@Nishant Xavier
The Toledot Yeshu as a text dates from no earlier than the 6th century. The oral Rabbinic sources on which it is based appear to be from the 3rd. Therefore, it is not historical evidence of anything other than the state of relations between Jewish and Christian communities. It also states that the resurrection was a hoax, so it's probably not a source you should point to.
Tacitus only mentions that Christians were troublemakers, he makes no statement attesting to the resurrection. Ditto Pliny.
As has been pointed out, the Testimonium Flavianum is problematic (to say the least). Even if authentic in every respect (which it clearly isn't), it would only be sketchy evidence that Jesus was crucified, not resurrected.
St. Jerome, the Gospels, Flew, Craig, Strobel and Aquinas may be dismissed out of hand as providing 'historical evidence'.
Boru
The Toledot Yeshu as a text dates from no earlier than the 6th century. The oral Rabbinic sources on which it is based appear to be from the 3rd. Therefore, it is not historical evidence of anything other than the state of relations between Jewish and Christian communities. It also states that the resurrection was a hoax, so it's probably not a source you should point to.
Tacitus only mentions that Christians were troublemakers, he makes no statement attesting to the resurrection. Ditto Pliny.
As has been pointed out, the Testimonium Flavianum is problematic (to say the least). Even if authentic in every respect (which it clearly isn't), it would only be sketchy evidence that Jesus was crucified, not resurrected.
St. Jerome, the Gospels, Flew, Craig, Strobel and Aquinas may be dismissed out of hand as providing 'historical evidence'.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
