Hello G Allen, thanks for taking the time to respond.
You said:
You seem to have two, perhaps three sources that more or less say "people believed that Jesus was a real person."
It's not quite so reductionistic, my friend.
Tacitus records that the Romans believed Jesus existed, and the notable events they record match the Gospels completely.
Sanhedrin 43a records that the Jewish religious authorities believed Jesus existed, and the notable events they record match the Gospels completely.
Clement affirms that the Gospel of Mark is eye-witness testimony, based on Peter, which explains why Mark is so full of events featuring Peter.
Phlegon corroborates the darkness and earthquake the Gospels record.
Six different sources corroborate Luke's registration shortly before the birth of Jesus.
You said:
The most contemporary one is from two generations after and in a different place. That source isn't even talking about Jesus, but of his followers.
I quoted historians, my friend. Historians always write after the events they record.
Clement is one person in a chain of testimony establishing that Mark is the eye-witness testimony of Peter to the life of Jesus.
Papias is an earlier link in the chain, as he knew the Apostle John personally. Papias records the Apostle John's testimony that Mark recorded Peter's eye-witness accounts of Jesus.
But Clement's summary of the data is more easily quoted in an article such as this.
You said:
The rest of your evidence is taken from the Bible! It may shock you to know that you cannot use the Bible as evidence of the "historical accuracy" of the Bible. Well you can, but that's the very definition of circular reasoning.
Where have I quoted the Bible, my friend?
I quote the evidence that corroborates the Bible, and mention the specific claims in the Bible that they corroborate.
Yet, even with this, you'll notice I never quote the Bible in this article. The charge is often made just as you made it -- that Christians can only support Jesus by quoting the Bible.
I wrote this article precisely to quote sources other than the Bible.
You said:
I get it, you believe in the accounts of Jesus as told in the Bible. Unfortunately your faith does not become historical cannon via this kind of so-called "evidence."
You'll notice I never quoted the Bible.
Nor did I ever appeal to the Bible as evidence.
Nor did I ever act as though a simple appeal to the Bible establishes historical fact.
I'm well aware of objections like yours, my friend. That's why I wrote this article the way I did.
I only quote sources outside the Bible. I then show how they corroborate the Bible perfectly.
