Jesus Christ, the Gospels' central person was historical. Read the Answers.com answer on 'how do you know Jesus existed' to see the overwhelming documentation on his life.
Next comes Paul, and we have a great deal of evidence supporting his historical existence, including many letters that were written to churches across the Roman Empire, plus archaological evidence of the churches themselves, and including early Christian documentation in the catacombs in Rome itself.
Of the '12 disciples', there are no doubts that these too were historical. After the resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit, these disciples are believed to have spread across the then-known world to spread the gospel message. Peter went to Rome to found the Christian Church there, Thomas founded the Church in India, Philip in Africa ad so on. Jameswent to Spain and is buried there. The evidence is from the Churches themselves, and the archaeological remains that still exist in many of these places.
Of the '72' - the 'outer circle' of disiiples whom Jesus sent out to prepare the way for his missions, we are uncertain of their authenticity as we do not know their names. However, tradition holds that John Mark was one of them - and we know that John Mark accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys - and his remains are believed to be buried in the basilica in Venice.
John the Baptist was known to have existed by Paul and Luke, although, there is absolutely no reliable evidence to suggest that he died later than the gospels attest. The daughter of Herod and Herodias, who danced and caused the death of John, is not mentioned in scripture, but in other sources she is identified as Salome - just one of thousands of cases where secular material corroborates scripture.
Of the women, Mary Magdalene's fate is uncertain, but the early Church from the first century, regarded her as an historical person.
Of the ruling classes, Herod and Pilate are regarded as historical because there is much evidence outside scripture attesting to their existence. Similarly, both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were regarded as very real people by the early Church - who could trace their own teaching back just a generation or so to the apostles themselves. Arimathea, far fom being 'fictional' has always been identified with the town of Ramleh where David came to Samuel (1 Samuelchapter 19), and to suggest otherwise is misleading.
Regarding lesser characters like Lazarus, again there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Lazarus of Luke's Gospel should be identified with the Lazarus of Bethany, just as James the apostle and brother of John is not the same person as James the brother of Jesus, or John the apostle is not John the Baptist. There were many fictional characters spoken about by Jesus in his parables - a Lazarus (who we are told is a beggar who begged by the gate of the Temple), the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan and so on. But Lazarus, whom Jesus rose from the dead, the brother of Mary and Martha, is undoubtedly a real character. The early Church regarded him as real, and his raising from death was one of the watershed moments which instigated the plot of the Jewish ruling council against Jesus.
Finally, there are many minor characters like Luke, Lydia, Philemon, Timothy, Silas, Barnabas and so on who are regarded as real people by, for example, Paul and others. Therefore, it is beyond belief that an already established historical character in Paul should write about these as living, historical characters with whom he walked and talked, if they were fiction.
E. P. Saunders refers to the term "pericopes" to describe the movable units of story structure in the Gospels. These pericopes are distinct narrative sections that can be rearranged and interpreted independently, allowing for flexibility in understanding the life and teachings of Jesus. They serve as building blocks for the overall narrative found in the Gospels.
The four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John with Acts can be considered historical books in the New Testament. The book of Acts is a historical account from Jesus' ascension to travels of Paul in his missionary journeys which is more chronological in its account than the gospels. The gospels include historical accounts but are not written purely as a history text.
The four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John with Acts can be considered historical books in the New Testament. The book of Acts is a historical account from Jesus' ascension to travels of Paul in his missionary journeys which is more chronological in its account than the gospels. The gospels include historical accounts but are not written purely as a history text.
The gospels do not show that the resurrection of Jesus was historical. In fact, the widely divergent descriptions of the appearances of the risen Jesus do more to suggest that it was not historical. At the very least, the discrepancies in the different stories show that they really knew nothing about it.
The Gospels that describe the life and miracles of Jesus were recorded in the New Testament of the Bible. There are four canonical Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each Gospel provides a unique perspective on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
There is an perhaps unjustified assumption that the gospels are in fact reliable historical documents. Most people believe that they were written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, or at least (for example, Luke) people who had met and learnt from eyewitnesses. However, the clear majority of modern scholars no longer support that view.Belief that the gospels are reliable historical documents must remain a matter of faith, and can not be proven.
There is no historical account or biblical reference that suggests Jesus rode a donkey backwards. The Gospels describe Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, fulfilling a prophecy, but there is no mention of him riding the donkey backwards.
The only information we have about the historical Jesus of Nazareth is to be found in the gospels. There is nothing in the contemporary Roman records or those of his Jewish contemporaries, such as Philo of Alexandria, that even attests that Jesus was a historical person. If you wish to know Jesus historically, you must rely on the information in the gospels alone. Yes. The Gospels are historical documents in themselves, but beyond them it is still possible. Jesus was referred to by a number of secular writers.
The Bible does not describe Thomas, and there is no other reliable information about him. If he was a historical person as described in the gospels, then we can say that he would have been Semitic and would have looked much like the Palestinians or Sephardic Jews of today.
His or Her opinion.
historical person for Hindus are Gods. God & Goddess are historical persons who showed the path to humanity.
A Christian tradition says that Matthew, Luke, Mark and John were the authors of the gospels that bear their names. Certainly the gospels were written by real, historical people, but they were originally anonymous works. It was only later in the second century that the Church Fathers attributed each of the New Testament gospels to the apostle they thought most likely to have written the book. The existence of the gospels is therefore not proof that people known as Matthew, Luke, Mark and John were historical people. As to whether the apostles of those names were historical people, there is no extra-biblical evidence. It is possible to believe in their likely existence on the basis of biblical testimony, but it is not possible to prove that they really were historical people.