Well, I didn't read that thread, however, here http://www.consider.org/library/earlyref.htm we actually have a well written and, in certain sense, acceptable account of some nonchristian "historical evidence".
I'd like to point however, that I'm not sure what exactly "historical evidence" can mean. The word "evidence" is rather connected with empirical experience. I'd doubt historical studies can have "evidence" at all. What you have is a collection of sources and writings, (for instance, the 5 or 6 fragments cited in the linked web), and interpretations of those writings (for instance, all the other paragrapfhof that linked web).
Let's take a particular fragment to make this point clearer

SOURCE:
" On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."
Jewish Talmud, written, according to the same web, moreless in the same period some gospels were writen (end 1st century, beginning 2nd)
INTERPRETATION:
"The word for hanged used here was sometimes used to refer to someone who hung on a cross. From this passage we learn that Jesus (Yeshu) was a religious leader who practiced what the Jews referred to as sorcery (miracles?). We see that Jesus had a large following, that he "enticed Israel to apostasy," and that he was crucified on the eve of the Passover."
http://www.consider.org/library/earlyref.htm

Apologetics very often tend to make this missunderstanding of the work of a historian. It's not about, or at least not only about, looking for "evidence" (In case of recent history, the historian can actually go and search for documents, but in case of ancient history, we have a moreless established, limited collection of documents, and the finding of new ones is rather archeological, not historic work). Historian work is to answer how can a document or wrinting should be consider as evidence of something, why we must believe gospels instead of talmud, for instance, why can we be sure this is or isn't forgery, or if the writings had or not had religion or political motivations, and many other similar questions. In other words, what a historian has to do is to try to find an interpretation of his sources.
It happens that many, many authors researching historicity of Jesus, say they are doing history, but when you see his grades, you realize that they're actually theologians, and...
well, if you have an a priori interpretation of what happened, what value can have for you to make history?

I'd like to just ask again...

WHY do you need proof one way or the other if this is supposed to be FAITH?

Isn't the point of faith that you don't NEED proof, that your belief in whatever it is you're believing in is so strong that's all that matters for you in that regard?

I'm asking both sides here...

Theists touting evidence--why? Isn't your faith strong enough without secular science?

Athesits touting evidence--why? Is the biggest trolling flame war in human history REALLY worth it, especially when, again, the basis of your opponent's argument is--at least it's SUPPOSED to be--based on faith, which you can never disprove, and your argument is based on the logical and scientific process, which faith has no business in?

WHY?

Well Obi, i believe in science, because i have seen evidence.

I haven't seen all the science out there, but i believe it is a logically self-consistent body of knowledge and i have confidence that it has truth.

I don't see why a 'faith-based' religious believer would be any different.

They can have personal experiences, historical documents and cultural programming all telling them something is true. Faith is always based on something.

Faith can be what you say, Obi. But it doesn't have to be. Thomas is a great example. He is called "doubting Thomas" because he wouldn't believe (i.e. have faith) Christ had risen unless he saw it personally, so Christ came to him and told Thomas to put his fingers in the nail holes of Christ's hands and feet and put his hand in Christ's side.

The point was that Thomas was blessed for believing after seeing, but those who believed even though they had not seen were even more blessed.

@orathic:

"I don't see why a 'faith-based' religious believer would be any different."

It IS different in that science and logic are attempting to find answers to questions, whereas faith BEGINS with the answer to a question--ie, "Why are we here?" and the answer is Genesis or what have you--and moves on to questions of how to use and implement that answer.

To give an example:

Evolutionary Biology seeks to understand how man came to be via evolution and what our ancestors might be, what our genetics can tell us about our past, etc.

Genesis STARTS with the answer to "Where/From whom did we come from?" with Adam and Eve and God's creating everything and the Bible then moves on from there to deal with how we should live in a world that we BELIEVE is governed by an all-powerful God.

What's more, faith doesn't have to subscribe to rationality, whereas logic and science do, that's THEIR tennant.

To give an example:

If I'm to give a logical account of man's existence and what he can and cannot do, I must logically conclude that he cannot create something from nothing (since we have logically deduced from empirical and logical evidence that no matter is created or destroyed and so man cannot spontaneously create new matter, thus creating something entirely out of nothing) and that man cannot be in two places at once, sionce this would violate the most elementary laws of physics.

GOD, on the other hand, according to the Bible, creates the entirety of existence as we know it--presumably from nothing, if he created everything--and in the Christian tradition we have the division of God into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three seperate beings that are yet one being (and if I've flubbed that a bit I apologize, I WAS raised a secular Jew and my Biblical knowledge is msotly Genesis, Exodus, and then bits here and there of the rest of the Old Testament and then the fact Jesus came, Jesus saw, Jesus was crucified, Jews were blamed after the fact for Jesus being crucified, and then Jesus supposedly came back to life and went back to Heaven for...you know, I never quite caught WHY he did that instead of just fix all the problems then and there, if it was in his means, and if he was or is God or god-like it'd seem like it should be in his powers...so WHY didn't he just fix everything or, if we're going to be a proponent of the "God wants us to do the work for OURSELVES and to LEARN, rather than jsut make us all perfect from the start and let us stay that way and NOT ahve to go through thousands of years of agonizing death and destruction" school of thought, at least helped, maybe set the record straight and say "No, the Jews ae NOT evil, no need to eradicate most of their populace over the next two thousand years...oh, and this whole slavery thing needs to end, people, it's just not Christian...and science isn't evil, you know, so there's no need for the Church to imprison Galileo for defeating heliocentrism in fifteen hundred or more years...or just listen to me NOW when tell you that, so you don't have to ascribe science to the devil's knowledge for those Dark, Dark Ages...and..." and so on.



But even with all of THAT in there, which obviously seems to ahve some logical issues, faith works because it doesn't NEED logic, it's beyond its rules.

@ principians

I see what your saying and I'd urge you to read the thread because I thikn we touched on that a bit. History is based upon evidence. I have to admit I think it's a bit odd that you mentioned historical evidence as a possible base for a perspective on Christ and then turn around and say there is really not such a thing. From the point of view of anyone 2000 years after the fact, we must really ask "what could we know". Yes, historians provide interpretations of the facts and those interpretations are the source of debate. I disagree that the word evidence connotes merely empirical data, It seems that by so doing we nullify any academic discipline other than science and math.

From the perspective of a historian, we seem to agree. The historian's job is to gather evidence from primary and secondary sources. Then ask "Based upon what I've found what is the most likely course of events to have taken place". It would be improper for a historian to make religious claims but he's free to analyze the events and see if the claims of any particular religon are corroborated by them.

If you read the thread, you'll see that it's basically about coming up with possible interpretations, without discarding the assertion that the apostles were telling the truth, and looking to see what the evidence seems to support. It's not enough to say "Well it couldn't have happened that way" and be done with it. What harm is there in looking at the evidence that we have, and then making an informed decision?

@obiwan

WHY do you need proof one way or the other if this is supposed to be FAITH?

I don't need proof, but evidence is nice. Faith is where people go when they've run out of evidence. Everyone to my knowledge has it to some degree. It's merely the belief in something (God, science, mom & dad, your friends, etc). It does not have to be unreasonable, nor is it likely to be strong faith if it is unreasonable.

I observe that many arguments seem to pit science and religion against each other.
Science explains what we can observe and Religion give a wider context and guiding moral framework with which to understand and use that information.

@ obiwanobiwan "But even with all of THAT in there, which obviously seems to ahve some logical issues, faith works because it doesn't NEED logic, it's beyond its rules. "

Amused by the Holy-text style capitalisations, but I digress -

I think it is important not to follow a religion with the brain in neutral gear. It is important to independently find your truth and understand why you believe your religion, otherwise it is superstition.

There are logical reasons that can be found with little research for social laws given by a religion. With respect to larger questions such as the origins of the world, it is important not to take religious text literally. The text is written with the knowledge of the time appropriate for the receptive population, with symbolic language.

I also believe that following science in the absence of religion is imbalanced and lacks a needed spiritual element to provide guidance.

"Isn't the point of faith that you don't NEED proof, that your belief in whatever it is you're believing in is so strong that's all that matters for you in that regard?"

That is not faith, that is superstition.

Addendum (not superstition, it is delusion)

I think that scagga and I agree on the point that faith and logic (or science) are not mutually exclusive. They merely take a different look at existence. Faith doesn't have to demand a subjugation of logic if there is logic to your beliefs. Logic doesn't have to be the antithesis of faith if you've taken the necessary logical steps to reach the point where a leap of faith is appropriate.