is there any historical evidence for Jesus that isn't forged or altered by Christians?

Eat another Peyote button there Cactus, maybe you'll figure it all out.

In God's Word, the Bible, which was inspired by God. But you wouldn't understand or believe in the Bible unless one believes in Jesus Christ by faith, knowing that He died for our sins & rose again the third day.

It's as if people didn't believe Jesus left exactly the amount of evidence he meant to.

Jesus was smarter than us, but didn't leave much physical evidence.

Why do you think that is?

Step 1: Go to wikipedia.

Step 2: Look up "Christ myth"

Step 3: Read article

Step 4: Read original sources for article

Step 5: Come back to YA

Step 6: We're waiting for our apology

Here, I'll help:

A number of writers have stated that the theory has limited acceptance in the relevant scholarly circles. Richard Burridge and Graham Gould (2004: References below) state that the questioning of Jesus' existence is not accepted by mainstream critical scholarship.[8] Michael Grant believes that the Christ myth theory fails to satisfy modern critical methodology, and is rejected by all but a few modern scholars, [12] stating,

...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned...To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory." [157]

Likewise Graham N. Stanton writes,

Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."[10]

James Charlesworth writes that "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ..."[11] a conclusion shared by Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright. [158]

Robert E. Van Voorst has stated that biblical scholars and historians regard the Jesus never existed thesis as "effectively refuted",[9] with contemporary New Testament scholars typically viewing the Jesus-mythers arguments "as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely..."

Jesus myth proponent Earl Doherty responds to Van Voorst's claim, stating "after a survey of the history of research into the historical Jesus, Van Voorst tackles 'the noisy side current' of Jesus mythicism. He notes that over one hundred books and essays during the last two centuries have denied the existence of Jesus. Their arguments, he says, are dismissed as 'weak and bizarre' by contemporary New Testament scholars. Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant.' Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."

is there any historical evidence that the historical evidence for Jesus is forged and altered by Christians?

You can't. all you will know is about Him, but wouldn't it be better to know Him personally?

No, those accounts aren't forgeries.

In 'The Antiquities' Josephus describes how a high priest named Ananias took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus, who is mentioned in the New Testament, in order to have James killed:

"He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."

I know of no scholar who has successfully disputed this passage. L. H. Feldman noted that if this had been a later Christian addition to the text, it would have likely been more laudatory of James. So here you have reference to the brother of Jesus, who had apparently been converted by the appearances of the risen Christ, if you compare John 7:5 and 1 Corinthians 15:7, and corroboration of the fact that some people considered Jesus to be Christ, which means 'the Anointed One' or 'Messiah.'

The forgery you're talking about is probably Josephus' even lengthier section about Jesus, which is called the Testimonium Flavianum. This passage was among the most hotly disputed in ancient literature because on its surface it appears to provide sweeping corroboration of Jesus' life, miracles, death, and resurrection. Here is the Greek version:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still up to now, not disappeared."

Scholarship has gone three trends about it. For obvious reasons, the early Christians though it was a wonderful and thoroughly authentic attestation of Jesus and his resurrection. They loved it. Then the entire passage was questioned by at least some scholars during the Enlightenment. But today there's a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations. That the early Christian copyist inserted some phrases that a Jewish writer like Josephus would not have written.

For instance, the first line says, "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man." That phrase is not normally used of Jesus by Christians, so it seems authentic for Josephus. But the next phrase says, "if indeed one ought to call him a man." This implies Jesus was more than human, which appears to be an interpolation.

It goes on to say, "For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many Greeks." That seems to be quite in accord with the vocabulary Josephus uses elsewhere, and it's generally considered authentic.

But then there's this unambiguous statement, "He was the Christ." That seems to be an interpolation because Josephus says in reference to James that Jesus was "called the Christ." It's unlikely Josephus would have flatly said Jesus was the Messiah here, when elsewhere he merely said he was considered to be the Messiah by his followers.

The next part of the passage, which talks about Jesus' trail and crucifixion and the fact that his followers still loved him, is unexceptional and considered genuine. Then there's this phrase: "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life." Again, this is a clear declaration of belief in the Resurrection, and thus it's unlikely that Josephus wrote it.

So these three elements seem to have been interpolations. The bottom line is that the passage in Josephus probably was originally written about Jesus, although without these three points I mentioned. But even so, Josephus corroborates important information about Jesus: That he was the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem and that he was a wise teacher who had established a wide and lasting following, despite the fact that he had been crucified under Pilate at the instigation of some of the Jewish leaders.

You seem to have a misconception about Tacitus' writings in reference to Jesus. They were not altered by the early Christians. If you prove me wrong, I'll admit defeat. In A.D. 115 he explicitly states that Nero persecuted the Christians as scapegoats to divert suspicion away from himself for the great fire that had devastated Rome in A.D. 64.

“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome... Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: Then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, no so much of the crime of firing the city, as hatred against mankind."

Tacitus simply makes reference to "Christus," which means the Messiah has come. However, Tacitus makes is perfectly clear that he's using as a name, not as a title. It's not being used as a title. It's a synonymy for the name of Jesus. Only one person who would call Christus in the first century AD, or which said had been crucified under "Pontius Pilatus." So we know its a particular person in mind.

Its also not true that ancient Greeks Romans had Messiah figures in the same way as that Jews did. They were not looking for a crucified and risen Messiah figures, and indeed even the early Jews were surprised by this idea. Something new was in the Gospels. Therefore it is false logic to conclude that "Christus" is merely a trivial term associated with a large group of other supposed Messiah figures. Its explicitly makes reference to Jesus who "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

A leading scholar named J. N. D. Anderson speculates that when Tacitus says 'mischievous superstition' was 'checked for the moment' but later 'again broke out,' he was unconsciously bearing testimony to the belief of early Christians that Jesus had been crucified but then rose from the grave. I don't agree with him, however, this has certainly been the interpretation of some scholars.

But here is the crucial point: Regardless of whether the passage had this specifically in mind, it does provide us with a very remarkable fact, which is this: Crucifixion was the most abhorrent fate anyone could undergo, and the fact that there was a movement based on a crucified man has to be explained. How can you explain the spread of a religion based on the worship of a man who had suffered the most ignominious death possible?

Of course, the Christian answer is that he was resurrected. Others have come up with alternative theory if they don't believe that. But none of the alternative views, to my mind, are very plausible. This is an important testimony by an unsympathetic witness to the success and spread of Christianity, based on a historical figure, Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. And it's significant that Tacitus reported that an 'immense multitude' held so strongly to their beliefs that they were willing to die rather than recant.

When people begin religious movements, it's often not until many generations later that people record things about them. But the fact is that we have better historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion. For example, although the Gathas of Zoroaster, about 1000 B.C., are believed to be authentic, most of the Zoroastrian scriptures were not put into writing until after the third century A.D. The most popular Parsi biography of Zoroaster was written in A.D. 1278.

The scriptures of Buddha, who lived in the sixth century B.C., were not put into writing until after the Christian era, and the first biography of Buddha was written in the first century A.D. Although we have sayings of Muhammad, who lived from A.D. 570 to 632, in the Koran, his biography was not written until 767, more than a full century after his death. So the situation with Jesus is unique, and quite impressive in terms of how much we can learn about him aside from the New Testament.