Aw, but looking at Paul means I have to actually read through my Bible more eventually... I generally find extrabiblical information more interesting than actually reading the thing. Ah well, I'll be able to stomach it. Are there any relevant Pauline letters that aren't included in the canon, or can I get everything I'd want to look at from a basic Bible?

Haha, yep, a basic Bible should do you fine. I Thesalonians is the first they say. I Corinthians 15 contains what is purported (by scholars) to be an already older verbal tradition written down, about the resurrection of Christ, etc. Other specific passages that I should direct you to escape me for now.... I'll try to get back to you on that though.

"There are no documents of him written during his life"

No, there are Roman documents confirming his existence written around that time. Not to mention Jewish documents telling people not to believe things he said which even mention the things he claims to have said and done, and matches up with the claims in the bible.

"No, there are Roman documents confirming his existence written around that time"

Untrue. I think you won't be able to find a source for that claim.
Jophesus, it is claimed, mentioned Jesus, but this is considered to be a fraudulent later edition to his writings.

*Josephus

No, spyman, that's false. It's not "considered to be a fraudulent later edition to his writings" by mainstream scholars. (Parts of it ARE thought to have been edited). See a pretty good article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

(There are ample footnotes to other sources).

See also the quotations I posted earlier, such as from Tacitus, a mainstream Roman historian who wrote in the early second century about the first century (and was very anti-Christian).

For example, on Book 20, Chapter 9, 1:

"Modern scholarship overwhelmingly views the entire passage, including its reference to 'the brother of Jesus called Christ', as authentic and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation."

Even if we accept Josephus writings as genuine, neither he nor Tacitus wrote during Jesus's lifetime. I mention that because you seem to be responding to me responding to jD_ShockTrooper. But as I have said I don't doubt the historicity of Jesus.

Quite all right, spyman, you're correct about the timing. I just wanted to correct your statement about Josephus. You're right, reviewing the context, that my Tacitus statement seems off-point.

Here is a site which supports the claim Josephus mentioned Jesus, but that there were also interpolations:

http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/josephus-jesus.html

The later interpolations are shown in caps.

Yep, seems reasonable, spyman. I'm not sure why he says the part about Greeks and Jews following him is a later interpolation -- that would have been uncontroversial history by then, and I believe other sources see no reason to view it as interpolation. But anyway, the point is it's more than sufficient even without the caps to support Christ's existence. (Which I realize you were not arguing against).

Why does there have to be something during his lifetime? Our faith in Julius Caesar's existence doesn't come from writings during his lifetime. How about Socrates, Alexander, or Darius? Even the Hebrew prophets were accepted to have lived--though often their material was written down long after the first statements were ever made. You have to remember, Jesus wasn't really anyone special UNTIL he died and claimed to have rose again. During this time there was a lot of infighting going on between various factions of the Jewish political establishment--just one more teacher saying stuff didn't warrant attention until he was supposed to be dead.

The Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus Christ. People who either directly knew him and were part of the tales they are recording, or were intimately connected. Luke may not have been an Apostle, but he was a close friend. For first century CE, recording history only 50 years after the fact is actually quite good. That's much better scholarship than can be reasonably expected from most documents for several centuries.

Of course, all that means is that the historical perspective is above average. That doesn't mean that the authors couldn't have embellished and exaggerated. But that's a different discussion. In terms of raw historical merit, the gospels and Paul's letters even more so, are quite exceptional examples.

Was the New Testament written by people who knew Jesus? Not Paul, obviously. What about the Gospels. Given the length of time before the first of the Gospels - Mark, probably 35 to 40 years after Jesus death (while Luke was probably a couple of decades later again), given the inconsistencies between the Gospels, and that they were written in Greek - I think the academic weight of opinion is towards the idea they were *not* written by people who knew Jesus.

... of course Paul knew people who knew Jesus.

" Our faith in Julius Caesar's existence doesn't come from writings during his lifetime."

Not even his own writings? I get your point though. If we discount the evidence for Jesus and if we are to be consistent there would be a lot of history to discard.

I'll take a step back from one of my claims... I don't really know what the academic weight of opinion is. I am stating what seems plausible to me.

wow, now it's to much to read...

Matthew, Mark, and John interacted with Jesus. Luke knew him, and was probably somewhat of a groupie to the Jesus party. Paul knew of him, considering he was probably rising to prominence fighting against men like Jesus during Jesus's ministry. His conversion came later, some time after the crucifixion.

The Gospels don't really have inconsistencies. There are a few perspective differences that have led to different emphasis when re-telling a story, but there aren't any real, significant differences between the four different accounts.

"Matthew, Mark, and John interacted with Jesus. Luke knew him, and was probably somewhat of a groupie to the Jesus party."

Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke are most likely not the actual authors of those Gospels, though. Semi-early Christian tradition claims they are, but they were all originally authored at least sort-of anonymously, with no names attached, and the general scholarly assessments of authorship run contrary to that tradition.

I was unaware of that. I know that the Old Testament books that had names of their "authors" were usually written by that person. I'm not sure about the historical roots of the New Testament, though I do know that the people writing the Gospels almost certainly did have some sort of relationship with Jesus. They were young enough to be his contemporaries, and who would have cared enough to write about Jesus unless they knew him and wanted to prove him, or knew him and wanted to disprove him?

The Case For Christ, by Lee Strobel, is a book investigating a lot of this stuff. There's even a movie version on Netflix you could watch instantly. I'm sure there are many other good books on the topic, but thought I'd mention it if anyone wants a bit more of an organized and exhaustive analysis to consider.

Well, if there's a religious movement that's supposed to be started by him, than any member of the movement could've gone and written about him regardless of knowing or not knowing him. They'd certainly have reason to care. And opponents of the movement would, too. Nobody really has to know him to care; they just have to know the movement.

But my point is that a religious movement wasn't started by him until after he was already dead. He had been a Jewish rabbi with some odd views--nothing more. It wasn't until the crucifixion that he became anything more.

I don't really see how that makes it more likely for the authors of the Gospels to know Jesus?

1John 1:1 We proclaim to you the one who existed from the beginning, whom we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is the Word of life. 2 This one who is life itself was revealed to us, and we have seen him. And now we testify and proclaim to you that he is the one who is eternal life. He was with the Father, and then he was revealed to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

That's from one of John's letters, not his gospel, but of all the gospel writers, he emphasizes the personal relationship with Jesus the most.

Marx thanks for that reference. I have seen the book but am not familiar with all the points. I do know that Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict brought out some of the historical evidence and compared the evidence for Jesus' life, death, and resurrection with that of other historical events around that time, including Julius Caesar's actions.

@Mujus - Julius Caesar died in 44 BC, before Jesus was even born. How did his actions have *any* direct effect on Jesus?

@Draug, I think Mujus means that the writer is comparing the evidence for Christ with the evidence for other things, such as Julius Caesar, that are widely accepted.