"Why does it need to be *extra-Biblical*"
Well most serious historians cross reference the bible with other sources when it comes to historical record. For instance, the lineage presented in the book of Kings is thought to be fairly accurate, where as the book of Job is thought to be a parable based on similiar extra-biblical myths. There is very vague extra-biblical evidence that there was a man called King David as well but the story of David and Goliath is almost certainly a fable.
The point is NO DOCUMENT is taken as fact unless there is corroborating evidence be it documentary, scientific, or achaeological. For instance there is a lot of historical material found in Homer's THE ILIAD, but does that mean we should believe in ZEUS and POSEIDON? Of course not, but historians are pretty sure that the Trojan War happened. I would put the Old Testament on the same level as (probably slightly more historical) the Iliad.
The four gospels were written at least two hundred years after the death of Jesus. Now even though there isn't really
any extra-biblical evidence that the man even existed, most historians believe he did. But hundreds of years of oral tradition tends to amplify a story. Along with the fact that the gospels don't even line up and all of the books on the life of Jesus that are not in the bible. Around 200 years after the death of Jesus, books on his life became something of a fad. Treating the bible like any other document at that time, it is only logical to assume that myth mixed heavily with history. This is bolstered by the similarity between the supernatural aspects of the life of Jesus to figures in other religions. (Osiris, Mithras, etc) These other myths were around long before Jesus and their similarities are striking.
Now as to the question of someone being divine, I ask, how can one document prove that? What makes the stories of the Hebrew god more credible than divinity stories from other cultures?
Divinity is a belief. Unless some being comes down from the sky and demonstrates powers similiar to those stated in the bible, it will remain a belief.
Jesus did not regard King David as a fictional character. Nor, for example, did he regard the story of Jonah and the whale as a fictional account.
The four gospels were all written in the 1st century A.D. Matthew or Mark within 20 years (not 200) of Jesus' death; Luke very soon thereafter; John probably around 85-95 A.D. The point is, they were written soon enough (quite soon enough) that many who were alive and who witnessed the activities of Christ during his 3 year ministry, were still alive along with the authors of the gospels, and would have refuted the gospel accounts if they were in error. They would never have been able to gain the circulation and credibility they did, if they were fabrications.
On your last point...suffice to say that while many religious leaders have risen to greatness, only One has risen from the grave. The resurrection of Christ authenticates His divinity.
You just can't help wading into subjects you know absoutely nothing about, can you?
Why?
Why do you believe this?
The four gospels were written at least two hundred years after the death of Jesus.
Many scholars who have made the study of these things their life's work disagree.
What have you studied to come up with a different answer?
Along with the fact that the gospels don't even line up and all of the books on the life of Jesus that are not in the bible.
Duh!
"Dang!! The story in the New York Post doesn't agree with the one in the Washington Times or the Christian Science Monitor!
I guess they must have made it all up or it's just not worth my effort to dig out the Truth."
--SkepticDude