The historical Jesus is the figure of the first-century Jesus of Nazareth as

reconstructed by scholars using historical methods that include critical analysis

of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, and non-biblical sources
for the historical and cultural context in which he lived. Use of the term "the
historical Jesus" implies that the figure thus reconstructed may differ from that
presented in the teaching of the ecumenical councils ("the dogmatic Christ") and
in other Christian accounts ("the Christ of faith"). Though the reconstructions
vary, they generally include these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher who
attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of preaching, was
crucified by the Romans in Iudaea Province during the governorship of Pontius
Pilate. The historical Jesus was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and
apocalyptic expectations. He was baptized by John the Baptizer in the Jordan
River, and after John was executed, Jesus began his own movement in Galilee. He
preached the Kingdom of God, using pithy parables with startling imagery and was
renowned as a teacher and a healer. Many scholars credit the apocalyptic
declarations that the gospels attribute to him, while others portray his Kingdom
of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature. He sent his Apostles or
disciples, out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God. Later, he traveled to
Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple. It was the time
of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.
Apparently the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned
him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his
death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and the other apostles. It
developed into Early Christianity. Was Christ Real? You and everyone must decide
for themselves based on factual evidence presented here and elsewhere, and this
will give all a good picture for matching up the truth versus fiction. Now that
there are some who claim he could not of been or existed, that is a fact. But many
men once believed the earth flat. That is until it was proven to be round by
Columbus.
The manuscript evidence of the Classics and The New Testament in comparison.
Author When Written Earliest Copy Time Span Copies
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7
Tacitus 100 A.D. 1,100 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 20
Ceasar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs 10
Livy 59 B.C.-17A.D. --- --- 20
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs. 7
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs 8
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8
Lucretius Died 55 or 53 A.D. --- 1,100 yrs 2
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,500 yrs 9
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,400 yrs 5
New Testament 48-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25 yrs 4,000
The New Testament writers actually saw Him and lived with Him. Peter and John and
the others were contemporary eye witnesses, and not the "friends of friends," they
themselves saw Jesus heal lepers; they saw the nails pierce His hands; they put
their fingers into the hole in His side when He came back from the grave. Here are
Peter's words: "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to
you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of
His majesty. For when He received honour and glory from God the Father and the
voice was borne to Him by the Majestic Glory, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I
am well pleased,' we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with Him on
the holy mountain."

But have we just their word that they were there? Not at all! Hundreds of
references in writings of those days confirm that Peter and John, Paul and Luke
and the other writers of the New Testament history books were well-known figures
of the time. In his public defence before King Agrippa, Paul says: "the king knows
about these things, for this was not done in a corner." In his letter to the
Corinthians, he states that Jesus, after His Resurrection, "appeared to more than
five hundred brethren at one time most of whom are still alive," and all the
thousands of references to Paul in the letters of those days confirm that both the
eye-witnesses and the things they wrote about are true. The writings of men like
Clement, Barnabus, and Ignatius in the first century are filled with references to
the written records of the men who observed Jesus first-hand.

Even the next generation recorded their personal interviews with these eye-
witnesses of the Son of the Creator: Papias, born in 60 A.D., records what the old
apostle John told him about the writing of the gospels: "Mark, having become
Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered; though he did not
record in order that which was done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the
Lord nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter
who used to frame his teaching to meet the [immediate] wants of his hearers; and
not as making a connective narrative of the Lord's discourses.' So Mark committed
no error, as he wrote down some particulars just as he recalled them to mind. For
he took heed to one thing, to omit none of the facts that he heard, and to state
nothing falsely in his narrative of them."

Irenaeus, who lived until 203 A.D., tells how Polycarp, who died in 154 A.D.
"would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest of those who had seen
the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard
from them about the Lord and about His miracles and about His teaching, Polycarp,
as having received them from eyewitnesses of the life of the Word, would relate it
altogether in accordance with the Scriptures."
But, if "this was not done in a corner," surely even historians who were hostile
would make references to the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth! And so
they do non-Biblical, non-Christian historians like Porphyry, Celsus, Josephus,
Pliny, ect. These all confirm that the New Testament writers wrote truthfully
about the events they observed personally in Palestine in the first century.

Tacitus, the leading historian of Imperial Rome writes: "The author of that name
(Christian) was Christ who in the reign of Tiberius suffered punishment under his
Procurator Pontius Pilate," while the Jewish historian Josephus writes, "There was
about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man for he was a
doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.
He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was
Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had
condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him,
for he appeared to them alive again the third day."

The public nature of the record and the objective corroboration of the facts
recorded by Paul and Peter and the others is evidenced most plainly in the
statement of Tertullian, the juris-consult, familiar with the Roman archives.
"Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the
world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had
clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the
senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not
given the approval itself, rejected this proposal. Caesar held to this opinion,
threatening death against all the accusers of the Christians." No other ancient
history has better corroborated eye witness records! The only true argument that
remains, is that Jesus was just a legend or myth. There is little likelihood that
Jesus' claims were legends. There simply wasn't enough time for any legendary
development of the story to replace what really happened. For instance, we now
know that the Gospels were written 30 to 50 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.
More dramatically, we now date some of the early Christian creeds, proclaiming the
life, death and resurrection of Jesus, from 3 to 10 years after His crucifixion.
This would include Paul's letters to the Corinthians, Romans and Galatians.
Finally, if Jesus' claim of deity was a myth, the early Jewish opponents of
Christianity would surely have presented the fact that these claims never
happened. Unlike modern skeptics, the Jewish rabbis never denied that Jesus made
the claim that He was God. Instead, they called Him a liar, and tried Him for
blasphemy. Some critics say that Christianity is nearly a duplication of the Horus
myth. Though true Christianity is not, Catholicism borrowed it's trinity from
Pagan sources along with some holidays and worship days. This was a blend of both.
It was in a vain attempt to win pagan. Yet it instead took away the power of God.
(It is in the name of Yeshua or Jesus, he hold all saving and command power for
all things. Acts 4:12, Colossiaans 3:17, and Matthew 28:18) Now the trinity and
other changes reduced Catholicism to a mere powerless religion. It does not now
resemble the word of God at all. Here are the claims of the critics. The Egyptian
mythical Horus, god of light and goodness has many parallels to Jesus. (Leedom,
Massey) For some examples:

Horus and the Father as one

Horus, the Father seen in the Son
Horus, light of the world, represented by the symbolical eye, the sign of
salvation.
Horus served the way, the truth, the life by name and in person
Horus baptized with water by Anup (Jesus baptized with water by John in the Jordan
river)
Horus the Good Shepherd
Horus as the Lamb (Jesus as the Lamb)
Horus as the Lion (Jesus as the Lion)
Horus identified with the Tat Cross (Jesus with the cross)
The trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, Ra the Holy Spirit
Horus the avenger (Jesus who brings the sword)
Horus the afflicted one
Horus as life eternal
Twelve followers of Horus as Har-Khutti (Jesus' 12 disciples)

Yet historically, it was shown that Jesus or Yeshua was resurrected. And that his
Holy Spirit power inspired miracles, baptisms, and healings in his name. Again,
there is enough data on the subject of Christ to prove he lived, died, and was
resurrected. Nobody doubts Julius Caesar's birth, life, or writings. Yet for all
his fame, nobody was saved by his name. You can be safely saved by the Holy One.
It is not a religion that saves a person but God himself can and will do so. That
is, if you are willing and obedient to his word and will. He never forced anyone
to serve him. This is true love at it's best. Trust God and his word alone,
without additions or add ons. As that is all that is needed, to have his grace
added to your active faith in him.