Objective evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ?

[DeistPaladin]

I treat religious propaganda with greater skepticism than I treat political propaganda. 

Historists will complain that our knowledge of nearly everyone in the ancient world is sketchy and relies upon biased sources. This may be true but testimony that comes to us from religious tracts ought to be treated with a higher standard of skepticism for two important reasons:

1. The problems of pseudo-epigraphy and outright deception abounded with religious tracts from the ancient world. If you wanted to advance a religious idea, simply "discover" a letter from an older authority like Paul (half of his missives are considered by scholars to be "inauthentic"). These tracts were further subject to changes as theology changed, most notably in the resurrection story of Mark 16. 

2. Political propaganda is always, on some level, rooted in real events in the real world. If I were marooned on a desert island with only Fox "News" as  my source of information for the last 6 years, I would have a distorted view of the world but at least I would be in command of certain basic facts. I would know that Obama was president, for example. Religious propaganda, by contrast, has no such restriction. It could be completely made up bullshit and most likely is anyway, since the main topic at hand is imaginary deities, magic and fairy tales. 

Besides, this entire argument from Historists essentially boils down to "Aw, gee whiz, whaddya want. It's not like we have any information on anyone from ancient times who wasn't an emperor." This is what I like to call a "yes but" answer. "Yes, we have no information on The Historical Jesus but we don't have much on anyone else either." 

So we have no information on The Historical Jesus then?

"Yes, but we have no information on anyone else either."

So we have no information on The Historical Jesus then. 

Hence I'm a Jesus Mooter. If The Historical Jesus, whatever that even means, existed, we'll never know anything about him, certainly not enough to be able to separate fact from fiction with any degree of reliability. 

---

When you look at what constitutes our historical understanding of other figures based on written testimony, Josephus, Tacitus and dozens of various Christian works, all within 100 years of the supposed events, some within 20 years, it doesn't look that bad to me.

I'm keen to know what we have within 20 years. 

[Pizza]

I think we may not be understanding one another.

It is a fallacy to accept something is true purely because an expert says so. Even experts are required to produce evidence. I'm not talking about dismissing evidence presented by experts. It's only a fallacy if we must accept their opinion simply on their say-so. 

Nonsense. You don't nor can evaluate everything thing scientists claim.  You go with expert majority and not on what a few experts on the fringes say.

[Mudhammam]

I'm keen to know what we have within 20 years. 

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

The antiquity of the creed has been located by most biblical scholars to no more than five years after Jesus' death, probably originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15

[DeistPaladin]

But that information which convinces the experts is available on request. That's the point. 

When defending evolution, biologists don't say "shut up, we're the experts and we say so". They bring evidence to the table to show why they are convinced. 

---

Oh, the Bible tells us so. Well, then...

*Facepalm* 

Where do I even begin? I'm sorry, it's been a long day and my brain is fried. I'll try to list all the problems with this line of thinking when I can.

[Mudhammam]

But that information which convinces the experts is available on request. That's the point. 

When defending evolution, biologists don't say "shut up, we're the experts and we say so". They bring evidence to the table to show why they are convinced. 

---

Oh, the Bible tells us so. Well, then...

*Facepalm* 

Where do I even begin? I'm sorry, it's been a long day and my brain is fried. I'll try to list all the problems with this line of thinking when I can.

I hope you do realize the magnitude of going through each passage and the many debates over how to analysis this or that element because honestly I'm not really up for it, nor do I think I'm really that well-versed in the technicalities to present such a case in a way that could do it justice. But I do recall a recent poster coming on here and man-handling Min and some other mythers...

[Pizza]

But that information which convinces the experts is available on request. That's the point. 

When defending evolution, biologists don't say "shut up, we're the experts and we say so". They bring evidence to the table to show why they are convinced. 

That's what historians do and you just hand wave it away because the evidence isn't ideal. Reliability of evidence isn't all or nothing, even propaganda like the Bible and liars can tell us something about the past figures. That's just the way of the real world. You are not going to get 100% reliable sources. No one is claiming that we have to swallow every claim made without asking questions and doubting. To use your isolated island thought experiment: If Fox News said Obama is the presidentof USA, I wouldn't say I guess Obama doesn't exist. 

[Minimalist]

I am saying that the exact same standards of evidence apply, whether we are discussing Jesus, Homer, or any other ancient person.

Did Homer come back from the dead?  Did he do any miracles?  What you have for Homer is exactly what you have for jesus.  The writings of later authors.  Similarly, the same applies to mohammed.  There is no contemporary evidence. 

Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.

These original sources are now lost but they were utilized by the historians mentioned.  When you can produce anything remotely equivalent then you can discuss "exact same standards."  Right now, jesus is a pipe dream smoked up by later adherents.

[robvalue]

Long post!

Please note this is all my opinion. I'm not a historian. I'm just offering the best arguments I can for the evidence I'm aware of.

---

Some thoughts:

What evidence there is or what conclusions anyone draws about other historical figures is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's a tu quoque fallacy. It's saying, "Everyone believes in X with such weak evidence, so why not jesus?"

The thing about "authority" is that we have all the same evidence they have in this case pretty much, and what they present are their arguments. Historians are much better placed to judge, say, whether a document is a forgery. But if they want to say something about the likelihood jesus existed, under a certain criteria for that definition, then they must present arguments and evidence. If their arguments are weak, then they don't convince me. If they are fallacious, I can dismiss them.

Remember that the bible is one long book of claims. It shouldn't be assumed anything in it is true unless it can be reasonably well demonstrated by independent sources. Otherwise, it's circular logic. Say for example about the authors going on about Bethlehem or Nazareth a lot when it may seem like it would be "easier" not to. So what? It's a story. It's a book of claims. There may be any number of literary reasons to stick those towns in as they did. Considering what a late iteration of the bible we have, it may have been totally clear for the purposes of the story why this was and it's now been lost.

Bottom line, I think often people give allowances to the bible that they would not give to any other random book. There seems to be a baseline assumption that it's not all totally made up. Why would I assume that? I totally will assume the whole thing is made up, and I'll only accept what can be objectively demonstrated to have a decent chance of actualy being true. Just like I would do with any random book someone shoved into my hands, particularly one written so long ago.

Also, the whole point of the story is that jesus is the most important man ever. Ever! Yet no one bothered to write anything about him, as far as we know, until years after his death. Now this is an appeal to motive, which I am not fond of, so it doesn't make the accounts less true. But it is a startling lack of evidence (contemporary accounts) exactly where you would expect to find tons of it. The fact that "he" became so popular such a long time later, even after he supposedly rose from the dead, is much more consistent with the development of an entirely fabricated legend.

This is what I would propose as criteria for a "historical Jesus":

A demonstration that there is enough independently verified information and criteria about "jesus" that it is reasonable to conclude it would be likely only to apply to a single historical person.

If the information we have about jesus could reasonably be expected to apply to, say, 500 people alive at that time, then we don't have a historical jesus, in my opinion. We're pinning a story on any one of a bunch of random guys, or more likely, a combination of many characters. If it can be so easily shifted like this, then personally I say historical Jesus has not met its burden of proof. If it's fair to assume jesus is a mixture of more than one person, then this is not good enough.

I am not making the claim that there was no historical jesus, just like I don't make the claim there is no God. I only say I don't believe the claim of a HJ until there's good enough evidence and argument to sufficiently pin it one one person. I'm not asking for that person's social security number or anything, I'm talking about an honest probability assessment of the criteria to say how many people we would reasonably expect to match the description. Even if it's as high as 10, then it fails in my opinion. It's just a mish mash of local mad men, there is no one "jesus". But if the criteria are so specific that you wouldn't reasonably expect more than one person to have matched all of them, then we have a winner. If the evidence isn't there, too bad. I'm not going to give extra weight to what little evidence there is, just because we don't have much.

Do we have a winner?

Well that's enough rantings for now. I'm not having a go at anyone, I respect everyone else to draw their conclusions and I'm not saying I'm right and they are wrong. This is purely a matter of personal judgement.

---

[Cinjin]

I hope you do realize the magnitude of going through each passage and the many debates over how to analysis this or that element because honestly I'm not really up for it, nor do I think I'm really that well-versed in the technicalities to present such a case in a way that could do it justice. But I do recall a recent poster coming on here and  man-handling Min and some other mythers...

I think you may be missing the point.  No one here has said Jesus absolutely didn't exist on some level, I believe what most are saying is that there is not sufficient evidence to make the claim that you are trying to make.
Clearly, you want desperately for Jesus to have existed and are unwilling to concede even the smallest of his mythical attributes.  
You seem utterly determined to accept any and all ancient scribblings on the grounds that some unnamed person(s) of scholarly education may have found some circumstantial evidence that even he or she cannot prove.

If Jesus rode into the crowded city of Jerusalem while hundreds, if not thousands of people laid palm branches at his feet, why pray tell is there absolutely no record of this?  I'd say that's a pretty significant event.  The list goes on and on.  
You seem more caught up in the religious significance of Jesus' back story rather than actual events.
Prove those events took place on any historical level and I'll subliminally accept that jewish zombie right now (just kidding, I won't).  Until then, you are merely spouting the same old tired rhetoric:  "Why would they lie - it must be real."  It's a painfully weak position if you ask me.

But hey, messiahs always seem to need defenders. 
Just once, I'd like to see one that could stand on his own merits - complete with legitimate historical record and a halfway decent miracle.  

[robvalue]

Spot on. People can lie for any number of reasons. It falls under the "die for a lie" fallacy, yet even more so.

Especially if they never intended the book to be non-fiction in the first place. How do we know they weren't just writing a story? It sounds way more like a story than a serious account. Richard Carrier commented that the style of writing in the gospels is what you would expect from myth making; story telling.