Jesus as a historical figure.

Using CON"s "argument from silence" then many others thru history would not be accepted either for example. Alexander the Great nothing is written down about him until 300 years after his death. So does that mean CON also denies the existence of Alexander the Great? Now moving on to Josephus, who is a Jewish Historian who wrote 4 major books about Jewish History his most ambitious was "The Antiquities" which is a recount of Jewish history from creation until the point in history that he finished the book. This book is still looked upon as a great writing of Jewish History, so then CON must question everything written in this book if he does not believe parts of it why believe any of it. However, "The Antiquities", is not the only place Josephus writes of Jesus he also writes of him in "Testimonium Flavianum" It is not uncommon for someone to written about well after their passing and if Josephus was the only writer to mention Jesus then I would agree that maybe something is fishy, CON however seems to then also deny the writings of Tactis (a Roman Historian), Pliny the Younger (a Roman Senator), Phlegon (a secular historian), Origen (a Roman Historian) and The Talmud. All of which refer to Jesus in one form another. CON next questions the concept of why no one from Jesus writes of him, CON must have never read the Bible for that is all it talks about. With further statements CON implies that if Jesus was then someone should have written of Him other then the writers of the Bible, why would this be true? Just because He, Jesus, had a large following you think that historians of the day would write about Him, a carpenter from Nazareth? The historians of the times only wrote of the aristocrats not the normal Joe on the street, what is most remarkable indeed is that any historian would write of Jesus, but as cited above many wrote of Him, why? How can this simple man make such a mark that history would even see him? Finally, CON asks where is the artifacts of this man to show that he even lived? Before I answer that the biggest question is again why would a simple persons artifacts even important. Why would a commoner even be considered by history to be important enough to look for artifacts, it is obvious that Jesus was more then that just by the writings of the historians from the time frame to take note of Him he must have made some type of mark on the world. However you would hope to find some type of artifact that showed he was alive, in 2002 a remarkable find was unearthed. The find was an ossuary; a small box used between 20 and 70 AD for burials, upon this ossuary in Aramaic was the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. " (1) So where CON claims there is no artifacts that refer to Jesus there is this ossuary. So then what do historians of today say is Jesus a real historical person? To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has "again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars. " In recent years "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus""or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. (Michael Grant author of numerous books on ancient history)(2) The total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus" existence. (Paul L. Maier, historian and novelist)(3) "The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. .. .No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. . . That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. " (Will Durant, American writer historian and philosopher)(4) Given this data and the writing thru history, and the vast majority of historians it is only logical to believe that yes Jesus walked this earth and died around 36 AD. The overwhelming data supports PRO vote PRO 1. . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 2. Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 page 181 3. Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6 4. Ceasar and Christ, volume 3 of Story of Civilization