If you do a serious web search you will find many statements that virtually all professional historians and Bible scholars, Christian, atheist and agnostic, accept the historicity of Jesus. I'm talking about people who have Ph.D.'s in history and related subjects. If you want to go beyond counting heads the only serious inquiry you can make is to read the works of those scholars.

One of the most important areas to consider is the nature of the New Testament documents. Exactly what are they, who wrote them, when were they written, etc. This is also a serious and involving study. The consensus now is that all the documents, except Revelation(about 100A.D.) were written from about 50-80 A.D. These early dates are immensely important because the closer factual claims are in time to the events themselves the less likely they are fabricated. So to be thorough you have to do some real digging on the NT.

If you accept the early dates for the NT the historicity of Jesus is almost a slam dunk. The gospels are based on oral traditions so their content was current in the church much earlier than the written documents, at least within 10-15 years of Jesus' death. If that's the case, in order to reject Jesus' existence, you have to believe that in Jerusalem, in the mid-40's A.D., a group of people was going around preaching that a miracle working prophet of God had lived among them, but that they were making it up. Since the claims made about Him include allegations that He spoke to large groups of people, it's just incredible to think that anyone would be making these claims about a fictitious person, and even more incredible to think that even if they did their message would be accepted - but it was and spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire. The whole movement would have died instantly at the place it started if He didn't exist because nobody would have heard of Him even though the people preaching about Him were claiming that their audience knew Him.

Notice that Peter is speaking to the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem, not only that they knew Jesus, but that they crucified Him. If Christians were making this claim in the mid-40s, and it was false, they would have been arrested and probably executed. There are many incidents like this in the NT, including a scene where Paul addresses King Agrippa:

Acts 26:
If this document, Acts, was being circulated while Agrippa was still King, and I think it was, then you have to believe it's lying about Paul making these statements to the King. In those days, lying about a King was a ticket to suicide - especially for Christians who were not viewed favorably by the Jewish leaders.

One final point - even if the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses (though I think they were, except perhaps Luke), they were circulated throughout the church while many who were eyewitnesses were still alive. If nobody had ever heard of the things claimed in these documents and many were in a position to show they were false, how could the stories continue to be accepted? It isn't a question of accepting a philosophy about the nature of God or the afterlife, but about factual claims concerning real people and events, claims made to people who would have known they were false. Even if someone tried that, why would it be successful?

What you're missing is suicide bombers aren't dying because they believe a historical claim that could be easily disproved if false.

Thanks for the kind words. If the twelve apostles went to their deaths after being horribly tortured, still believing in Jesus’ divinity then that that makes a strong case for Jesus’ holiness. However their deaths are of varying authenticity in themselves. After all, the only Biblical record of an apostles death is James.

The actual textual evidence on the details of the apostles’ death doesn’t seem to be there and it seems just tradition that Bart was flayed alive and Matthew was killed by a halberd etc. I don’t like referencing atheist websites due to their bias, however this article is well sourced on the dubious nature of the evidence and even references Catholic websites. Here

Do you honestly think that when I said 'the time of Jesus' I was referring to a time after his death?

Using The Madnak response: So you think the time of Queen Victoria refers to the the time after her death. No, this is known as the Edwardian period.

I'm going to need some examples. Thanks

Yes. Why wouldn't I?

When talking about historical documents from more than about 600 years ago (pre-printing press, which is something like 1400), you tend not to have very many documents at all. Therefore, when you talk about things like "the time of Jesus" you're referring to a range of about 50-100 years (to as much as 200-300 years, depending on the context) from the life of Jesus. There just aren't very many documents out there from that long ago, so in order to have anything meaningful to say, you must broaden the window so that it actually includes a reasonable number of documents.

The one quoted, clearly. Voluminous documentation, professional scholars of the time accepted it, etc.

So the question is whether professional scholars who study the ancient Greeks believe that Achilles was a real person, or whether Gilgamesh was a real person.

The dating using political figures is also a more precise method because these are dates that have clear beginnings and ends, and run consecutively with either another political figure or the end of a regime.

For example, if you were trying to talk about the social climate during the time of Shakespeare, you probably wouldn't start at Shakespeare's birth and stop at Shakespeare's death (well, you might, but most others wouldn't).

If he existed or not is irrelevant to me as an athiest..... assuming he did, I still do not believe he came from a virgin birth, nor was he the son of god, nor will he be the savior of my eternal soul.

Professional scholars of the period.

Yeah that gets into an interesting concept

Mary: the first woman to rationalize herself into a religion.

Could it have been that Mary was a little unfaithful, got herself pregnant, and just rationalized it away in her mind....or even raped! And she just didn't want to believe it so she firmly held that she was a virgin, and that God had impregnated her. Think about it, that would be a hell of a pressure to put on a son. "Son, you have to grow up...to be the Son of God." "What the **** mom? Can't I just be a carpenter like Joe?" "No you must be the Son of God, now speak to your true Father, God, Speak to him! In your mind!"

Think about the affect that would have on the psyche of a developing child. It was inevitable that he would try to start his own religion if that is what happened to him as he was growing up. That would also explain why he cried out so famously on the cross, "My Father, My Father, why have you forsaken me?" He actually believed his father would come to save him.

You're misinterpreting the original quote.

Uh, no.

Again, just because he is proved to have existed does not make him the son of god or that he died and came back to life.

Here's one you'll like OP. Habermas looking at the Resurrection from the Skeptics Argument. Its a long series though.

Here's the first one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsrqF...ext=1&index=24

Fascinating and easy to follow with the timeline of the Gospels.

i would imagine the whole virgin birth thing was added later to add some spice to the Jesus story.

The whole virgin birth thing was prophesied in the OT.

Here OP is a synopsis of the Habermas videos.

The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus
By Gary R. Habermas

When the New Testament defines and identifies the Gospel data, at least three items are always mentioned: the Deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.1 The key to Jesus' resurrection is his post-death appearances. Critical scholars agree that the entire enterprise of the early church-worship, writings, and witness—would never have come about if Jesus' followers were not absolutely convinced that He had conquered death by appearing to them afterwards.

Throughout this essay, I will not assume the inspiration or even the reliability of the New Testament writings, though I think these doctrines rest on strong grounds. I will refer almost exclusively to those data that are so well attested that they impress even the vast majority of non-evangelical scholars. Each point is confirmed by impressive data, even though I can do no more than offer an outline of these reasons.

We must be clear from the outset that not only do contemporary scholars not mind when points are taken from the New Testament writings, but they do so often. The reason is that confirmed data can be used anywhere it is found.

Using almost solely those data that are well-attested and recognized, I will list 10 considerations that favor Jesus' resurrection appearances. Each angle has this in common: it indicates that one or more persons were utterly convinced that they had seen Jesus again after his death. Although I cannot defend the additional thesis here, I and others have argued elsewhere in much detail that this conviction cannot be viably accounted for by any natural means. Perhaps surprisingly, comparatively few skeptical scholars even favor these alternative hypotheses.2 Therefore, the most likely conclusion is that the disciples and others really did see the risen Jesus.

Here is the absolute crux of my case: These 10 arguments point to the disciples and others having actual, visual experiences. When juxtaposed with the failure of viable natural alternatives, we have an especially powerful indication that, after His death, Jesus actually appeared to many persons. These appearances were to both individuals and groups. In other words, if multiple evidences point to visual experiences, and natural attempts fail to explain them otherwise, the most likely explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead. Briefly, the early disciples' experiences plus the failure of naturalistic theories equals the resurrection appearances of Jesus.

Our first four arguments are drawn from Paul's epistles. The remaining six are taken from other New Testament sources.

(1) For a number of reasons, when recent scholars discuss the resurrection appearances of Jesus, they begin with the apostle Paul. He had clearly been a powerful opponent of the early Christian message (Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:4-7; 1 Cor. 15:9). Paul explains that he was converted from his high rank in Judaism. Clearly, the reason for his change was his belief that he had seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:16). As a scholar on both Judaism and Christianity, Jesus' appearance to Paul certainly qualified him as an exceptionally strong witness to the resurrected Jesus.

(2) Beyond his scholarly and eyewitness testimony, Paul contributes far more to a case for Jesus' resurrection appearances. Few conclusions in current study are more widely held by scholars than that, in 1 Corinthians 15:3, Paul recorded a very ancient tradition that actually predates his book, probably by a couple of decades. It could very well predate even Paul's conversion to Christianity. After explaining that he received this from others, Paul succinctly reports the Gospel that was preached in early Christianity: Christ died for our sins and was buried. Afterwards, he was raised from the dead and appeared to many witnesses.

Paul tells his readers that he was handing down this teaching that he had received from others (see I Cor. 15:3). His explicit statement here is important, due to the respect that scholars have for Paul's testimony. Further, his claim has been vindicated because there are many textual indications that the words that follow were not composed by him. For example, this list of appearances exhibits a parallel structure, as if it were an ancient catechism whose purpose was to be passed on and learned. Moreover, to identify a few other characteristics, the Greek sentence structure, diction, and some of the words are not Paul's, judging from his other epistles.

Most scholars who address the subject think that Paul received this material about 35 A.D. just three years after his conversion, when he made his first trip to Jerusalem. Paul explains that he visited Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (see Gal. 1:18-19). In the immediate context both before and after, Paul is discussing the nature of the Gospel (see Gal. 1:11-2:10). Additionally, Paul's choice of words in verse 18 shows that he was interviewing or questioning the two apostles in order to gain information. Here we have an exceptionally early tradition from almost immediately after Jesus, centering on the Gospel report, and clearly including Jesus' resurrection appearances.

(3) Paul was so careful to assure the truth of the gospel message that he returned to Jerusalem 14 years after this initial visit (see Gal. 2:1-10). Amazingly, his purpose was to be absolutely sure that what he preached was true (see Gal. 2:2)! For a second time, Paul conducted his ancient research. Besides Peter and James, another major apostle, John, was also present. Could Paul possibly have consulted three more prominent Christian leaders? Crucially, these four witnesses were the most influential in the early church. And with a single voice, they testified at this early date to the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The bottom line was that Paul's Gospel teaching, which included the resurrection (see 1 Cor. 15:1-5), was approved by the other three apostles. They added nothing to his message (see I Cor. 2:6, 9). Paul's two trips to Jerusalem provided the data and the confirmation that he desired.

(4) In 1 Corinthians 15:11, Paul added still another layer of personal testimony. We already learned that the other major apostolic leaders had approved Paul's gospel message. Now Paul asserts that he also knew what the others were preaching. And as they had confirmed his message years before, Paul now testified that they also taught the same truth that he did regarding Jesus' resurrection appearances (1 Cor. 15:11). In fact, Paul had just recorded separate appearances to two of them: Peter (see I Cor. 15:5) and James (see I. Cor. 15:7). Together with John, all the apostles preached the same truth—they were witnesses of the risen Jesus' appearances (see I. Cor. 15:12, 15).

Scholars uniformly regard Paul as the earliest and best witness to the resurrection appearances. Considerations such as these four provide some indications of the value of Paul's testimony to Jesus' resurrection appearances. But Pau's writings are far from the only evidence. There are at least six more confirmations that work together to form an even tighter lattice work.

(5) Besides 1 Corinthians 15:3, scholars usually agree that many other New Testament books also contain early traditions that predate the texts in which they appear. Many of the best examples are found in the Book of Acts, where succinct summaries of early preaching are embedded.3 The center of these early statements is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(6) Virtually no one, friend or foe, believer or critic, denies that it was their convictions that they had seen the resurrected Jesus that caused the disciples' radical transformations. They were willing to die specifically for their resurrection belief. Down through the centuries many have been willing to give their lives for political or religious causes. But the crucial difference here is that while many have died for their convictions, Jesus' disciples were in the right place on to know the truth or falsity of the event for which they were willing to die.

(7) It is almost always acknowledged that during Jesus' ministry, His brother James was a skeptic (see John 7:5). He was probably one of the family members in Mark 3:21-35 who thought that Jesus was insane! But how do we account for the surprising reports that James later led the Jerusalem church (Gal. 1:18-2:1-10; Acts 15:13-21)? According to the creedal comment in 1 Corinthians 15:7, Jesus appeared to James, yet another pointer to a resurrection appearance.

(8) The tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty shortly afterwards. The early apostolic preaching of the resurrection began in Jerusalem, where a closed or occupied tomb would have been disastrous! Moreover, the unanimous agreement that women were the earliest witnesses to the empty tomb is another strong consideration, since the widespread prejudice against female testimony indicates that the reports were not invented. Although the empty tomb does not prove the resurrection appearances, it does strengthen the disciples' claim to have seen the risen Jesus.

(9) That Jesus' resurrection was the very center of early Christian faith also indicates its reality, since, for this reason, it was repeatedly affirmed by believers and challenged by unbelievers. For example. Paul visited the Jerusalem apostles at least two or three times in order to make sure that his Gospel message was truthful. Indeed, there was no Christianity without this event (see 1 Cor. 15:14, 17). It was the church's central proclamation (see Acts 4:33). Unbelievers attacked this centerpiece of faith, but could not disprove the rock on which it was founded: Jesus' appearances.

(10) Lastly, 2,000 years of attempts by nonbelievers to explain what happened to Jesus in natural terms have failed. The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem had the power, motive, and location to investigate thoroughly the proclamation of the resurrection appearances. They knew of Jesus' death and His burial. Though they were ideally situated to expose the error, they did not refute the evidence. Even many of today's skeptical scholars are without an explanation of what occurred.

For reasons like these 10, the vast majority of contemporary scholars conclude that Jesus' disciples and others thought that they had seen Jesus after His crucifixion. This is what the earliest believers claimed and this teaching is confirmed by an amazing variety of details from a number of perspectives. We might even say that the disciples were overpowered by these evidences themselves, which convinced them that they had seen the risen Jesus. Given that natural theses cannot explain these experiences, Jesus' resurrection appearances remain the best explanation of the historical facts. The early disciples' experiences plus the failure of naturalistic theories equals the resurrection appearances of Jesus.

End Notes

1For examples, see Romans 1:3-4; 10:9; Acts 2:22-36; 3:12-23.

2See Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), especially pages 79-150; Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), especially Chapter 1.

3Commonly-cited examples include 1:21-22; 2:22-36; 3:13-16; 4:8-10; 5:29-32; 10:39-43; 13:28-31; 17:1-3; 17:30-31.

i used to go to sunday school after church every sunday. when the question of the virgin birth came up, the teacher told us that mary was not actually a literal virgin, but rather she had never made love to a man in the emotional sense. therefore, a penis actually did go into her vagina, ejaculate, and cause her pregnancy with Jesus.

that's probably why i used to be all gung-ho for Jesus, because everything was always explained to me in ways that physically made sense. so i never had to rationalize my completely irrational beliefs with the real world. of course, in the end, religion was still just too absurd for me to continue to follow.

Here's a much shorter video explaining the Gospels plus a Skeptic raising questions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40aRXR8cBxQ

I can't take you seriously and if you're not lying you were subjected to some pretty foul heresies.

So if I didn't answer your posts any more I'm sure you'll understand.

oops, i deleted my post b/c for some reason i thought we were talking about 2 different things.

but yes, i was taught in church that Mary was not actually a virgin. makes religion a lot easier to swallow if it actually makes sense in the real world.

edit: also, are the technical aspects of it really all that important? shouldn't Christians be more focused on the teachings of Jesus and trying to live a Christ-like life than just worship him for being superman? when people get caught up in trying to validate every wacky thing in the Bible, they completely miss the point of their own religion anyway.

I'm def not extremely educated on the subject but my thoughts:

-Man named jesus lived
-He was not born from a virgin
-He did have a moral code that was pretty revolutionary for this time
-He never performed any real miracles
-Was not resurrected.
-People made stuff up about him after he died and wrote it down, evidence of this would be Luke writing about the census to try and make Jesus fulfill the prophecy, while their is no record of the census ever occurring during that time period.

Again my best guess, I don't know much about the subject, but would like to learn more.

Yes there is. try looking it up.

The census that is referred to in the Bible happened at least 2 years after the birth of Jesus.

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/quirinius.htm

dont know about you guys but i dont think luke would lie about something like that. matty mark and john maybe but luke could never keep it up.