Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

But the difference between Hinduism and Christianity is the abundance of historical references to a HJ as being the basis of Christianity, as opposed to a lack of them for the numerous gods of Hinduism. Historians tend to separate all NT texts in the bible from the bible to examine them independently, since they were indeed individual texts to begin with. This is done to independently evaluate each text without the aura of influence from another. And when we get to all the letters of Paul, John etc, the same theme keeps repeating in regards to a HJ. It's the one constant and consistent thing; Jesus existed and was crucified.

Once you add in information from non-canonical texts, as well as info from non Christian sources, the case for a HJ certainly does appear to be the best argument to explain the available evidence as well as the existence of Christianity.

One thing that constantly amazes me about those who state with authority that there is "the one constant and consistent thing; Jesus existed and was crucified" is when they can state that without any evidence at all.  The writings of people who lived long after are not evidence.

Actually it IS evidence. That's exactly how ancient history is determined. Paul did not live long after the time of Jesus, but during the time of Jesus. He was a contemporary of Jesus. Josephus was born either at the time of Jesus or very shortly after and is considered a very near contemporary. Tacitus is also considered a near contemporary since he was born approximately 2 decades from the estimated time of the crucifixion.

Therefore, you have a chain of evidence beginning with a contemporary, Paul, then it goes to near contemporaries such as Josephus and Tacitus, and the same theme of the crucifixion is found at all different dates in almost every decade following the crucifixion for 100 years. And that's how and why the written works of people who lived after the time of Jesus are considered evidence; they are all part of the link of transmission, with each one confirming the previous without depending on the previous for the information.

1. You have Paul from at least the 30s to the 60s talking about the crucifixion.
2. You have the gospel writers mentioning the crucifixion from the 70s - 100 CE.
3. You have Josephus in CE 93.
4. You have Clement in CE 100.
5. You have Tacitus in CE 110-112

And numerous others following.

So absolutely, the written works of ancient authors who lived even decades after Jesus are in fact considered evidence. That's how history works, dude.