and those have been proven as charlatan acts. lies in other words. googling is easy.
if it has been documented that the savior of the world came to earth dont you think it would be covered by every single historian during the time?
even in the bible the gospel writers can't agree on the same story they tell.
Did Jesus exist?
There is no doubt that the vast majority of historians and scholars have concluded that Jesus did indeed exist. For example, I am not aware of any on my list who think otherwise. here are some quotes:
Bart Ehrman, Youtube interview
"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period. ….. We have one author who actually knew Jesus' relatives and knew his disciples - Paul."
The late Michael Grant:
"[That Jesus was a myth] has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars .... no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus."
Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University:
"some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was a.ssassinated. ….. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world."
James H. Charlesworth, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature. Princeton University:
"Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." (Jesus Within Judaism)
"No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings" (Jesus and Archaeology, 2005)
Jeffery Jay Lowder:
"I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed."
"Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. Archaeology, remarkable literary discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and progress in reassessing the social, economic, and political setting of first-century Palestine have been major factors. .... the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding"
"The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. .... the evidence dovetails together with remarkable consistency, as I and many others have shown in works of very detailed historical scholarship. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did, and most agree that he did and said a significant amount at least of what the four gospels say he did and said."
Professor Robert van Voorst ("Jesus Outside the New Testament", p14, 16)
"The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question. …. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."
So why are the scholars so sure? Van Voorst gives seven reasons, of which these four are probably the clearest:
The gospels are too early for invention (too many people would have remembered the real facts), and their accurate references to Palestinian geography would not have been possible if the stories were invented later.
No early opponents of Christianity, whether pagan or Jew, ever denied that Jesus truly lived, or even questioned it.
Scholars are generally agreed that references to Jesus in the Roman historian Tacitus (early second century) and the Jewish historian Josephus (late first century) are both genuine, though some parts of Josephus appear to be later additions.
Proponents of the mythical Jesus view have not been able to offer any credible hypothesis that explains the stories of Jesus and the birth of Christianity.
I am only aware of one recognised scholar who concludes otherwise (Robert Price) and one other historian yet to be tested by peer review (Richard Carrier).
It should be noted that to historians, the Bible is not one book, but a collection of documents that are better attested (in terms of the accuracy of the text and the short gap (in historical terms) between the events and the writing. And the viewpoint of the writers is not a problem to historians as almost all ancient documents had a political, philosophical or religious viewpoint, and they are used to taking account of this.
John A.T. Robinson: "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world."
Helmut Koester: "Classical authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript; if there are half a dozen or more, one can speak of a rather advantageous situation for reconstructing the text. But there are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek... The only surviving manuscripts of classical authors often come from the Middle Ages, but the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end of II CE; it is therefore separated by only a century or so from the time at which the autographs were written. Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors."
So we there is a strong scholarly consensus that Jesus existed and we can know significant detail about his life.
Michael Grant (summing up the value of the gospels as evidence):
"In cumulation, these authentic points and others add up to a coherent general impression of Jesus .... the impression remains plausible not only because the personality that emerges is so forceful and individual and satisfying but because it conflicts in a number of ways with what one might have expected to appear in productions of the Church after Jesus' death. .... The consistency, therefore, of the tradition in their [the Gospels'] pages suggests that the picture they present is largely authentic. By such methods information about Jesus CAN be derived from the Gospels."
"Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism."
an excerpt from something i found