There is a lot of historical evidence that backs up what the Bible says. All you need do is research it.

@AZWoman I have done so, at exhaustive length. Pretty close to zero information about Jesus before Paul. There are mountains of evidence from the fourth century on.

Actually, we do know the names of numerous witnesses, and we have their written testimony. At least two of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, the Gospels being biographical accounts of Jesus' life. In addition, Peter, an apostle, wrote three letters that are included in the New Testament. James, the brother of Christ, was initially not a believer, but he converted later. And Paul, originally known as Saul, was a witness who vehemently opposed both Jesus & his followers, persecuting them to death. After his conversion, he defended & spread Jesus' message in the face of severe persecution until he was martyred for it, as were nearly all of the apostles and many hundreds of the other witnesses. There is an abundance of evidence evidence from both Jesus' followers and from external, non-Christian sources that Jesus lived, was killed by crucifixion, and that he was seen alive after his confirmed death. It is very easy to find if you're willing to look for it.

@Wordmage We have no idea who wrote the Gospels, unless you want to rely on church tradition. It is highly questionable that Peter wrote any of the letters attributed to him. As for Paul, by his own admission never met Jesus whilst he (Jesus) was alive.

There are NO credible contemporary non- Christian accounts of Jesus, the early reliable accounts speak only of his followers.

I have no problem with you saying you trust the church and its historical traditions. None of this "evidence" even comes close to being convincing unless you are already a believer.

@waynus Why do you say it is "highly questionable" that Peter wrote any of the letters attributed to him? The first verse of each of the two epistles each clearly states who the letter comes from. That's not "church tradition." That's internal evidence, just as if your adherents were to circulate a letter that started out, "Dear Mom… Love, Wayne." That would be the first clue that it came from you and was intended for your mother. Then, the contents, being a discussion of things both you and she knew about, would further attest that you were the author and she was the addressee.

I don't recall the name of the other historian off the top my head, but I don't think I recall hearing anyone else refer to Josephus as "not credible."

Whether Paul met Jesus or not before Jesus' crucifixion is immaterial. There is no question that he knew about Jesus and his ministry, and after Jesus' death he persecuted the disciples. And then he met Jesus. If you accept "his own admission" that he never met Jesus before the crucifixion, then you also need to accept his declaration that Jesus revealed himself on the road to Damascus, which event radically altered Paul's perceptions, beliefs, and actions.

Do you believe in Socrates? Do you believe that the things attributed to him were things he actually wrote? What about Plato? Are you aware that the amount of evidence that Jesus did and said the things that are contained in the New Testament dwarfs the amount of evidence we have that those two even existed, much less did/wrote the things that are reported about them. And this evidence has been compelling enough for numerous people who were not already believers. Lee Strobel, an investigative reporter, and David Wood (to name just two) were convinced by the evidence. Even more has been compiled in the years since they decided to believe Jesus is who he claimed to be, and it has yet to be discredited. If no one ever has, let me invite you to examine the evidence with an open mind and read the New Testament while asking God to show himself to you.

I have posted David Wood's testimony in the group, "David Wood Fans." I invite you to watch that. It's quite compelling.
[slug.com]

@Wordmage Oh my goodness. You really need to read some New Testament scholars. It is widely accepted that Peter did not write the epistles that bear his name and has been for some time, they are second century artefacts

That Paul had a vision that profoundly altered his life and arguably led to the creation of the Christian religion in it's modern form, I do not question. This is well documented and attested to. Not evidence of an historical Jesus though.

As for Socrates, we have many and varied accounts of the man but little to nothing from him directly. Plato certainly had a particular view of Socrates but he was not the only Greek to paint a picture of the man. Although I have not asked to base my life around the person of Socrates being the Son of God so probably not in the same order as Jesus.

I run into this a lot. How about we leave out the "experts" who are lawyers, reporters and preachers and instead look to the experts who are actual scholars of these texts. You might try reading Bruce Metzger on the canon of the New Testament. personally I think his work is a little dated and very conservative but is a good starting point.

@Wordmage Forgot Josephus, a simple check will find that the so called "Jesus reference" is a later addition, potentially added by mediaeval scribes. In fact I get the feeling from your comments that while you have read many apologists you have not actually read any of the scholarly works on this subject at all.

I think you would be stunned to read what biblical scholars have been saying now for along time, what historians say about the early church and not speculation but what we actually know and it differs a lot from what I guess you have told.

@waynus, your implication that apologists are not biblical scholars is telling. It looks as though you have already decided that only those whose findings & determinations fall in line with your own worldview deserve to be recognized as "scholars." And, no, I am not stunned when I see those who have decided they don't want to believe Jesus is God twist facts and deny or ignore evidence. Note that I am not claiming to be a scholar, but I know why I believe and that I cannot casually dismiss all the evidence that has been presented like some can.

@Wordmage a scholar is one who has pursued a lifelong and detailed study of a subject usually in an academic setting (but not exclusively). The mark of the a scholar is intellectual rigour, expert levels of knowledge and participation in an intellectual community as well as a list of peer reviewed publications.

An apologist is one who pursues the science of rhetoric, persuasion, addresses alternative points of view and seeks to convince, convert and support a viewpoint.

I pointed out that you appear to have not read any biblical scholars, I have read many/most apologists but find their lack of detail and depth more than a little disturbing. Please understand that many of the scholars I refer to are devout Christians certainly Metzger was.

I have no problem with those who choose to believe and follow the path of faith. It is not however "twisting" or "denying" evidence to seriously analyse the evidence and the documents themselves. My problems come when people make claims about the bible that simply are not supported by the evidence.

As for me I was a Christian for over 4 decades, preaching regularly and studying the scriptures in immense detail. It was this detailed study that convinced me that the bible was not the document it was claimed to be. In fact if we look at modern experience often many of those who have left Christianity have done so after study of the scriptures. Most of us came from Christian traditions that emphasised the "Word" over liturgy, mystical experience or church tradition.

I wish you well.

@Wordmage As someone who has been on both sides of this discussion about Christianity I would add that Christians often invite non-believers to consider the evidence for Christ. However any time they do consider the evidence seriously with diligence and care and find it wanting they are accused of will fullness, deliberate ignorance, ignoring evidence etc.

This is why non-believers so often dismiss Christian claims because the call to seriously consider such claims is not a genuine one.

@waynus, thank you for your response. I see your definitions, and I agree in part. And I don't agree in part. However, since you appear to be fixed in your conclusions I'll simply agree that we probably disagree on numerous points. I am neither eloquent nor articulate enough to argue anyone out of what he firmly believes in his heart.

I am grieved for you, though, over your loss of faith after 40+ years of intimacy with the Bible. I am saddened that you did not encounter the God of the Bible in the same lasting way that CS Lewis did when he decided to carefully examine the Scriptures. I pray that you will once again recognize your need for a Savior and turn to Jesus while you still may. But I will not press you; I will leave that between you & God.

Thank you for your well-wishes. I wish you well, also.