At your insistence, here we go.
Evidence from History
The Gospels
Before you say it, yes these can be considered bias and are riddled with flaws, but to discount them as evidence is poor history. For example, if I wished to study the rise of the Nazis, Mien Kampf would be useless on its own (extremely bias etc) but could be used in connection with other primary texts to argue a theory. In the same way, the Gospels can be used in connection to other texts to show Christ probably was an historical figure.
Roman/Jewish Sources
Tacitus, Josephus, Julius Africanus, the Babylonian Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, the Mara Bar-Serapion and Thallus are all non-Christian sources which make reference to a Christ figure in some way. Many of these sources are uncomplimentary ('so-called Messiah etc) and it is this fact which goes against the idea of forgery. Why create a source critical of you?
Extra-biblical Gospels
These add more weight to the other Gospels as they were written by people who tended to hate the orthodox authors of the other Christian sources. This makes co-operation in a giant scam unlikely.
The Lack of Evidence?
The name Christ is a Greek title. The lack of a proper name does not discredit the existence of Christ, however. This shows that the name has been lost (like so much) to the mists of time and the fires of hatred, not that the Christ never existed.
In fact, because the name has so clearly been lost, it makes evidence gathering more difficult (you try finding the records of a nameless man) hence goes some way to explaining the lack of sources with the real name of Christ upon it. Even if we discovered a mountain of papers, we would not know they showed us evidence.
What is more, I can think of few places which are more war-torn and blood soaked areas than Israel. The chances of records of a minor prophet in a back-water province at a time when there where hundreds of 'Son of God' wannabes is highly unlikely. That some did is a minor miracle but again explains why we have no 'real' name evidence. A lot gets lost in 2,000 years of war.
The idea that the existing evidence is a forgery seems groundless. I have yet to come across any evidence for the idea and, until I do, I will dismiss the possibility.
The other factor brought about by the forgery idea is who, why and when? I can think of no answer which satisfy me, perhaps you will have more luck.
Evidence from History
The Gospels
Before you say it, yes these can be considered bias and are riddled with flaws, but to discount them as evidence is poor history. For example, if I wished to study the rise of the Nazis, Mien Kampf would be useless on its own (extremely bias etc) but could be used in connection with other primary texts to argue a theory. In the same way, the Gospels can be used in connection to other texts to show Christ probably was an historical figure.
Roman/Jewish Sources
Tacitus, Josephus, Julius Africanus, the Babylonian Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, the Mara Bar-Serapion and Thallus are all non-Christian sources which make reference to a Christ figure in some way. Many of these sources are uncomplimentary ('so-called Messiah etc) and it is this fact which goes against the idea of forgery. Why create a source critical of you?
Extra-biblical Gospels
These add more weight to the other Gospels as they were written by people who tended to hate the orthodox authors of the other Christian sources. This makes co-operation in a giant scam unlikely.
The Lack of Evidence?
The name Christ is a Greek title. The lack of a proper name does not discredit the existence of Christ, however. This shows that the name has been lost (like so much) to the mists of time and the fires of hatred, not that the Christ never existed.
In fact, because the name has so clearly been lost, it makes evidence gathering more difficult (you try finding the records of a nameless man) hence goes some way to explaining the lack of sources with the real name of Christ upon it. Even if we discovered a mountain of papers, we would not know they showed us evidence.
What is more, I can think of few places which are more war-torn and blood soaked areas than Israel. The chances of records of a minor prophet in a back-water province at a time when there where hundreds of 'Son of God' wannabes is highly unlikely. That some did is a minor miracle but again explains why we have no 'real' name evidence. A lot gets lost in 2,000 years of war.
The idea that the existing evidence is a forgery seems groundless. I have yet to come across any evidence for the idea and, until I do, I will dismiss the possibility.
The other factor brought about by the forgery idea is who, why and when? I can think of no answer which satisfy me, perhaps you will have more luck.
