I won’t have a problem, but you will likely have a problem with the historicity of anything we post in that vein.
So why should I bother? If you want the truth about the historicity of Jesus, then you post a historicity thread and I’ll go fetch. Otherwise, it’s just the same old thing with your typical piss & vinegar routine and riling up religious conservatives.
In the meantime, for the lurkers who really do want to know what kind of historical evidence exists, here’s a place to start, an entire scholarly work transcribed here on Free Republic.
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS Are they Reliable? (Preface, Chapt. 1)
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm ^ | 1959 | F. F. Bruce
Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 2:24:23 PM by blue-duncan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1971569/posts
I have an idea of what your response would be, so for the benefit of lurkers:
“A godless and lawless heresy had sprung up from one Jesus a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified; but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.”
- A circular letter issued by the Sanhedrin (mentioned by Justin Martyr (2nd C) and Eusebius)
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, a Carthaginian theologian and writer (c. 155 - c. 200 C.E.) repeats the accusation.
“’This is He,’ I will say, ‘the son of the carpenter and the harlot, the sabbath-breaker, the Samaritan who had a devil. This is He whom you purchased from Judas, this is He who was struck with reed and fist, defiled with spittle, given gall and vinegar to drink. This is He whom the disciples secretly stole away to spread the story of His resurrection, or whom the gardener removed lest his lettuces be trampled by the throng of curious idlers.’”
- Tertullian, De Spectaculis, 30:6 (197 C.E.)