Please note, I have taken the time to read all 17 pages before writing.
I find it very frustrating when some peoeple condemn others who say they believe Jesus was real, demand proof, and thus claim he was not real. Can't be flip the table around and say "where is your proof he was not real." You know, there are people that claim the holocaust didn't exist, which we know did happen, as they claim there is no proof. The historical Jesus lived long before the Holocaust, and it is hard to find evidence for things that occurred long people people started hard-corely writing down history.
None the less, some of you seem to want evidence that there was a historical Jesus outside of the bible. I would like to know, why would that other source be any more credible than that of the gospels? I do not see how it is more likely that an "outsider" would be more reliable than an "insider." There is proof of authorship, location, and time period of which the gospels were written. Hence they are real documents. I do not like the fact that people have seems to not accept the gospels as credible sources, just because they are the gospels. Sure, the gospels want to tell the story of the divine Jesus, but there is also corneals of proof of an existent historical Jesus (within the theological aspects).
I see that there is evidence of the historical Jesus within the bible (maybe people have not pointed it out properly). I don't claim to know everything, but I currently just finished a final on the Gospels and I want to share what I learned this semester:
First, the Jesus has been proven to have been mentioned in Roman Literature as well as the Jewish Talmud. (Sadly, I do not know the name of the Roman books. Maybe I will ask my professor the exact sources, as it seems like that your prove #2. Jesus the person does exist).
Second, there are the gospels. I know someone said that there are 4 independently written gospels, and immediately that was thrown away. I don't understand why you guys have "trashed" that fact so quickly. Let's talk about the synoptic gospels. It is known that Mark wrote his gospel completely independent of the other 3. Luke and Matthew wrote their gospels independently of each other, but they did have access to Mark and an unknown Q source. None the less they do have material that was solely their own.
So, from these gospels (with independently written information), there are multiple attestations of Jesus. What I mean is, if the gospel of Matthew, Luke, Mark and the book of Thomas(supposedly the saying of Jesus) all consistently mention something, such as Jesus speaking in parables, then it is true must be a true thing that Jesus did. Remember, these authors lived in different locations and hence didn't communicate with each other. Next, there are the dissimilarities to look at. There are incidents of events/things that Jesus did that are out of place for both Palestine Judaism and early Christianity. If one would just fabricate the figure of Jesus, it would make no sense for him to "out of place." For example, Jesus called God "Abba," normal Jews/Christians don't do that. Another example, Jesus healing people on the Sabbath day, which is against Jewish law. Why would they say that he broke the law (as he is a Jew) if it were not historically accurate information. Also, as mentioned before, history was passed down orally during that time period. Sayings that were simple, easy to remember and possible rhyming could very likely be passed down through oral tradition. Just because it isn't in writing, does not mean it isn't true (especially back 2000 years ago when oral tradition was the main way things were told/remembered)! Finally, the embarrassment factor. Going along with the "out of place" stuff, there are instances where Jesus "looks bad" in the bible. He is claimed to be reject by his family, associated with sinners, flipping out at the temple... The gospels are supposed to show the divinity of Christ. If they were a fabrication, then there is no way that they would show Jesus poorly. The only explanation for showing Jesus like this, and mentioning these poor attributes would be to say they actually happened. Thus, these true events show how Jesus the person did exist.
Now, I hope you look at this closely and don't just say "I want proof outside of the gospels." Because, you can find proof in the gospels. Just because the gospels are religious in nature does not be it is totally historically inaccurate. Every fabrication starts with a corneal of truth. I have pointed out some of those within the gospels.
To conclude, I don't know if you will believe my "roof" or not, but I hope that some of you do realize that weather AG finds the "roof" that makes believers of the fabrication theory happy or not, it doesn't mean that Jesus did not exist. Or to place it another way, just because we cannot give you the "roof" you want to make you happy, it doesn't mean that Jesus was a fabrication necessarily.
