Pericles
True, Jesus was a minor character and not really worth writing about during his lifetime.

The gospels were written by people who knew Jesus. Also true.

However, Assuming the writers of the New Testament did exaggerate events or even made up a fictitious character called Jesus, then why are there no reports from that era refuting his existence.

When Christianity grew historians started writing about Jesus. Some writers despised the Christians and had nothing to gain be perpetuating a lie.

Jesus died between 29AD and 36AD. Josephus wrote about Jesus in 93AD, 56 years after his death. Other mentions of Jesus came 80 to 100 years after his death (Pliny the Younger c.111-117 AD and Tacitus Roman Annals c.115-117 C.E.). It would have been very easy for any of those writers to find local records and individuals to verify what they wrote. Just because those sources are not around 2000 years later doesn’t mean they didn’t exist at the time.

It is hard to imagine that people from various backgrounds which included supporters and opponents, would collaborate to make false statements about stuff that happened 50 to 90 years ago and there not be on single document renouncing those reports?.

Try making up a story about a guy who lived 50 to 100 years ago, who supposedly travelled the country performing miracles, raising the dead and healing the sick. Who was killed by the local authorities who confirmed his death, supervised his burial and put a 24-hour armed guard on the grave. Despite this he was reported to have risen from the dead three days later and was seen by thousands over a six-week period. Now try presenting that as fact and posting it on Wikipedia. How long would it take before we saw all sorts of documents and first hand reports from people in the area saying it never happened and the person never existed?

Evidence that Jesus existed may be questionable but the fact that not one writer in those first couple of centuries challenged the existence of Jesus strongly suggests to me that he did exist

It is probably on YouTube, Boaz.

>>to quote one prominent politician who's name escapes me.. (American I think).."He didn't lay a glove on me"<<

In fact, it was the infamous Dan Rather interview with George Bush Senior, when Dan became a little pushy. The full quote, for your edification, was:

"The bastard didn't lay a glove on me"

C-Span actually sold copies of the interview tape, it was so infamous.

However, the issue then was whether Bush Senior was involved in "Iran Contra", and Rather went a little over the top in his questioning technique. So it was more the manner in which the questions were asked, than their actual content, that turned it into a cause celèbre.

>>.. Cronulla.. now what relevance does that have to the idea of say the day of Pentecost..or Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead ? PLENTY.. Cronulla was a big event.. it hit the news, but within a month had pretty much faded from prominence<<

Are you trying to pass off a few thugs scrapping at the seaside with someone bringing a dead body back to life?

You will find plenty of detail on, say, the mods and rockers fighting on Brighton beach in 1964, an entirely comparable event that has already lasted forty-plus years. If on the same day it had been reported that a bloke in Liverpool had cured an officer's batman's leprosy by proxy, simply by saying to a soldier "Go; let it be done for you according to your faith", that too would have stood the test of time, I suspect.

As proverbs points out, "Evidence that Jesus existed may be questionable but the fact that not one writer in those first couple of centuries challenged the existence of Jesus strongly suggests to me that he did exist"

That is saying that the strongest evidence for his existence is the lack of evidence.

Conspiracy theorists use that argument, regularly, and for the same reason.

"That is saying that the strongest evidence for his existence is the lack of evidence.

Conspiracy theorists use that argument, regularly, and for the same reason."

Pericles.
If that is your interpretation of what I said then you missed my point.

Many people assume that because there is only a handfull of references to the existence of Jesus then it is questionable that he existed.

My point is that even though there are only a few references to the existence of jesus there are some factors that need to be considered, which would suggest that this is not just another conspiricy theory.

1. Written reports about Jesus, come from a variety of sources by a whole range of people, including:
Friends
(since when do we dismiss historical documents because they were written by supporters of a person?)

Enemies
(these people have nothing to gain by perpetuating a lie so why not deny his existence)

Government officials

Historians and casual observers.

2. All of these people acknowledge the existence of Jesus.

3. There is no documentation from that period to dispute those reports.

If someone 2000 years from now came across a variety of Sources outlineing any one of the many conspiricy theories around today then they would also probably find other sources that refute those theories.

That is simply not the case here

I believe there is strong evidence to indicate that the Jesus Christians follow was a real person who was a dynamic teacher who not only had a positive impact on those around him but continued to bring about positive change to Billions of others for thousands of years. I doubt that any of todays conspiricy theories would survive and multiply in this way.

Drifting...DRIFTING I say.... yes.. last time I checked this thread was about "Muslim Clerics must speak up" .. Pericles.. you are turning it into "Christian Apologetics 101".

I've often criticized Muslims over such Quranic verses as Chapter 33:50 where among a list of categories of women who Mohammed is authorized to marry, is included this statement.

SHAKIR: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you

-your wives
-those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war.
-the daughters of your paternal uncles and Aunts (condensed)
-a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; (NOTE, Mohammed practiced/approved temporary/pleasure marriage which could be one night)

We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.]

Ooooooh Yes.. Allah is INDEED forgiving.. and MERCIFUL.. esPECially to the prophet.. in fact far more so than the 'earthling' believers.

COMMENT:
Now..bear in mind, this is the 'Divine word of Allah for all time'
according to Muslims.

But..does anyone see it ? "any believing woman" ? If we were talking about money here, it would be a 'licence to print money'...

I'd be less picky if it did not relate to the most primal and basest of human passions.. The use of divine saction for promiscuity in the name of 'revealed truth' is too much like David Koresh and his self authorization to have sexual contact with young girls at Waco.

I'll claim a high degree of confidence that David Koresh did NOT extend the privilege of abundant young girl playthings to his 'ordinary' followers.. no way..that was strictly for him alone.

If Koresh was criticized it is legitimate. If mohammed is criticized, Muslims claim "Perverse minds see perverse things". So.. to see licentiousness in Mohammeds actions, is 'perverse' ? Somehow I just don't see that.
MUSLIM ACADEMICS...SPEAK UP !

Discussing the existence of Jesus has nothing to do with subject heading, "Muslim academics must speak up." They were asked to prove that violence is not the very essence of Islam -- this they cannot do, without denying aya after aya of the Koran, and section after section of the Hadith and the Sharia Law.
The non-Muslims need to read these ayas (verses):-

7:4 (or 3):- How many cities have we destroyed! ...
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/007.qmt.html#007.004

8:12:- ... I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.012

8:38 (or 40):- Make war on them until strife shall be at an end, and the religion be all of it Allah's.

8:55 (or 57):- Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who <b>will not believe.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.055

Go to the public library, and read the Koran, Dewey 297.1225.

John.. important as those verses are from the Quran, each of them will inevitably be argued by Muslims as 'defensive' in character.

I always point (as you appear to have done) to the hadith to gain insight into how Mohammed himself and his companions understood and interpreted and applied those Quranic verses.

Bukhari Vol 4 Book 53 Number 386
[Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."]

The same sentiments are echo'd in Muslim book 1 Number 31, 32, 33.

It could not be more clear... if Tennis this would be "Game Set Match"..if chess "Checkmate" if footy "Full time siren"

GOAL: "Allahs religion rules"
METHOD: "Violent invasion or the threat thereof"
INDUCEMENT: "Luxury, Reward, Mastery over slaves"

The only thing left to do is begin to restructure our society, police and armed forces along lines which reflect an awareness of this challenge. Churches also need to wake up and smell the soon coming jihadists breathing down their spiritual necks.