Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure

First off, while Paul was not an eye witness to the life of Jesus. Paul did however have access to the to members of the 12 disciples who were eye witnesses to the life of Jesus. In other words, he did have primary and secondary sources to base his books off of. The apostles did not speak Arabic but Aramaic and it was not uncommon to know some Greek as well under Roman rule. Thank you however for restating my point that many Hebrews were illiterate with most educated people in the community being noblemen, royalty and clergy (Pharisees,Sadducees,etc.) Another thing as we know, the New Testament was written by a vast array of authours. To put them all together as if they were the same person and subjugate them to the three question analysis method is not the correct way of doing this. Josephus You say that "We cannot take Josephus' writings about Jesus as reliable because they conflict with his personal beliefs and have been tampered with, if not entirely added. In the court of law tampered evidence cannot be used, so why should we be able to use Josephus' "accounts" of Jesus?" You say that Josephus' writings about Jesus are not reliable because they conflict with his personal beliefs. I find that incredibly unlikely because compliance with personal beliefs do not count as an requirement to provide an account for anything. Josephus was a historian not a poet. For example: Josephus' works on John is proven to be authentic "Craig Evans states that almost all modern scholars consider the Josephus passage on John to be authentic in its entirety, and that what Josephus states about John fits well both with the general depiction of John in the New Testament and within the historical context of the activities of other men, their preachings and their promises during that period" Louis Feldman, who believes the Josephus passage on John is authentic, states that Christian interpolators would have been very unlikely to have devoted almost twice as much space to John (163 words) as to Jesus (89 words). Feldman also states that a Christian interpolator would have likely altered Josephus' passage about John the Baptist to make the circumstances of the death of John become similar to the New Testament, and to indicate that John was a forerunner of Jesus. James Dunn states that the accounts of Josephus and the New Testament regarding John the Baptist are closer than they may appear at a first reading. Dunn states that Josephus positions John as a righteous preacher who encourages his followers to practice "righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God" and that Mark 6:20 similarly calls John "a righteous (dikaios) and holy man".Dunn states that Antipas likely saw John as a figure whose ascetic lifestyle and calls for moral reform could provoke a popular uprising on moral grounds, as both Josephus and the New Testament suggest. Justin Meggitt states that there are fundamental similarities between the Josephus' portrayal of John the Baptist and the New Testament narrative in that in both accounts John is positioned as a preacher of morality, not as someone who had challenged the political authority of Herod Antipas. W. E. Nunnally states that the John passage is considered authentic and that Josephus' emphasis on the egalitarian nature of John's teachings fit well into the biblical and historical traditions Setzer has even commented on the possibility of a forgery to the Testimonium: laudia Setzer, who believes in the authenticity of a kernel in the Testimonium, states that while "tribe is an odd way to describe Christians" it does not necessarily have negative connotations. Setzer argues for the existence of an authentic kernel because "the style and vocabulary are Josephan" and specific parts (e.g. the use of "wise man") are not what one would expect from a Christian forger.Setzer argues that the Testimonium indicates that Josephus had heard of Jesus and the basic elements surrounding his death, and that he saw Jesus as primarily a miracle worker. Van Voorst also states that calling Christians a "tribe" would have been very out of character for a Christian scribe, while Josephus has used it to refer both to Jewish and Christian groups. _________________________________ Paul's Letters For one thing, Paul"s letters are the earliest writings on Christianity, predating the Gospels by some fifty years. Also, we know he existed. Textual analysis of the epistles proves at least seven of them were written by one guy; and Paul"s historic efforts to open the new church to gentiles are the main reason you"re not reading this in, say, Hebrew. But the biggest thing Paul has going in his favor is his ego. Rather than detail the life story of Jesus, Paul prefers talking about himself"including descriptions of his conversion and travels. Travels which, by the way, include two brief meetings with Jesus" brother James. Since James" existence would have been objectively verifiable to Paul"s readers, the likelihood he made him up is somewhere around "zero""especially since both meetings seem to go quite badly. Biblical Contradictions I"ve mentioned before how the Gospels to some degree don"t agree on anything. Some see this as the final nail in historical-Jesus"s coffin; but for others, these screw-ups point in exactly the opposite direction. Take the Gospel of Mark"several times, Mark quite clearly states that Jesus came from Nazareth. A few decades later, Luke and Matthew decide, nu-uh, Bethlehem is where it started. Trouble is, there"s no historical record of anything they say happened there"the census, the slaughter of the innocents"ever, well, happening. On the other hand, there does exist an ancient prophecy saying the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Not exactly subtle, is it? However, these shenanigans actually give more credence to Mark"s account. It"s called the criterion of embarrassment"basically, the idea that you"d be unlikely to make up something that makes you look bad. Since Nazareth is the "wrong" town for Jesus to come from, Mark would"ve claimed a fictional Jesus came from Bethlehem. That he didn"t suggests his writing was at least grounded in reality. Baptism Like a birthplace in the sticks, the Baptism is another feature of Jesus" story that doesn"t tally with Biblical prophecy. At the time, the idea of a spiritually inferior person baptizing a superior one was completely unheard of. Having the messiah baptized by anyone would be seen more as humiliation than humility. Nowadays, we see it as an early sign that Jesus was the humble guy he later turned out to be"but in ancient Judea, that would"ve been a hard sell. A writer looking to recruit people to his newly made-up church would have probably had Jesus flying over the river, shooting fire and doing backflips while giving John the finger. The fact it"s such a step down for the "son of God" suggests it"s probably based in fact"even if it"s been distorted in the centuries since. The Crucifixion For all his reported ability to kill things with the power of words, Gospels" Jesus is basically the Aquaman of Biblical figures. Compared to, say, King David, his awesomeness-to-piousness ratio is sadly lacking. And that"s important, because the Messiah was prophesied to be a warrior king who would flush the scum out of Jerusalem and bring about God"s kingdom on Earth. By contrast, Jesus rides around on a donkey and is executed before he can get anything done. Remember the criterion of embarrassment? In the first century, crucifixion was a humiliating way to die. Anyone writing Jesus from the ground up would have had him go out in a one-on-one fistfight with Julius Caesar or something. As scholar Bart Ehrman puts it: "The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified." Basically, early Christians were so embarrassed by the crucifixion they did everything they could to turn it into a victory. Hell, they probably wished they had just made him up"it would"ve saved them all a lot of trouble. Let"s look at some of the more famous and universally accepted historical documents and see how they match up with the Bible: Plato " Plato wrote his works from 427-347 BC. The earliest manuscript copy of Plato"s writing in existence today was written in 900 AD. That is 1,200 years after Plato"s death! And there are only 2 copies of these manuscripts in existence. ( Julius Caesar " One of the most celebrated and trusted historical figures. Caesar lived from 100-44 BC and the earliest manuscript copy of his writings dates back to 900 AD, putting our best evidence of Caesar ever existing 1,000 years after his death. And there are 10 copies of ancient manuscripts of Caesar"s Gallic Wars. So if you question the Bible based on when it was written, being "translated so many times" (it was not " we still have the same Greek manuscripts today) and still question whether Jesus existed, then you must also be really sure that Julius Caesar and Plato were completely fictional characters and never really existed. Homer " Homer, who historians are not even sure ever really existed even today, is credited with writing the Iliad in ca 900 BC. The earliest manuscript copy of the Iliad dates to 400 BC. Meaning the only proof of Homer or the Iliad being accurate is from 500 years after the death of Homer. Additionally there are 643 copies of ancient manuscripts of the Iliad written over the centuries that when compared against each other by experts have a 95.3 consistency and accuracy, making it one of the most reliable and proven documents of antiquity. W. E. Nunnally "Deeds of Kindness" in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Religion and Social Justice by Michael D. Palmer and Stanley M. Burgess 2012 http://carm.org... Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0-391-04118-5 page 43 Van Voorst 2000, pp. 89-90. Jesus and the oral Gospel tradition by Henry Wansbrough The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introdu