Can we agree that "no contemporary attestation, therefore Jesus wasn't real" is ridiculous?

I think so, or else Alexander the Great did not exist either.

Call them short-sighted but historians write about history and not current events. Unless someone was royalty (and sometimes not even then) almost no one of the time received "contemporary attestation."

How many of the over 240 million people alive in the year 33 CE received "contemporary attestation." http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/World%20Popul...

People accept what Greeks and pro-Greeks wrote about Greeks,

People accept what Romans and pro-Romans wrote about Romans,

But people refuse to accept what Christians and pro-Christians wrote about Christians?

Luckily there is an abundance of anti-Christians who wrote about Christ. For example:

The (Pagan) Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus Christ, His execution by Pontius Pilate and the persecution of early Christians in Rome in his 109 AD work, "The Annals,"

"Consequently, to get rid of the report (that Nero started the great fire of Rome), 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, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

Book 15, chapter 44 of "The Annals" by Tacitus, translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html

See also Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith (Why Believe in Jesus?) http://magischristwiki.org/index.php?title=Why_Bel...

With love in Christ

We have multiple attestations. They are called the letters of Paul and the gospels for instance. It's not our fault if the skeptics have a philosophy against miracles that causes them to be non-objective with the evidence. But even Bart Ehrman, the NT critical scholar and skeptic acknowledges that Jesus really existed. It seems that only a small minority of fringe scholars think Jesus was a hoax, as well as a number of ignorant people on the Internet. Some of them still claim that Jesus was actually a myth arising from pagan mythology. This idea was popularized in the 19th century by a group and defeated by scholars back then as well. Even the Jesus seminar scholars admit Jesus existed.

As long as you can agree it's kind of a moot point. Even if you had a bunch of first person testimony that Jesus existed, it wouldn't matter because it still wouldn't prove any of the supernatural claims were true.

I can go out there RIGHT NOW and talk to people who have claimed UFOs abducted them. I don't need to rely on a 2000 year old book for these accounts. However, it doesn't make their claims any more true just because they can give me testimonies.

So, until someone can demonstrate the supernatural claims about Jesus, it's really unimportant to Christianity or its veracity. Even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was some itinerant rabbi named Yeshua who said this and said that and died on a cross, it STILL doesn't prove that he walked on water, or rose from the dead, or provides salvation, so congrats.

EDIT: Well if you have a problem with the current state of the historicity of Jesus, perhaps you should contact the numerous New Testament scholars who will tell you the same thing about his historicity vis a vis: Hannibal vs. Jesus since they don't think he existed either.

A qualified yes. There is no contemporary documentary evidence of the existence of Jesus, but that does not, necessarily, force the conclusion that he did not exist.

While you're broadly right about Hannibal, there are two issues which I think you've missed. The first is that the number of sources and the depth of sources regarding Hannibal are far, far greater than that which regard the Jesus figure. Secondly, the sources regarding Hannibal make no extraordinary claims about him, and thus are not held to the extraordinary bar which claims regarding Jesus must be. Moreover, the authenticity of sources referencing Hannibal is generally superior, or at least in less doubt.

So...yes. The fact that there is not contemporary documentary evidence of Jesus does not mean he didn't exist. It leaves the issue in doubt, however. And, as you wisely noted, the entire topic does not begin to touch on the mystical powers, mysterious birth and so forth of the mythical Jesus.

The debate has been done and redone.

Most serious, professional historians and scholars agree that notwithstanding the Bible, there was a historical figure named Jesus who was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

The rest of it is debatable, but not those facts.

Those who insist on denying and going against what most profesionals have said will keep on denying even if you show them the picture. "Fanatic" doesn't necessarily apply just to Christians, to us atheists as well sometimes....

There may have been a real Jesus, but if that's so he would have been nothing like the mythologized character we find in the bible. It's quite possible that the Jesus character is actually a combination of many people, the archetypal leader of a mystery cult... there were lots of those folks around that time.

No "contemporary attestation" is needed when Jesus is talking with you.

"My sheep HEAR my voice; I know them, and they follow me." (John 10:27)

Those who claim to believe in Jesus, but who cannot hear Him, fail to understand what the gospel is all about. Its about relationship, not blind faith held without proof. We are supposed to be led by God. We are supposed to walk in the Holy Spirit. We are not supposed to go about our own business in the hopes that it pleases God. Its all about interaction, and once you separate belief from the proof of interaction, you get the emptiness of religion.

"Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you." (James 4:8)

Proof is found in encounter, not in arguments. And at the end of the day, that's really all that Atheists are asking for.

Good question, and atheists often fail to realize that the Jews of that time lived in a primarily oral culture where things were passed down through story and tradition. They didn't have notebooks of paper and piles of pens to write things down like we do now. Many things that were written had to be done on animal skins.

Nobody is claiming that Hannibal was divine, rose people from the dead, healed with a touch, walked on water, or performed magic...so he is more likely to have existed.

Nope, no single person "brought the Roman Republic to its knees" either. Nor is what is claimed about Jesus in any way possible and goes against all we know about everyday existence.

"I said nothing of His Divinity in this question" No but you reserve the right to bring them up latter don't you? immature word games unless you are admitting that Christianity is a load of bunkum