Did Jesus really exist?
What does recorded history say about Jesus?
Do the Christian Gospels have credibility?
Available facts about Jesus.



This article evaluates information from both ancient non-religious (secular) and Christian sources to determine how likely Jesus: did live and die as a human being; did rise from the dead; was God incarnate (God in human form).

To some extent the article also looks beyond the written word for evidence. That includes related events still happening in the Christian Church today. (Please trust me on that one, at this stage.)

The key subject of this article, “Evidence of Jesus”, is quite a hot topic on the internet. It is of great interest to both Christian and atheist writers. Both sides approach their tasks with great energy, obviously with opposing views. I am a committed Christian but I have tried to provide an objective evidence-based approach in this article. The facts available that I refer to do seem to speak for themselves, and reasonably well in my opinion. Remember too, as I have so often written on this website, I was a pretty good atheist in my day! 

(And I did make a living in the past from my investigative and analytical skills. In fact, I am from a senior auditing background, although the majority of my advisory team are Christian clergy. To glimpse the ‘who’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ of this website please click here.).

Now, if all this “Jesus stuff” seems a bit too much for you … say if you are even struggling with the possible existence of God … please begin by reading the article, “Can I really believe in God?”. Trust me on this one: if you are ready to believe, then you can!

A warning here though! This article is the biggest on this website. But if you want to know why the Christian experts (theologians) believe it all to be true, then please read on. But take your time please. Yes it’s big, but it ‘covers a lot of ground”.


So, let’s firstly see what both the old non-religious (secular) sources had to say about Jesus.

I need to firstly explain here about ‘credibility’, in reference to secular (non-religious) historical records. And I am referring to the ancient records that Christian theologians (qualified Christian experts) do actually rely on today to ‘support’ the likelihood of the Bible’s account of Jesus.

Now firstly, in the ideal world of 21st century practises, what evidence would be expected to prove that Jesus really did exist in history? Well, we would require a ‘first hand’ account of Jesus’ life written by a credible non Christian. This person would be an eye witness. And then we would also need to have other credible witnesses ‘backing up’ what had been recorded through ‘sworn’ statements. Any statements on events ‘written about’, and not personally witnessed, would be referenced to credible and verifiable sources.

Did all of this occur to support Biblical statements about the life and times of Jesus? No, of course not. And the reason is simple! Historians of that era just did not operate like they do these days. However, many atheist writers who challenge Jesus’ historical existence begin their cases with such demands. You know, if that level of credibility was demanded in relation to ‘substantiating’ our general knowledge of all ancient history, then a large amount of it would just ‘go down the gurgler’. No doubt about that!

2.1    Checking the credibility of records?

Modern-day Christian scholars (and secular scholars for that matter), evaluating information on Jesus and Christianity from that era, do in fact use ‘internationally accepted’ methods to validate these old documents as best as they can be. As examples:

  • How many copies of these documents are now in existence;
  • When were the copies produced and when was the ‘original’ document written;
  • How many copies are identical, or if not identical how serious are their differences.

Other factors can also be applied during analysis. For example, can archeology be used to verify statements made within documents.

What I am saying here is that Christian scholars do use the SAME credible ‘methods’ of assessing documents that secular scholars use. Their research must be as exacting as it can be. If it is not, then they will eventually be challenged by their own ‘peers’; their fellow scholars.

But having said all that, because of past time, it is obvious that relying on ancient documents can never be a totally exact science! The fact is that original documents are often lost with that passing of time. Quite often, modern scholars and historians need rely on later documents that relay information that has been sourced from original documents that are now lost.

2.2    Credible records that are available

Firstly, I do agree with present day atheist writers, in that there are no non-Christian eye witness accounts of Jesus’ actual existence. I mean available from Jesus’ own time. But, as I have already said, this is a common result when researching ancient history.

Josephus’ ancient records

The first existing record, was written in the late first century AD (i.e. the same century during which Jesus lived). It came from the Jewish scholar and historian, Flavius Josephus. Now Josephus’ writing has received more analysis than most other ancient historians. And this is clearly because of his comments about Jesus and Christianity. Mind you, it is accepted by all that he did occasionally exaggerate his information on secular (non-religious) history … that is when it ‘suited his agenda’. And that has certainly been taken into account, when studying his actual records of early Christianity’s history.

None-the-less there is a general thanks for the insight into ancient Roman and Jewish history that he did provide (not just Christian details). We have a much better knowledge of how the ancient Roman and Jewish nations ‘ticked along’ because of his writing. Bear in mind too, as far as Jesus was concerned, Josephus would have had no hidden agendas, i.e. it is considered that he generally ‘said it as he saw it’. Most modern scholars, whether Christian or secular, consider that the basis of Josephus’ writing was accessed at that time from reliable sources of information. I mean that he personally had access to.

The ‘history’ within Josephus’ records

Josephus’ writing indicates that, as a minimum, Jesus ‘did’ exist. His writings include details of Jesus’ condemnation to death by the Roman governor of Israel, Pontius Pilate. And he included details of Jesus’ following crucifixion in his writing. Josephus also mentions in another statement that James, “the brother of the so-called Christ” had also been condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin. Josephus also wrote of the life and execution of John the Baptist, although he did not connect him with Jesus in any way. All credible secular scholars, in modern times, accept these events as ‘history’, just as Christian scholars do.

Bear in mind that Christian scholars, from the sixteenth century onwards, have suspected that a particular phrase was added to Josephus’ work some time after he wrote it. And it was done to exaggerate original details of Jesus during re-writes of his works. (Now, there were no photocopiers or scanners, let alone printing presses in those days. So old crumbling documents had to be copied by hand for future history.)

Modern day atheist writers rightly highlight the suspect nature of the wording that I am referring to here. BUT in truth they are just a little late with their findings. ‘Making a noise’ about statements that were already considered unacceptable by Christian experts doesn’t really help their case.

Other ancient records available

The next valuable writing, making mention of Jesus, comes to us from the early second century. Cornelius Tacticus, a Roman historian, made mention of the founder of Christianity (i.e. Jesus Christ), his execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and of the Christian religion itself. Present day Christian scholars consider it probable that Tacticus also used earlier ‘official records’, that he located, as a basis for his writing.

Written works from others around that time, such as Pliny the Younger and Lucian of Samosata, also refer to the Christians and their religion. It is interesting that those early writings verify that Christians of the first century did actually worship Jesus. That is the practising Christians considered him to be divine (i.e. he had been God ‘in the flesh’). If you’d like to understand what the Bible stated about this, please read the article, “Jesus as God“.


Now, the New Testament (the Jesus bits of the Bible) is accepted by Christian scholars as the best source of information on Jesus and the early Christian Church. The scholars also believe that a very good trail of information, existing from the early Christians, supports the New Testament’s contents. There are literally thousands of copies and fragments of relevant documents. They date from the mid first century until 1,200 AD and verify that nothing of importance has been altered.

3.1    The Gospels

There are four Gospels in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. (The word “Gospel” is usually interpreted to mean “good news”.) These are the “canonical gospels”. Now, many other gospels, or “non canonical gospels”, became available for inclusion. But the four chosen were all in sync with each other, and clearly fitted with and supported the rest of the New Testament. If you wish, you can research those other gospels to see why they were rejected. I can assure you that there is nothing sinister about it. Some were, for example, based on ‘gnostic’ thought. That added a level of religious complexity that was just downright unnecessary. It was ‘way off course’! And it did not even sit well with the Christian Old Testament (some of which is also accepted by the Jewish religion).

Synoptic Gospels

Three of the four Gospels – Matthew, Mark and Luke – are grouped together because of their similar content and style. They are known as the “Synoptic Gospels”. The term relates to the parallels that can be viewed within them. Although not considered as certain, it is thought that “Mark” was the first Gospel produced and it was the basis of the other two Synoptic Gospels. Even the most cautious Christian scholars would not date Mark beyond 100 AD. However, it was probably written in the sixties of the first century, only thirty odd years after Jesus’ death. Some scholars have even justified that it could have been written much earlier.

It is therefore ‘possible’ that some of Jesus’ apostles were actually still alive at the time that the Gospels were written. That is, it was not impossible for them to have played a role in writing them. It has also been theorised that all the gospels (even some of the non canonical ones) may have relied on other written sources of information. For example from records based on Jesus’ ‘sayings’. Such theories are based on comparisons between the ‘canonical’ and ‘non canonical’ gospels.

The Synoptic Gospels discuss a little of Jesus’ early life, and provide us with a good understanding of his ministry. Bear in mind that their writers were less interested in exact historical detail, than they were in giving us the ability to actually ‘interpret’ Jesus through his parables, his miracles and speeches. This was because many of those indicated his divinity. That is, he was God in human form. The writers were just highlighting key circumstances that they did know to be true.

Now again, atheist writers love to jump on these small differences within the gospels. But those Biblical writers just plain didn’t work to modern day rules. And their small deviations weren’t viewed as a problem amongst them at all.

Gospel of John

The “Gospel of John” on the other hand is quite different from the Synoptic Gospels. Although without doubt it is complementary to them. By and large it supports their content. It was written after the Synoptic Gospels, probably in the late first century or maybe even in the early second century. Certainly the Gospel of John can be described as elegant and sophisticated when comparing it to the Synoptic Gospels. You just have to read its opening verses to get a taste of its ‘flavour’. Its wording would have appealed more to Greeks, at that time, who were familiar with ‘Hellenistic’ philosophy.

So, the Gospel of John was probably aimed at a different audience than that of the Synoptic Gospels. However, again there is no doubt that it is very valuable for its theological input. That is because it gets to the REAL spiritual ‘nitty gritty’ of Christianity. 

The Gospel of John also includes more complicated stories than those contained in the Synoptic Gospels. Like Paul’s Epistles (his letters), also in the Bible, the Gospel of John makes it very clear that ‘Jesus is God’. That is, it is stated much more clearly than in the Synoptic Gospels. As mentioned earlier, I have presented more detail on this in the article, “Jesus as God”.

A last look at the Gospels

Just a ‘final word’ on the Gospels. Again, I report that atheist writers highlight the minor differences, e.g. dates of events etc, between the Gospels to challenge their overall credibility. However, as I have explained, this way of writing, within the Gospels, arose from my earlier statement that the writers wanted to clearly highlight Jesus’ true nature. As such, they highlighted the human, super-human and even supernatural nature of Jesus, rather than present exact historical accuracy. But actually, it adds more evidence to its genuine truth, rather than the reverse. 

And let’s face it, the Gospel writers certainly knew what had been written previously by others, so differences were almost certainly ‘deliberate’. And although they altered fine details, to support their own interpretations of Jesus’ nature for example, they did not threaten the underlying historical accuracy of their works. In fact their historic content, by virtue of its relevance, helps scholars to verify and/or date recorded events within reasonable limits.

(So, atheist websites, I am sorry again.)

3.2    Acts of the Apostles

The Book of  “Acts of the Apostles” performs another important role within the Bible’s New Testament. It is believed to have been written or put together by the author of the Gospel of Luke. Interestingly, about a third of it is written in the ‘first person’, apparently as a diary of someone who travelled with St Paul on his journeys. Scholars believe that other parts of it were accessed from either ‘spoken’ or ‘written’ sources associated with St Peter in Jerusalem.

No matter how the segments were put together by the author, Christian experts recognise the finished product definitely has a clear plan and purpose running through it. Again, it compliments and supports other areas of the New Testament. It all just ‘comes up’ as so real!  And as acceptable history.

Its historical importance

‘Acts’ is a very important document for a number of reasons. First and foremost it is an historical record of the early Christian church. That is, the journeys and actions of the Apostles, particularly Peter and Paul. It is believed to have been written before the year 65 AD, because of what it simply does not say. Despite including some minor historical information, it does not include important events that occurred after 65 AD: the deaths of Peter and Paul, the Jewish war, the fall of Jerusalem. So it was clearly written no later than thirty years after Jesus’ death.

The content of Acts begins where the Gospels end. It relays the Apostles ‘witnessing’ about Jesus, i.e. after the reported and foretold arrival of the Holy Spirit (on the day of Pentecost).

Clear statements about the future

Acts makes clear, bold statements about what was to follow:

  • The Gospel belongs to the whole world;
  • God led Jewish-born men to know that national boundaries of their faith should be broken down;
  • There would be difficulty in getting the message out;
  • But by the power of the Holy Spirit it would be achieved.

Acts also offers very important ‘threads’ that connect the contents of the individual ‘Epistles of Paul’ (that are discussed next). It is presumed to have been written after the Epistles of Paul. But look, it is clear from small differences between them, that the writer has not read the Epistles. Despite these differences, there are many other instances of fine detail, that absolutely agree, between the two. The two documents are definitely ‘in sync’. And that is fascinating to me! It makes it probable that they are both parts of the whole ‘real deal’.

Now your average atheist writer hasn’t got a ‘hope in hades’ of picking up this sort of stuff. The real evidence is just plain lost to them, because they can only concentrate on looking for the little negatives!

The historical details of Rome and Palestine, that Acts includes, also have some reassuring parallels with the historian Josephus’ writing. That is again a serious and positive finding.

3.3    The Epistles of Paul

Now, epistles (letters) from writers, other than Paul, are also included in the Bible. But I have made the decision here to refer only to Paul’s letters. I’ve done so because they provide us with, what I think is, the best understanding of first century Christianity and its theology. Including high quality explanations of the actual beliefs, practises and events of the early Church.

Genuine record of early Christianity

The first of the letters of Paul were almost certainly written in the forties or fifties of the first century. It has been calculated by theologians, from other historical events mentioned in the Gospels, that Jesus died in the early to mid thirties of the first century. The ‘conversion’ of Paul (i.e. his documented meeting with the ‘resurrected’ Jesus) has been timed to the late thirties of the first century.

Although Paul writes with authority about Jesus, after his death and resurrection, he does not give us a great deal of information about the historical ‘human’ Jesus. It is not that he would not have known about the human Jesus, because for example he relays details about his personality. It can be assumed that he would have personally ‘preached’ details of the human Jesus often enough to his followers. But Paul probably did not feel the need to repeat these details in his letters.

And although Paul states that he learnt about the risen Lord (Jesus after his ascension to Heaven) from the supernatural Jesus at his ‘conversion’, he would have learnt much about the human Jesus from Jesus’ own Apostles. Paul gave us details of having met both Peter and Jesus’ brother, James on one occasion. Peter also visited Paul on another occasion. So there were opportunities for Paul to learn about the human Jesus from those who had lots of first hand knowledge about him.

Another good reason to trust Paul’s information

It is also certain that he had learnt much about the human Jesus, in earlier years, during the time that he actively ‘persecuted’ the early Christians. YES, Paul was actually an enemy of Christians before the ‘risen’ Jesus ‘confronted’ him and converted him in no uncertain manner. This certainly made Paul’s important input to Christianity all the more impressive.

We can therefore accept that Paul knew far more about the human Jesus than we can gather from his epistles. Clearly, the most useful and credible sources of information on the human Jesus are the Gospels.

Epistles in sync with 21st century church ‘spiritual events’

In my eyes though, the Epistles of Paul really gain credibility by mentioning the Spirit of God at work within the ancient Church. That included the use of spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit (by Church members) empowered by Jesus and the Father. Now I can absolutely vouch for the fact that this supernatural stuff still occurs in these modern times of ours. Again, absolutely! And wow … I can guess how that might look to you, if you’ve never been involved there! Yes, as that ex atheist that I was, it ‘rocked my socks’ at the time.

Please read the articles, “God’s presence in the Church” and “Experiencing the Holy Spirit” to better understand the details. BUT please also check out the article, “Is this Spirit stuff real?” As the name implies, it describes how I put it to the test for myself (as the auditor that I was at the time). It includes my analysis and final evaluation on the subject.

Paul’s theology still makes sense

Paul was also, in effect, the first to clearly explain Christian theology in its own right. Essential examples are: Jesus died to save us; faith in him as our ‘redeemer’ does actually save us; he was raised from the dead; Jesus is God.

On the one hand, Peter and the other Apostles in Jerusalem had little need to present any theology to their followers. They had Jewish disciples. And, as practising Jews, they understood that their message of the resurrected Jesus and his ‘saving grace‘ provided an extension to the Jewish religion.

Paul, on the other hand, led the thrust of bringing Christianity to the rest of the world; to the completely uninitiated, i.e. the so-called, “Gentiles”. Yes, Paul HAD to clarify ‘Christology’, in his own mind, so that he could explain it to those who may have had little knowledge of even the Jewish religion.


Well, after all that info that I have offered in this article, let’s now have a look at the ‘big picture’. Firstly, I’m pretty sure we can accept the evidence that has made it into the 21st century. That is evidence that shows us that Jesus was the ‘real deal’.

4.1    The documented evidence

Within accepted ‘worldwide standards’, used to analyse documents from ancient times, we have been given what is considered to be good quality evidence from non-religious sources.

This applies particularly to the records of Josephus and Tacticus. They made it pretty clear that Jesus did live ‘within history’ and indeed died in the way that the Christian Bible explains it. Details of many non Christian events are accepted in history from evidence with much less credibility.

The contents of the New Testament fundamentally do agree with, and support, each other. There are also many parallels between Christian and non-religious records, and a lack of any meaningful conflict between them as well. And look, that is significant when you do look at the facts.

The New Testament is indeed a very complex collection of writings. The different writing styles, evident within it, make it very clear that quite a number of authors were involved with its documents. When studied, it is also clear that these writings are ‘beautifully’ interwoven and support each other. The consistency of essential themes is again beyond question. Again, it all really impresses old auditor me!

4.2    The ‘game changer’ concept

The ‘concept’ of God the Father (i.e. similar in character to the Jewish Yahweh and Islamic Allah) is acceptable within the three monotheist religions.

But, when the concept of Jesus is fully understood a HUGE ‘enrichment’ happens. The term “grace” (remember the beautiful old hymn “Amazing Grace” that is so often sung at funerals) sits at the heart of this enrichment. It’s all about love, and I’ll get to that shortly.

How could the themes carried through the New Testament just be the work of fraudsters, as atheist writers tell us? Really! I admit that, as a Christian, it might appear difficult for me to be truly objective. But bear in mind that as a long practising Christian, and ‘experienced professional analyst‘, the sheer complexity of the overall works has become all the more clear to me.

The end result of accepted Christian writings is the basis of a ‘religion of love’: love of God and love of fellow humans. Indeed, if only the darkness could understand the light that shines within it. [see John 1:5] What an ideal world we would have! For a better understanding of Christianity itself, its ‘rules’ of love and the term “grace”, please read the article “Christianity explained”.

4.3    Why we should believe Jesus’ followers?

Without doubt though, the ‘most difficult bit for beginners’ is to accept the truth of Jesus’ divinity, i.e. Jesus arose from the dead; Jesus is God! As I have already stated, the inclusion of this ‘belief’ within early Christianity is indicated even in evidence from ancient non Christian sources. And of course the New Testament insists upon it. Even the Old Testament explained it ‘was to be’ hundreds of years before Jesus’ birth. But, it is not easy for the modern mind to accept. I fully understand this! I had real trouble with it myself, when struggling to initially gain faith over thirty years ago. That is before ‘putting in’ all that study of mine.

Firstly, we need to ask ourselves why on earth would the Apostles ‘proclaim’ that Jesus was the risen Lord God? That is when they knew that they ‘risked life and limb’ by doing so! Yes, we know that many of the Apostles did ‘historically’ lose their lives as a result. Why would they have been so sure about it, to even accepting their own deaths over it, if they had not seen it for themselves? We also know that it was not easy for James, the brother of Jesus, to believe that his own brother really was the risen, divine Messiah (the Christ). Christian sources state that the resurrected Jesus had to prove it to him personally.

And from Josephus’ writing, we know that James went on to be condemned to death for his ‘witnessing’ about Jesus as such. Again James died, because he dared to testify that ‘his brother was God’. Paul also endured incredible suffering, as well as eventual execution, for exactly the same reason. I would say that Paul’s letters (written by him through determination in the face of severe hardship) provide us with a solid step towards understanding the ‘real’ Jesus. It is evident that Paul genuinely believed himself to be in communion with the living Lord, and was ready to do whatever he was called to do. And I mean NO MATTER what the cost.

4.4    We can experience ‘evidence’ now

For myself though, as with most Christians, it ultimately comes down to proving its basis for ourselves, i.e. by putting Bible-based Christianity into practice within the Church and our lives. Without doubt, I can write that our ‘lives are transformed‘ as a result. And of course we come to fully understand the incredible scriptural threads that run through the whole Bible. If ‘old analytical me’ could do so … well! And advice about this stuff, is included through much of this website.

Here is an interesting question from ‘left field’ though: why DO supernatural events still occur in church services within the so-called “Pentecostal/ Charismatic movement”? That is, just as Paul documented it happening in the ancient Church? Just being ‘touched’ or anointed by the Holy Spirit? As suggested previously, check out the article, “Is this Spirit stuff real?” 

Why indeed does the Spirit of God, ‘manifest’ himself so obviously in these services? Yes, the Holy Spirit is ready to ‘engage’ with members of the movement as and when he sees fit. Well, I firmly believe that above all else he is ‘edifying’ his Church, and thereby indicating the TRUTH of all that is written in the Bible.

As I wrote in the article, “Experiencing the Holy Spirit” the Lord offers us all, in these current times, what we need to absolutely believe that he is REAL. And has actually done so since the early twentieth century (indeed just as it originally happened in the first century).

And by the way, I have not been able to locate another area within monotheism (e.g. Judaism or Islam) that utilises the actual ‘presence’ of God so clearly as the Pentecostal/ Charismatic movement.


But having said all this, as a one-time hardened atheist myself, I am not surprised by the doubts of others who are yet to trial Christian knowledge or experiences for themselves. Particularly those that are available within the Pentecostal/ Charismatic movement.

All I can say in closing is please look into Christian faith with an open mind. If a questioning mind like my own can be satisfied, then I am sure that anyone’s can be. (To read about the who’s, how’s and why’s of this website please click here.)