There isn't a single first person account of his existence. All accounts were written well after his death (if he even existed). From your own link:
Three mentions that are not in christian fiction, and all well after his death. Sure he existed...
Sounds about right, actually. He only had a dozen men. He wasn't Ceasar. The vast majority of people alive in his day have no remaining first person accounts of their existence, but they certainly existed. If you or I were born there at that time there is very little chance that anyone today would be able to find even one reference, much less, three. This is especially true if the records you or I commissioned from our friends were excluded like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc as "first person accounts."
Ugh. Sorry, CZ, but the only thing you're proving is that Wikipedia is a terrible source.
That line was littered with sourced citations.
I know this sounds smug and condescending and whatever else, but I'll still say it: the problem with the study of religion is that only idiots tend to study it. There is a severe lack of truly non-religious scholarly study that does what truly SHOULD be done: i.e. disregard all non-historical accounts, as in, the Bible. Rather than grasping at straws to try and correlate Biblical allegory, it needs to be studied like any other history.
That's just it: the study of history supports it. Not the study of religion. The biblical accounts weren't afraid to name names from King Herod at the beginning to Pontius Pilate at the end. It has been studied "like any other history." The only people who dispute it are those who propose the LESS likely scenario in the face of all the evidence, which indicates a ridiculous bias.
And in that regard, there is NOTHING that proves the Jesus of biblical fame ever existed. The absolute BEST evidence we have is from Tacitus, who, IIRC, simply mentioned that a) the Christians were persecuted and b) a guy named Christus was executed. It's a little vague, even if you consider it to be fact.
Once again, lack of irrefutable proof does not mean he doesn't exist. We lack proof that the vast majority of people in history existed, but they existed, non the less. If you discount multiple first hand accounts because they come from the source you are trying to independently prove then there are going to be a lot more people in history who you can't prove existed. That does not mean we conclude they didn't exist. It simply means we have to consider all the evidence and determine the likelihood that they existed. Jesus' existence is so likely based on the confluence of details and the unlikelihood of faking it that we can reasonably conclude that he existed.
But then you add in some of the complicating factors...like how Tacitus was born like 25 years after the supposed death of Christ. And that the oldest copy of his writing that has the mention of Christus and Pontius Pilate is from the 11th century. Oh, and I think it was in Tacitus's final writing from ~AD 100+. Basically, I am not an authority on the matter and therefore cannot declare it to be a spurious addition, but it damn sure raises doubts about its authenticity. Even if it is part of Tacitus's actual writings (again, not saying it isn't), the lack of any source other than hearsay is pretty damning; and Tacitus is known to have been in contact with Christians who would have been likely to pass along the story...if I recall right, part of his job in the Roman government was to supervise religious cults...
Basically, with ANY other supposed historical figure, we would probably have more factual proof of their existence. Then you add in the complicating factor- that this is not simply a historical figure, but one who exists so much more vividly in mythology.
A carefully preserved mythology inexorably documenting many other externally proven events every bit as vividly.
Often times, we know LOTS about a historical figure. And on top of that, there are some anecdotes, tall tales, et al that are typically accepted as either totally untrue or maybe just hugely embellished off of something much more vague and less remarkable.
And this is exactly what I am talking about. In an over-zealous effort to dismiss those tales, we get people who take it so far that it is as ridiculous as the tales they are trying to dismiss. It's far easier to start a cult with a con man than to make him up entirely within historically verifiable context. Ask L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith or another cult leader. Saying Jesus didn't exist because you don't believe the rest of it is a lot like saying that those guys don't exist because you don't believe in Scientology or The Book of Mormon.
To take that and flip it on its head...lots and lots of storytime, with VERY little actual history, and a deafening silence from many sources where we might EXPECT to see a historical mention of the mythical figure...meh, no reasonable person should accept that as fact. Our society just has a favorable skew towards Christianity.
I never got the impression that he was as big of a figure within his lifetime as after. He was relatively unknown with few followers until the end. "VERY little actual history" is not true. Names, locations, timelines, events, etc add up. Herod really did send them all to Bethlehem. Pontius Pilot really did crucify people right where they say it happened. They really would have to change the charges and accusations exactly as written to get him apply Roman law to him. All of the locations mentioned existed at the time they were supposed to exist in the way they were described existing (seas, tribes, temples, cities, etc). History supports every bit
of the setting, even if he was just some magician or
Would a couple mentions of Zues in secular Greek writings be enough to convince us that the Greek gods were, in fact, totally real?
[edited to elaborate Re: Tacitus]
That is not an equivalent comparison. Even according to the mythology, Zeus was not waking among people, witnessed, and recorded along with many other verifiable people and events. He lacks that in the myth and the independent record.
