I want to cautiously state:
There is NO evidence that Jeebus Christ even existed. None. Most of the so called evidence was written or forged centuries after the fact.

I know, and can you believe that some people think Julius Caesar, Shakespeare, George Washington, Hitler, and Britney Spears were real, too? Idiots. I can now reveal that Britney Spears sure isn't.

I don't believe in Jeebus either. As for Jesus the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is not questioned by serious scholars.

I guess that makes me a serious scholar...cool.

Regarding historical evidence, why not look here.

Wow, how brave someone must be to spit on someone's faith from behind an anonymous posting! God, it amazes me how intolerant atheists can be.

Britney Spears: Real

Britney Spears' boobs: Er, the jury's out on that one. . . .

Roberts does not necessarily provide historical evidence as much as interpretation. IOW, it's more theology than history.

John Dominic Crossan is where you want to go for the historical Jesus.

Of course, it quite presumptuous for Mr. Hobbs to claim I'm guilty of killing Jesus. If he wishes to claim that distinction for himself--fine.

Mr. Smythe was being facetious--I think. But he does raise a valid point: the Bible isn't exactly a contemporaneous account.

Yes, dear. That's nice, dear.

As usual, there's never enough evidence to suit Jade Gold.

Join the ranks of the many people who agree with you, Mike O.

As usual, there's never enough evidence to suit Jade Gold.

There's precious little evidence in Roberts' work; it's almost all theology.

If you wish to talk theology--Roberts is as good as some, maybe better than most. But if you're talking about history, Crossan's the best in the business on the subject, along with Borg.

No man killed Jesus. No people had the power to kill Jesus. One of Lucifer's cruelest temptations was reminding Jesus that He didn't have to endure the cross, all he had to do was open his mouth and 10,000 angels would punish the fools. Jesus WENT to the cross and he LAID down his life voluntarily. The Passion is a love story.

As I recall, the first mention of Christians was in Josephus, writing as a Jewish turncoat during/after the rebellion around 66 AD. (The Masada Story also came from his work.) Pilate is mentioned in some Roman records (though of course I can't remember where).

Hmm, It's been too many years since classes I took in that area, everything is a bit vague these days.

As I recall, the first mention of Christians was in Josephus, writing as a Jewish turncoat during/after the rebellion around 66 AD.

That's interesting---do you have a reference. I have no idea when the first mention od Christians was.

I recall (and I'm not certain) that there's documentation of Paul writing about Christians about 50AD. And Pliny the Younger referred to Christians in about 100AD.

I'm sure I've read about it but I can't really place the earliest date with any confidence.

More on the issue of historical evidence.

Historians date the writing of the book of Matthew to as early as 50 AD. Matthew was an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.

The book of John was also written by an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, It is thought to have been written in the 80s or 90s AD.

Both of these books would have been released while many eyewitnesses to the existence of, life of, and crucifixion of, Jesus were still alive and able to confirm or deny the stories.

link

Soem critics say it doesn't make sense that the writers waited 40 or more years to write the books about Jesus, but it makes perfect sense.

After H.is crucifixion, resurrection and ascension to Heaven, Jesus' followers expected him to return SOON to Earth. If everyone you know has seen what you saw or learned it orally from eyewitnesses to the variuos events of Jesus' life, there's little reason to write it down. Only after a few decades did they realize it might be a good idea to write down their account of what they'd seen, for the sake of posterity.

I haven't read this stuff but Donald Sensing, who always posts thoughtful, well-researched stuff, is pointing today to THIS packet of info on the historicity of Jesus.

Crossan? Good history? It is to laugh. Many liberal scholars don't take him very seriously; in one of my New testament classes at Vanderbilt Div. School (NB: a decidedly left-of-center school)even the students who openly derided the whole tradition of resurrection scoffed just as openly at the Crossan books we were reading.

Crossan once did good work, many years ago. But now he's just a legend in his own mind.

Remember, this is the man who insisted that Jesus' body was taken down from the cross and thrown into a common, crminals' grave, where it was eaten by the dogs. Yes, indeed. Then, at a convention of biblical scholars he was accosted (denounced is a better term) by feminist scholars who accused him of sexist patriarchy because if you throw Jesus' body into a ditch, you exclude from Jesus' the women who went to the tomb on Sunday morning, which is the most powerful role of women in the whole Gospels. (Told me by a conference attendee who was present.)

Crossan recanted and started publishing pieces saying that Jesus would have been thrown into a ditch, but there was an exception made for him. Then he started writing about the importance of the Easter narratives for women.

Bible scholarship is highly political for reasons too long to go into now. But I take everyone's view with some measure of skepticism, whether left or right.

Where to begin with Mr. Sensing's comment?

Probably the most expedient route is to note the issue upon which we agree: Biblical scholarship is highly political.

But the reasons for its highly political nature aren't complex. In fact it's fairly simple: one side holds the Gospels to be metaphors; the other side holds the Gospels to be pure and unadulterated history.

Of course, we are to simply not observe there were many, many gospels which were discarded solely because they didn't fit a certain party's politics.

Mr. Sensing's anecdotal and unsubstantiated attacks on Crossan are unfortunate in that they demand we believe there is no difference between history and theology.

Your comments are also unfortunate, as they assume that history and theology cannot coincide.

Why is it that when humanity gets in trouble they cry "Help me Jesus", or "Help me God"? It is because we all know instinctively that there is a higher power than the power on earth. It was the plan of salvation for a sinful humanity that God gave Jesus, his Son, to die. Everyone on earth is culpible for Jesus' death. But one important thing that actually helped kill Jesus was that he thought that His Father had forsaken him. That was his human soul crying for help. But he added that if it was the will of the Father, so be it. It takes no knowledgeable scholars to prove this to us. Just a simple person can understand.

Why is it that when humanity gets in trouble they cry "Help me Jesus", or "Help me God"? It is because we all know instinctively that there is a higher power than the power on earth. It was the plan of salvation for a sinful humanity that God gave Jesus, his Son, to die. Everyone on earth is culpible for Jesus' death. But one important thing that actually helped kill Jesus was that he thought that His Father had forsaken him. That was his human soul crying for help. But he added that if it was the will of the Father, so be it. It takes no knowledgeable scholars to prove this to us. Just a simple person can understand.

Your comments are also unfortunate, as they assume that history and theology cannot coincide.

To a certain extent, they can. It's possible.

However, theology--by definition--incorporates faith and belief. That should be antithetical to history.

...some people even believe that there are several evidences, that Jesus escaped and traveled to India:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1340/jesus_in_india.htm

...some people even believe that there are several evidences, that Jesus escaped and traveled to India:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1340/jesus_in_india.htm

I would remind all that in Vol 3 of Will Durant's 11 volume Magnum Opus "THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION CAESAR & CHRIST" he quotes a pagan historian writing in about 50AD arguing that the darkness at the death of Christ was a natural phenom. He comments on the fact that the writer took both the existance and execution of Christ for granted.

(I'm at work now I can put the exact quote in tonight when I get home with page reference)

However, theology--by definition--incorporates faith and belief. That should be antithetical to history.

C.S. Lewis would disagree with you. I won't try to quote him here, but simply suggest you read him.

Having read much CS Lewis--I'm sure we would disagree on many things. However, this would not be one of them.