Why wasnt jesus documented in the history books?

Question

There were around 25 known historians around the time of jesus!

You would think a man who could create 'miracles' could walk on water, had all these followers and was brutally crucified...wouldve made it into the history books right??

Answer 1

Cuz hes not real?

Answer 2

Regarding history and historians, Jesus has the same quality as King Arthur or Robin Hood. All of them are basically legends, the texts about them have been created long after their alleged life spans. (Flavius Josephus was born years after the alleged death of Jesus.)

Answer 3

Jesus is in many history books.Where have you been?

Answer 4

Isn't the theory of Jesus proof enough for you? LOL

The only reason you say Jesus does not appear in history is you deny him completely.

Answer 5

Read the works of Flavius Josephus. He did not believe Jesus was the messiah, but he did document his life.

Answer 6

A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. Among the proponents of non-historicity have been Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Non-historicity was somewhat influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century. (The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity then were summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ (in 1944); they were based on a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.

Michael Grant stated (in 1977) that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods:

…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary

More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by authors such as George Albert Wells and Robert M. Price. Additionally, The Jesus Puzzle and The Jesus Mysteries are examples of popular works promoting the non-historical hypothesis. Nevertheless, non-historicity is still regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.

Answer 7

Who knows what writings were destroyed when Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D.

Answer 8

He was, only in a small text by ajocephus the jewish historian, who didnt believe him to be the messiah, but we therfore know he was existed and was crucified. Gods point was to cause many to believe by faith, so relatively few compared to the whole world saw the miracles, many probably did not believe that had only heard

Answer 9

Just like today, what makes news are the really bad things that happened, not ordinary good things, no matter how good it is.  You can't blame the jews and contemporary sources because they were too busy recording more"important things."  Jesus did not lead rebelions, did not have so many followers - that's why the crucified him because they thought they could get away with executing such a minor irritant.  As for crucifixion, it was dime a dozen during those times.  How could a man, born of humble parents and who was even born in a manger compete with other more noteworthy figures of the day.  Even if CNN was already there at the time of Jesus, they would not have bothered with a man whose face was so ordinary he could get lost in a crowd? Not unless this man set a donkey bomb in front of the Temple!  In fact, the only reason Josephus Flavius ever mentioned this Jesus was in the context of his followers who were already beginning to make their presence felt in the ancient world.  conventional wisdom at that time beleieved these Christians were just a passing fad, like so many other cults that existed at that time.  Not even the Essenes were featured by historians during their time yet we now know they existed.  All human movements do not prosper beyond their alloted 60 seconds of fame.  That the Jesus story is still believed by countless multitudes today, it was not because historians of that time made them more popular than they should.  Rather it tells of a once obscure phenomenon that soon captured the hearts of countless millions,  a rejected stone that became the cornerstone of a religion, the mustard seed that has now become a great tree.  You may not like this tree, but must you deny the fact that it came from such a small insignificant seed, after all nothing comes from nothing.  

Answer 10

Check out the 2 links below.

Answer 11

Wow, you really don't know anything about history do you?  You know even less about Jesus if that's possible.  Jesus was not famous in His time, He actually had few followers while he was alive and the crucifixion did not make big news when it happened.

Pontius Pilate was a Roman governor for many years and ruled over Jerusalem for over 10 years.  He was well known in his time and even knew personally the emperor yet to this day nobody knows what he looked like.  History wasn't as easy to record back then but you wouldn't know about history.

There were plenty of so called miracle workers and even other people claiming to be the Messaih.  Maybe you should wonder why only Jesus was accepted as the real one, but that would require you to actually learn something instead of just repeating a question others have already asked.

Answer 12

Jesus never existed. He was stolen from Mithra.

Answer 13

Surely you can tell the difference between lets say a news account and a story. lol Jesus is referred to in pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament. The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. In the pages of his works you can read about New Testament people like the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, King Herod, John the Baptist, even Jesus himself and his brother James. There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels. For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem.

Of course the New Testament documents are the most important historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth. No modern scholar thinks of the gospels as bald-faced lies, the result of a massive conspiracy. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

Answer 14

Hi, xcarlymeganx:

You are reading the wrong sources, my friend, but you did  mention Josephus, and atheists speculate it was a fraud, but Eusebius didn't.

He was the fourth-century curator of the Cesarean Christian Library as well as instructor. He proves Jesus is the Messiah, then quotes from many early Bishops who personally met with Christ's disciples.  You can read the 38,000 pages of Faith of our Fathers that tell of their beliefs.

And to counteract errors, God closed one part of the Bible until "the end of the days."  You can break that Bible code that proves to skeptics that Jesus is the Messiah at http://abiblecode.com

Ticlesh

Answer 15

The only reference to Jesus (outside of bible "scholorship") is a disputed one written by the historian Josephus. He wrote extensively re: the destruction of Jeruselem by the Romans. He mentions Jesus as the brother of James but not as the messiah. The Gnostic Gospels (Nag Hammadi manuscripts) also portray Jesus as human which is why they were banned by the church in the first place. Like the four preferred gospels, they too were written after the fact.