Crazy Frog wrote:There is more credible evidence for Jesus than for any other "Historical Figure" Period.
Even his accusers wrote of him... and people who were not Christians but remained somewhat Non-Partisan as well...
Outside of Biblical Sources (which are in themselves reputable if considered in Unbiased fashion)
We can look to other writers like the Roman Historian Tacitus and the Jewish Historian Flavious Josephus.
Then you also have a bunch of people quoting older writings... like Julius Africanus who quoted the Historian Thallus about the darkness that followed the Crucifixion.
I could go on.. But the people who are Biased will not listen anyway and those who are unbiased will completely understand why I am stopping at this point... They are already weary of the Trolling just like the rest of us.
Have a Great day folks...
Crazy Frog
An issue that arises is how difficult it would be to identify any person over such a long time, from a context which individuals would be trying to find this person from. Admittedly, the majority of people are going to believe Jesus existed as a historical figure and the bible or other religious documents will probably serve as proof positive enough.
Its worth noting that although the two Roman historians you mention do reference Jesus it is not quite certain whether or not they are as valid as you claim. When someone goes out of the way to point out how unbiased or valid something is, it typically should set off warning signals that there is uncertainty. It is possible depending on what interpretation you read to see claims of validity or forgery from Josephus's account. Even as people try to piece together the validity of Josephus's account it requires jumping forward in time to other accounts which muddle the issue more. People seem to have little doubt in the belief of people around this person, but as to the person themselves the accounts are no so clear. You get a fairly wide range of opinions, from unlikely to exist, to an amalgation of persons, to an historical figure, to the religious figure as proclaimed in other sources. Considering by the time information starts to become more clear, it becomes apparent people are writing who quite probably did not live to see an actual ministry if it existed in the form people thought of, and considering that it is quite probable documents we do have are somewhat second hand from combined sources (such as the Q document) it is less certain that you may be claiming.
There are plenty of relevant questions to ask here. First, how much historical notoriety should their be for Jesus? Considering what is usually pieced together, not all that much really. A lack of information would not be all that surprising and shouldnt discount him as a historical person altogether. Second, if Jesus is in someway a combination of concepts of persons to what level should we see inconsistencies in writings about him and how would they be resolved? Thirdly, considering there were numerous historians in the time period, what number of them writing about Jesus qualifies as quantifiable proof? Fourth, considering the potential for forgeries and well intentioned extremists, what amount of the accounts if any should be disregarded? Fifth, how likely is it for the cult/eventually the religion to spread without an actual person exisiting at some point which centered the idea around a person? Sixth, as time passed did the understanding of the Jesus character change from generation to generation before we had a large amount of source material to learn about his life and events?
There are plenty of questions to leave room for casting doubt. Where an individual chooses to decide to accept proof is an individual choice, but it certainly is not bias alone to assume there is more than one possible answer here.
