If one searches objectively through historical evidence, one finds that there is very little, if any evidence outside of the Bible that would corroborate the existence of the man who supposedly founded the Christian religion.

Apologists love to cite the writings of Flavius Josephus, yet here is why that doesn't work.

Source:http://www.exminister.org/Barker-deb...cal-Jesus.html

"Here is the paragraph that currently appears in The Antiquities of the Jews, written by Josephus around 95 C.E.:

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named for him are not extinct to this day."


If this is the strongest and earliest extra-biblical evidence for the historical Jesus, then the scholarship is on the shakiest grounds. That passage from Josephus has been shown conclusively to be a forgery, and even conservative scholars admit it has been tampered with. But even were it historical, it dates from more than six decades after the supposed death of Jesus.

The Associated Press chose to omit the fact that scholars have largely discounted the Josephus paragraph- as a later interpolation. The passage, although widely quoted by believers today, did not show up in the writings of Josephus until centuries after his death, at the beginning of the fourth century. Thoroughly dishonest church historian Eusebius is credited as the real author. The passage is grossly out of context, a clear hint that it was inserted at a later time.

All scholars agree that Josephus, a Jew who never converted to Christianity, would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth," so the passage must have been doctored by a later Christian--evidence, by the way, that some early believers were in the habit of altering texts to the advantage of their theological agenda. The phrase "to this day" reveals it was written at a later time. Everyone agrees there was no "tribe of Christians" during the time of Josephus--Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

If Jesus were truly important to history, then Josephus should have told us something about him. Yet he is completely silent about the supposed miracles and deeds of Jesus. He nowhere quotes Jesus. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives and tells us nothing that would not have been known by Christians in either the first or fourth centuries. In all of Josephus' voluminous writings, there is nothing about Jesus or Christianity anywhere outside the tiny paragraph cited so blithely by the Associated Press. "

Other popular sources come from Tacitus, Seutonius and Pliny the Younger.

"Righi also cited Pliny the Younger, who, in the early second century (112), reported that "Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god." Notice how late this reference is; and notice the absence of the name "Jesus." The passage, if accurate, could have referred to any of the other self-proclaimed "Christs" (messiahs) followed by Jews who thought they had found their anointed one. Pliny's account is not history, since he is only relaying what other people believed. No one doubts that Christianity was in existence by this time. Offering this as proof would be the equivalent of quoting modern Mormons about their beliefs in the historical existence of the Angel Moroni or the miracles of Joseph Smith--doubtless useful for documenting the religious beliefs, but not the actual facts.

Tacitus, another second-century Roman writer who alleged that Christ had been executed by sentence of Pontius Pilate, is likewise cited by Righi. Written some time after 117 C.E., Tacitus' claim is more of the same late, second-hand "history." There is no mention of "Jesus," only "the sect known as Christians" living in Rome being persecuted, and "their founder, one Christus." Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity. No historical evidence exists that Nero persecuted Christians--Nero did persecute Jews, so perhaps Tacitus was confused. There was certainly not a "great crowd" of Christians in Rome around 60 C.E., as Tacitus put it, and, most damning, the term "Christian" was not even in use in the first century. No one in the second century ever quoted this passage of Tacitus. In fact, it appears almost word-for-word in the fourth-century writings of Sulpicius Severus, where it is mixed with other obvious myths. Citing Tacitus, therefore, is highly suspect and adds virtually nothing to the evidence for a historical Jesus. "

Suetonius's writings don't specifically mention Jesus either.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/suey.html

I've provided these sources for your perusal. I have read pro and con sides of this argument, studied it for almost three decades after being raised in fundamentalist environment. It is my opinion that the evidence for this man's historical existence is extremely weak. The ancient Romans were some of the first to offer a primitive form of objective reporting as they were very meticulous with their dates and details and they reported their failures and defeats as well as their victories. They also reported objectively on the mental states of the emporers, this is how we know of much of the insanity and madness that ruled the Roman Empire, i.e. Caligula and Nero ( these guys were seriously F'ed up!). Knowing this, it just seems to me that if some god wanted to impart an important message to his flock,he would've left a better record. Ah, but lest I forget, that's where faith comes in.
If you read the Bible and listen to pastors of all denominations and flavors, Jesus was a central figure in history (just look at the calandar, that's proof to many a southern Baptist), he had rock star/revolutionary/evangelist/political radical status. If the story had taken place in modern times, the clearing of the temple would've been live on CNN! Yet for some reason, none of the historians that were around, actually in those years(such as Pliny the ELDER) wrote a scratch. The crucifixion would've had to have been signed off with the ring seal of Tiberius (or would it have been Caligula by this time? No one has firmed up a date) and somewhere in a visible place in more than one geographic area, someone would've recorded the event. There were more than enough literate people in that time that would've provided multiple corrobarative evidences of such a notable historical figure. I figure if god wanted someone like me to believe this story ( and I haven't even approached the miracle stuff yet)because it was important to my eternal salvation, he would've provided irrefutable evidence.
Christians and apologists boast of such evidence. Where is it?  

How many years has it been since WWII and the Holocaust, with all the witnesses, pictures, stories, etc., and today there are more and more people believing it never happened. Or, those who believe we never really landed men on the Moon. And, then you have those who still believe the earth is flat. Despite all of the evidence supporting these events or realities, you will find plenty of people who will not believe. Despite your belief regarding what great recorders of history the Roman's were, their efforts and evidence pale in comparison to the evidence regarding the three issues I mentioned above.

The point is not about the similarities or differences, but the nature of what one person considers to be valid historical evidence that someone existed or an event happened vs. what a different person deems as valid historical evidence.

I also spent three decades immersed in fundamentalism. I vividly remember buying the exact load of crap that you just thoroughly discredited.

I wish I had read your post many years ago, along with the writings of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and former fundamentalist preacher Dan Barker.

Thanks for taking the time to type out such a well reasoned and thought out post, and I hope to read some more.

So why was a major religion based on a character that never existed and how was it able to flourish if it was all fanciful ?

-- Modified on 4/3/2011 3:37:54 PM

Many fundamentalists constantly cite those "sources" in efforts to evangelize the masses, or to keep the faithful from questioning their religion. I have read many Christian books that treat those forgeries as historical fact.