How long time does it take to know the truth about Jesus Christ thru history?

[ChristianSwede]

I want to know how long time does it takes to know the truth about Jesus Christ thru history?

Thank you and God bless you

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I want to know how long time does it takes to know the truth about Jesus Christ thru history?

Thank you and God bless you

You will have to elaborate on what you mean. I am unsure what you are asking.

 

[ChristianSwede]

You will have to elaborate on what you mean. I am unsure what you are asking.

Muslim historians have a different version of who Jesus Christ was then Christians. I want to study history to see what it says about that.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The sources closest to Jesus' time that mention Him are the Christian gospels. These were written within 40-80 years after his death, even according to secular scholars. They have a lot of verifiable historical data which has been proven accurate, such as Pilate and his title, High Priests etc.
Whether you consider them good historical sources usually depend on how willing you are to accept the miraculous, for if we excluded that, then no one would have doubted their historicity.

Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus in two places in his Antiquities.
The first references him obliquely as it is more about his brother James.

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

The second, the Testimonium Flavianum is more direct. This however was first mentioned by Eusebius in the fourth century. Modern scholars tend to think that there was an authentic passage mentioning Jesus' execution which well-meaning Christian scholars later expanded and thus garbled the original text. So Josephus probably mentioned it, but we have don't have the text in its original state:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Tacitus in his Annals mentions Jesus' execution by Pilate. This is likely authentic and independant verification of Jesus' execution as the very anti-christian tone of the work fits this passage well and it is unlikely that a Christian redactor would have left the work in such a manner:

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Generally most historians accept that Jesus was a first century prophet active in Galilee, baptised by John and executed by Crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. Thereafter there is much debate on what to consider historical or not in the gospel accounts.

Islamic views of Jesus are from much later, only being written in the 7th century and generally prefer a docetic view of the crucifixion, which does not fit any of the early sources which unanymously say He was executed.

 

[ChristianSwede]

The sources closest to Jesus' time that mention Him are the Christian gospels. These were written within 40-80 years after his death, even according to secular scholars. They have a lot of verifiable historical data which has been proven accurate, such as Pilate and his title, High Priests etc.
Whether you consider them good historical sources usually depend on how willing you are to accept the miraculous, for if we excluded that, then no one would have doubted their historicity.

Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus in two places in his Antiquities.
The first references him obliquely as it is more about his brother James.

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

The second, the Testimonium Flavianum is more direct. This however was first mentioned by Eusebius in the fourth century. Modern scholars tend to think that there was an authentic passage mentioning Jesus' execution which well-meaning Christian scholars later expanded and thus garbled the original text. So Josephus probably mentioned it, but we have don't have the text in its original state:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Tacitus in his Annals mentions Jesus' execution by Pilate. This is likely authentic and independant verification of Jesus' execution as the very anti-christian tone of the work fits this passage well and it is unlikely that a Christian redactor would have left the work in such a manner:

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Generally most historians accept that Jesus was a first century prophet active in Galilee, baptised by John and executed by Crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. Thereafter there is much debate on what to consider historical or not in the gospel accounts.

Islamic views of Jesus are from much later, only being written in the 7th century and generally prefer a docetic view of the crucifixion, which does not fit any of the early sources which unanymously say He was executed.

Ok how long would it take to study this history on my own? 3 years 5 years 7 years?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Ok how long would it take to study this history on my own? 3 years 5 years 7 years?

Depends how much time you devote to it and in how much depth. I really cannot give you a timescale.

 

[Norbert L]

I want to know how long time does it takes to know the truth about Jesus Christ thru history?

Thank you and God bless you

It takes reading and listening to study a topic. Such a thing varies from one person to another person. It can take you one day or it may take years and years. I believe one quick and very simple method of starting is to listen to those who know the subject. One of my personal favorites is from Dr. Peter Williams and Dr. Dr. Gary R. Habermas

 

[ChristianSwede]

Depends how much time you devote to it and in how much depth. I really cannot give you a timescale.

Ok thank you and God bless you

 

[ChristianSwede]

Depends how much time you devote to it and in how much depth. I really cannot give you a timescale.

Just enough to know that Jesus Christ really was what Christians believe him to be.