How can you question the existence of Jesus when it is Historically fact?

Question

It's doesn’t bother me when someone says they don't believe Jesus is God or that they are an atheist, but moronic do you have to be to assume that he never existed.

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

In conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the 12 apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

So what you are saying is that if I was to write something 50 years after the fact then it wouldn't be credible, even with so much evidence of that in which I'm writing? Sorry folks I think your stretching...but thanks for all the answers.

O and what is more factual than an eye witness account then the gospels of Matthew Mark and John not to mention all the others that fallowed Christ. Because they were believers douse that make their account of Christ reprehensible?

Answer 1

Many have carried the name and none was divine in nature. That which has been attributed to the biblical Jesus preexisted him in even earlier writings, It is not a question if a Jesus existed but did the "biblical" Jesus exist, he did not.
You apparently believe that Mark, Matthew and John actually wrote the canons baring their names. They did not as they were written hundreds of years after their death. You will find that any story told verbally for any period of time become tainted even more in fifty years.
People will indeed dies for what they "believe" to be true. This has been demonstrated in Jones Town and by the Heavens Gate group. The idiocy of this statement is it is what people believe which is subject to the needs and gullibility of the people is it not.