Actually, there isn't unless you consider the NT to be a historically accurate document. If non-biblical, contemporary sources are what you believe to be "ample sources" (and I do) then there is no evidence of historical Jesus.
So you deny the writings of Josephus? Albeit he was born at the cusp of the movement, he did write based on testimony and his own eye witness account of several of Jesus' own contemporaries. http://www.josephus-1.com/
Josephus was born over 30 years after this supposed Jesus died. He didn't write about Jesus until 60 or 70 years after Jesus died. His writings regarding Jesus are also widely viewed by credible historians as forgeries added to his original text by others long after Josephus died. Yes, I do deny the writings of Josephus as evidence of historical Jesus.
3 1/2 to 4 years (remember the calendar was adjusted to within a year or so of the birth of Christ)... and why so hostile towards an even more accepted fact in history? Sorry to say it but Jesus, born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth existed. Now, to say you don't believe he was the son of God is one thing, but to deny what has been determined to have happened, and has been corroborated by other documents is another. One could just as easily say that Karl Marx didn't exist. But that wouldn't make them right. If that same individual were to say they didn't believe in his teachings, that would be less hostile to the facts... and also serve to make the person look less uninformed of the fact of Marx's existence. Remember also that Jesus died at age 33... so if a 12 year old witnessed it all, and told Josephus while he was in his 30's (at age 42 or so for the witness) it would have been well within the time frame of acceptable and reasonable memory... and merely 40 or so years after Jesus' ascension. Just sayin'.
No. I'm sorry because the evidence does not exist that supports what you believe. That is not being hostile it is just being honest. You are just sayin' but you are not sayin' anything convincing. Comparing Karl Marx to Jesus is dishonest and I think you know that. Also, why no response to the fact that the Josephus writings about Jesus are widely recognized as fakes?
I'm not sure of your point. If you are proclaiming that the NT is a historically accurate text then I'm at a loss for words.
In trying to debunk Josephus based on the fact that he was a Pharisee... so was Saul, later Paul. It debunks nothing. It is a matter of faith any way you spin it. And should you choose to not believe the deity of Jesus, it does not debunk his existence. The fact that some 25,000+ manuscripts of the New Testament line up and 5,600 are in the original Greek, found in different locales, and agree.. is proof positive enough for most. As quoted above, many other literary works have far less proof, if any, of being original and accurate, like the New Testament does. Similar idea here... try this on for size... (and I'm sure it'll be spun however it can be)... On 9/11/01 most of the world was aware of the events on that day... some wrote about it... many were eye-witnesses... but of course not every account was the same, as some had different perspective. 2000+ years from now what we know right now about it may become blurry at best... not possible in modern times you say? Well, the Biblical man was modern by all accounts, certainly no neanderthal... and shoot, some even discount the holocaust ever took place, and we're less than 70 years removed from it... Time blurs the evidence, yet somehow this belief system has remained, even strengthened over time... how? Because it happened that's how. Jesus of Nazareth was a real man. The issue remains to be "was he the Christ?" as in "the" anointed one. That is the faith issue. Whether he was a real man is a question of common sense. 20 centuries of belief doesn't happen because of a hoax or fable or conspiracy.
Because of Augustine ("St. Augustine") and Original Sin. Which is ironic (considering the first part of your post), because Augustine developed this theory out of influences from Manichaeism, Gnosticism, and Neoplatonism...which all taught (in various ways) that the soul was trapped inside the unworthy human body.
It is NOT plausible that Jesus married because...although He was 100% man, He was 100% God. The Bible clearly states that He resisted every temptation and was sinless. The reason God chose a virgin like mary as the mother who would give birth to Jesus is so that her bloodline would not be the same as Jesus' perfect blood. If He were to ever marry and enter into a relationship with a woman.....His perfect blood sacrifice would not have paid the price for the worlds sin. His bloodline would have been tainted. His blood is the entire reason why we can be reconciled to God and are "saved". It is why He was put to death on a cross. He did for us....what we could not do for ourselves.
There are many, many non-biblical contemporary sources that deny a historical Jesus. There are just as many sources that debunk the NT as a historically accurate document. If you don't believe in Jesus you can find plenty of sources to support your belief. This is what it is all about. Few believe really, so I would say you are in the majority. Pat yourself on the back.
What if your wife is severly schizophrenic with violent tendencies.. and the husband is an alcoholic that never matured past 16...?
Dave, I should have written "some" instead. I knew there were extra-biblical documents that mentioned Jesus, but I haven't really studied the issue (# and likely authenticity of the documents) to justify characterizing the evidence as "ample".
Iroc-it - the point is that most scholars agree Josephus was altered. There is no way he would call him the messiah, son of God, and that he raised from the dead because when he wrote that he was, and always had been, a Jew. If he believed what he "wrote" he would have been a Christian. Because of that, many doubt the validity of his other mention. Personally, I don't think it matters because history was a different thing back then. The historical Jesus is very similar to the historical Arthur. Both were not written about until many decades later, first in a "legend" sense (Jesus as religion, Arthur as folkloric hero), and then later in an "hostoric" sense. Both experienced editing in later dates so that a lot can't really be trusted. And, finally, both will most likely never be proven to have been real or made up. History was different - more interested in story and less concerned with fact. Fact as history only began to creep up during the Renaissance but it really wasn't until the late Enlightenment that it becomes overall reliable (but still with bias). There likely was somebody behind the Arthur legend during the early 5th century just as there likely was somebody behind the Jesus figure in the early 1st. Certainly at this moment you can not say either was definitely real.
