive to this message. After his death, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and the Jewish people were disbanded throughout the Empire. Christianity eventually became the dominant religion of the Western World and remained so for almost two thousand years.

Assumptions:

Jesus sought to reform Judaism by establishing a new covenant with G-d, whom he often referred to as a Heavenly Father. When his preaching was rejected by Jewish authorities, he broadened his message to include non-Jews. He did not condemn the Jewish people, but promised to return in the future. They are still waiting for their messiah, but have not received any new prophesies about when and how this will occur.

Conclusions:

A blending of Roman, Christian and Jewish accounts of Jesus' life and times suggest that he came to redeem the Jews but ended up giving to all people the concept of the worth of the individual. This eventually resulted in the amazing achievements of Western civilization and the recognition of human rights around the world. For these alone, Jesus is the most important person in history.

When and if he will return is a matter of personal belief and speculation.

There were many Jews who also accepted Jesus Christ. Thousands attended his sermons and followed him. He also commanded his apostles and disciples to take his message to the rest of the world that they could reach. He had other sheep that he went to after his crucifixion and resurrection around the world.

Jesus did not come to redeem the Jews in Israel at the time. I think you are referring to the idea that he came to save them from the Romans in which was not his first mission. Most of the Jews thought that he was the Messiah that would destroy the Romans. But, that was not his purpose. He will destroy the enemies of Israel, which includes those adopted into Israel through Baptism, upon his second coming or mission.

 

[MarathonMike]

Is "The Shroud of Turin" proof of Jesus' existence? That's the only thing I can think of related to him that's part of the historical record.

 

[Cassandro]

Roman documents confirm the existence of Jesus.

 

[whitehall]

2,000 years ago would qualify as "pre-history".

 

[irosie91]

Define "historical record". Was the Bible intended as a historical record, or was it intended as a bunch of stories?

the OT is supposed to be an historical record. The NT is a justification for the power and
supremacy of the Roman Empire ----to the point that it got elevated to THE HOLY ROMAN
EMPIRE. There is an intriguing legend in which Jesus makes a magical trip to Rome.

 

[August West]

Or, it just could just be that hard times flush the chumps, and I guess everybody was lookin' for answers back then too.



Just remember, you may be square with the Lord but the State of Mississippi is a bit more hard-nosed.

Lincoln`s blunder was not letting those rotten states like Mississippi go their own way. They don`t like us and we (Americans) don`t like them.

 

[davebb]

Lincoln`s blunder was not letting those rotten states like Mississippi go their own way. They don`t like us and we (Americans) don`t like them.

You're un-American.

 

[Zebra]

Is "The Shroud of Turin" proof of Jesus' existence? That's the only thing I can think of related to him that's part of the historical record.

It is from a later date

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Define "historical record". Was the Bible intended as a historical record, or was it intended as a bunch of stories?

A good question...I think in the beginning..pun intended...it was meant as an origin story that morphs into a genealogy---a breeder's book, in effect.

From Joshua on, history...with a nod to prophetic inevitability.

Much of the early Old Testament was transcribed from oral traditions, as the Jews were not literate until after the Babylonian enslavement.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Give us your opinion? Whatever you say will be your opinion and your opinion only. Just another story by haters of God.

Well..it has more veracity than a chronicle dictated to a con man from a top-hat...IMO.

Joseph Smith’s Rock in Hat Translation of the Book of Mormon - wasmormon.org

Traditionally, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon or LDS Church) depicts Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon in a manner that implies a reverent, direct reading of ancient golden plates. Today, church leaders are shifting this narrative to reflect the more...

wasmormon.org

Traditionally, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon or LDS Church) depicts Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon in a manner that implies a reverent, direct reading of ancient golden plates. Today, church leaders are shifting this narrative to reflect the more historically accurate manner of translation. In reality, Joseph Smith barely used the Gold Plates and the Urim and Thummim to translate, rather he placed his own brown rock he called a seer stone, or peep stone, into his upturned stovepipe hat, buried his face in the hat (in order to block out ambient light), presumably at his rock, and dictated the words of the book to his scribe. This shows Joseph’s use of the occult and folk magic in the church’s foundation. It also highlights the deceitfulness of the narrative, which has pushed a more miraculous manner of translation.

Nearly all the paintings and teaching materials showcase Joseph sitting at a table, often with the plates in front of him, covered or partially exposed, while he appeared to read or dictate to a scribe in a straightforward manner. Some include the Urim and Thummim, but most don’t even include the scriptural interpreters. This depiction, found in early to mid-20th-century art and church literature, aligns with a more conventional image of translation, akin to reading from an open book or scroll. The church is stuck between a rock (or seer stone) and a hard place, they can perpetuate the misleading and scriptural account of translation, or they can admit the church’s teachings have been misleading and come clean. It seems they have opted for the more confusing option of coming clean and adjusting the narrative but skipping the step where they admit the church’s teachings have misled members.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Historical Premise:

Jesus was a real person who claimed to be the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies regarding a messiah for the Jewish people. His preaching offended the Jewish authorities, who caused him to be executed by the Romans. After his death, a small group of his followers spread tales of his resurrection. The Jewish authorities discredited these accounts, but non-Jews were receptive to this message. After his death, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and the Jewish people were disbanded throughout the Empire. Christianity eventually became the dominant religion of the Western World and remained so for almost two thousand years.

Assumptions:

Jesus sought to reform Judaism by establishing a new covenant with G-d, whom he often referred to as a Heavenly Father. When his preaching was rejected by Jewish authorities, he broadened his message to include non-Jews. He did not condemn the Jewish people, but promised to return in the future. They are still waiting for their messiah, but have not received any new prophesies about when and how this will occur.

Conclusions:

A blending of Roman, Christian and Jewish accounts of Jesus' life and times suggest that he came to redeem the Jews but ended up giving to all people the concept of the worth of the individual. This eventually resulted in the amazing achievements of Western civilization and the recognition of human rights around the world. For these alone, Jesus is the most important person in history.

When and if he will return is a matter of personal belief and speculation.

Yes, there is objective historical evidence that supports the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a real person in the 1st century CE, although it's important to clarify the limits of this evidence:

---

1.​

Several ancient writers mention Jesus, often indirectly, and they are considered important because they were not followers of Jesus:

A Roman historian, in Annals (written ~116 CE), mentions:

“Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of... Pontius Pilatus.”

This is significant as it confirms that Jesus was executed under Pontius Pilate, which aligns with the New Testament timeline.

A Jewish historian, in Antiquities of the Jews (~93 CE), refers to:

“...Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man...”
“...He was the Christ... He appeared to them alive again the third day...”

This passage (called the Testimonium Flavianum) is controversial—scholars widely agree it was later modified by Christian scribes. However, most scholars believe it contains an original core referring to Jesus as a historical person.

A Roman governor, in a letter to Emperor Trajan (~112 CE), refers to early Christians who worshiped Christ “as to a god,” suggesting that the movement was already widespread and that Christ was a known figure.

---

2.​

Though not "objective" in the modern sense, the Gospels and Paul's letters are ancient texts that reflect beliefs about Jesus within a few decades of his death.

• Paul’s letters, written ~20–30 years after Jesus’ death, mention Jesus repeatedly, including details like the crucifixion, being from David’s line, and having brothers (e.g., James).
• These letters predate the Gospels and are generally regarded by historians as genuine.

---

3.​

While the miraculous claims about Jesus (resurrection, divinity, etc.) fall into theological belief, the majority of historians (secular and religious) agree on these minimal historical facts:

• Jesus existed as a Jewish preacher in 1st-century Judea.
• He was baptized by John the Baptist.
• He was crucified under Pontius Pilate (~30 CE).
• He had followers who believed he rose from the dead and spread his teachings.

Historians like Bart Ehrman (agnostic), E.P. Sanders, and Maurice Casey (all secular or critical scholars) affirm Jesus’ existence.

---

Fringe View: “Mythicism”​

Some claim Jesus was a purely mythological figure. This view is held by a small minority of scholars and is not considered mainstream in historical scholarship. Critics argue it overlooks the multiple independent sources and cultural context.

---

Conclusion​

Yes, there is objective historical evidence—from Roman and Jewish sources and early Christian writings—that Jesus of Nazareth existed. While not every detail of the Gospel accounts can be historically verified, his existence as a historical figure is supported by mainstream scholarship.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Is "The Shroud of Turin" proof of Jesus' existence? That's the only thing I can think of related to him that's part of the historical record.

.

And Eucharistic Miracles, which are tested to be of the same blood type as the blood on the Shroud.




.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A good question...I think in the beginning..pun intended...it was meant as an origin story that morphs into a genealogy---a breeder's book, in effect.

From Joshua on, history...with a nod to prophetic inevitability.

Much of the early Old Testament was transcribed from oral traditions, as the Jews were not literate until after the Babylonian enslavement.

So, basically, a bunch of stories.

 

[Cougarbear]

Well..it has more veracity than a chronicle dictated to a con man from a top-hat...IMO.

Joseph Smith’s Rock in Hat Translation of the Book of Mormon - wasmormon.org

Traditionally, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon or LDS Church) depicts Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon in a manner that implies a reverent, direct reading of ancient golden plates. Today, church leaders are shifting this narrative to reflect the more...

wasmormon.org

Traditionally, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon or LDS Church) depicts Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon in a manner that implies a reverent, direct reading of ancient golden plates. Today, church leaders are shifting this narrative to reflect the more historically accurate manner of translation. In reality, Joseph Smith barely used the Gold Plates and the Urim and Thummim to translate, rather he placed his own brown rock he called a seer stone, or peep stone, into his upturned stovepipe hat, buried his face in the hat (in order to block out ambient light), presumably at his rock, and dictated the words of the book to his scribe. This shows Joseph’s use of the occult and folk magic in the church’s foundation. It also highlights the deceitfulness of the narrative, which has pushed a more miraculous manner of translation.

Nearly all the paintings and teaching materials showcase Joseph sitting at a table, often with the plates in front of him, covered or partially exposed, while he appeared to read or dictate to a scribe in a straightforward manner. Some include the Urim and Thummim, but most don’t even include the scriptural interpreters. This depiction, found in early to mid-20th-century art and church literature, aligns with a more conventional image of translation, akin to reading from an open book or scroll. The church is stuck between a rock (or seer stone) and a hard place, they can perpetuate the misleading and scriptural account of translation, or they can admit the church’s teachings have been misleading and come clean. It seems they have opted for the more confusing option of coming clean and adjusting the narrative but skipping the step where they admit the church’s teachings have misled members.

There are many articles from the opposite thinking from which you get your normalcy bias from. But, this one is one I think you would enjoy: - Joseph the Seer—or Why Did He Translate With a Rock in His Hat? | FAIR

"Sarah Iles Johnston, professor of Greek and Latin at Ohio State University explains: The modern scholarly quest to establish a division between magic and religion does have some roots in antiquity, insofar as both ancient and modern discussions hinge on terminology: what one chooses to call any particular activity (and, it follows, who is doing the choosing) determines whether the activity is understood as acceptable or discredited, pious or blasphemous, religion or magic. In antiquity, magic (a term that I use as a shorthand way of referring to a variety of ancient Mediterranean words) almost always referred to someone else’s religious practices; it was a term that distanced those practices from the norm–that is, from one’s own practices, which constituted religion. Stated simply, “what I do is religion, what you do is magic.” - Joseph the Seer—or Why Did He Translate With a Rock in His Hat? | FAIR

This is the ending of the article and pretty much raps up the entire article for your purpose. But, the history involved would be a good read for you.

"As the early saints transitioned from a collection of believers into a formal religion, they began to see themselves within the Great Tradition. As with early Christianity, the stories they told of themselves naturally were recast to distance themselves from their Little Tradition heritage and provide an acceptable Great Tradition history. One of the obvious places to see this process in action is with the tools of the translation. We all know that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon—except he didn’t. The Book of Mormon mentions interpreters, but not the Urim and Thummim. It was the Book of Mormon interpreters which were given to Joseph with the plates. When Moroni took back the interpreters after the loss of the 116 manuscript pages, Joseph completed the translation with one of his seer stones. Until after the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Urim and Thummim belonged to the Bible and the Bible only.51 The Urim and Thummim became part of the story when it was presented within and to the Great Tradition. Eventually, even Joseph Smith used Urim and Thummim indiscriminately as labels generically representing either the Book of Mormon interpreters or the seer stone used during translation.52

The Urim and Thummim were traditionally divinatory rocks, but most importantly, they were biblically acceptable divinatory rocks.53 From the Great Tradition perspective, their presence in the Bible made them religion, not magic. I suspect that the two interpreters made a natural comparison to the two stones, one Urim and one Thummim, from the Bible. Calling the biblical divinatory tools “rocks” instead of Urim and Thummim seems to demean them. The reverse process, calling the interpreters and seer stones Urim and Thummim, places them in a more appropriate religious category where they belong because of the sacred use to which they were put in translating the Book of Mormon.

This recasting of history was a story the Saints told themselves as much as what they presented to the world. I doubt that there was any conscious attempt to reconcile their history with Great Tradition expectations, let alone any attempt at deception. It was simply the natural response to their self-definition as a religion rather than a folk belief. It was a story told in a way that they subliminally knew was appropriate for a Great Tradition religion. The new history did not deny the past or alter the facts, but recolored them with a new vocabulary.54

Why, then, are we so surprised to learn that Joseph translated with a rock in his hat? That is a Little Tradition description and we are now firmly in the Great Tradition. We share the Great Tradition antipathy to those elements of the Little Tradition. Time has made the gap even greater than it was in Joseph’s day. Why do we have the two pictures with which we began? The more accurate, but more uncomfortable picture is a Little Tradition image. The other is a Great Tradition image. We have both because we can tell the story from two different perspectives.

Regardless of the perspective from which we tell the story, the essential fact of the translation is unchanged. How was the Book of Mormon translated? As Joseph continually insisted, the only real answer, from any perspective, is that it was translated by the gift and power of God."

This is a rather long read but should be helpful for you. If you read this in its entirety, then I know you are serious. If you do not, then you are wasting my time.