Jesus is historical because He came to earth and existed for a time in an earthly body. His life is documented both within and outside The Bible, more so than most historical persons of the ancient world.
He is the same historical person, but with differring details.
The Quest of the Historical Jesus was created in 1910.
The only information we have about the historical Jesus of Nazareth is to be found in the gospels. There is nothing in the contemporary Roman records or those of his Jewish contemporaries, such as Philo of Alexandria, that even attests that Jesus was a historical person. If you wish to know Jesus historically, you must rely on the information in the gospels alone. Yes. The Gospels are historical documents in themselves, but beyond them it is still possible. Jesus was referred to by a number of secular writers.
Yes it is a very historical fact so is his death , as the calender is after Jesus death.
There are texts from some non-Christian historians (and others), such as Josephus and Tacitus. For more details, check the Wikipedia article entitled "Historicity of Jesus". ---------- There is no contemporary evidence that Jesus was a real, historical person. Later authors, such as Josephus and Tacitus described the Christians who worshipped Jesus, but make no attempt to vouch for his historicity.
A:No. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth might have been a historical person but, if so, he did not perform miracles and is not divine. I take the Thomas Jefferson position on this.
The Bible.
Jesus of Nazareth.
None. It only offers hope for every person. Jesus is a historical character who did truly resurrect, which gives every one hope and the only logical solution to the meaning of life. There is more historical evidence that Jesus existed, than there is for Julius Caesar. He is the way the truth and the life and only in him we can find eternal satisfaction.
Decomposed in the ground somewhere. In Jesus' time, Everything was hand written. No sane person would want to go into depth about Jesus' childhood, because nothing incredibly notable happened.
Apart from the gospels, three of which have been shown to be reliant, directly or indirectly, on Mark's Gospel for their information on the life of Jesus, there is no historical source for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. If the author of Mark's Gospel had been misinformed or was in error about the existence of Jesus, then we have nothing.No contemporary Roman records mention Jesus. No scholar of the time mentions the strange period of darkness that occurred during his crucifixion, nor the corpses who rose up from their graves and walked into Jerusalem. Even Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary Jewish scholar and historian who attempted to record everything of interest to the Jews, never mentioned Jesus.The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus did mention Jesus, but he wrote at the end of the century and was not a contemporary of Jesus. He was relying on information provided to him by others, who themselves could not have been eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. This is not historical evidence.No historical source exists to prove that Jesus was a historical person. He may have been ... but then again, perhaps not.
There is no reliable historical record of children fathered by Jesus of Nazereth.