@HeroicOvenmitt,
I don't consider a cotton mill owner to be a scholarly authority on ancient documents. Homer is your
bête noire, not mine. I have not said that he was an historical figure, nor that he wrote absolute truth in the books attributed to him. Mentioning Homer is irrelevant. I also haven't said that the so-called new testament was written after 70 CE, i've just pointed out that 300 years leaves a lot of room for revision. That's why i've mentioned Origen, Pamphilus and Eusebius.
Since it isn't established that he died and was resurrected, commenting about witnesses to events we don't know happened is also meaningless.
I've reviewed your alleged sources again and again in these fora, so i'm not going to bother to go into too much detail, but i'll respond. The passage from Flavius Josephus is almost certainly an interpolation. Professor Feldman of Yeshiva University, an expert on the Hellenistic world, did a review of the literature about the Josephus passage, and referring to 87 textual passages and articles, wrote that the "overwhelming majority" of recent scholars consider the Josephus passage to be in part or entirely an interpolation. The claim about Josephus does not appear until Eusebius mentions it, almost 300 years after your boy supposedly lived and died. Origen, who frequently cites Josephus fails to mention such a passage, and he would have had good reason to do so. Flavius Josephus was not alive when your boy is said to have died.
The passage in Tacitus is very likely an interpolation, too. It mentions christians at a time when even christians didn't call themselves christians. It's charge against Nero is flatly contradicted by the account of the fire in Seutonius. No mention of the passage is made until the 15th century--and as is the case with Origen and Josephus, it is rather astonishing that such a source would be available and yet no one mentions it for over 1400 years. The alleged Tacitus passage is not evidence that your boy was for real, just that some people thought so, and the passage is suspect. Publius Cornelius Tacitus was born almost 20 years after Flavius Josephus. He was not alive when your boy Jesus was alleged to have lived and died.
Pliny doesn't offer any evidence that your boy Jesus was real, or that the events described in the so-called new testament took place as advertised. He simply writes to the emperor to know how to deal with people who are a problem. He was born five years after Tacitus, he was not alive when your boy Jesus was said to have lived and died.
Plegon lived in the second century--he is even further from the events than the three here who preceded him. He was not alive at the time that your boy Jesus is said to have lived and died.
Thallus comes closest, but he is not and does not claim to have been an eyewitness to the life of your boy Jesus. He is, in fact, not mentioned by Eusebius as a source for an historical Jesus, although he mentions him as a source for the historyof Syria. Eusebius was notorius for the Josephus interpolation. It's a bit much to think that Eubebius would indulge in forgery, and yet fail to mention such a solid, genuine source. The first mention of Thallus as a source for an historical Jesus is not until 800 years later.
Seutonius wrote about someone called
Chrestus, and christians have been trying to fudge that one for almost 2000 years. He was even younger than Tacitus, being born five years after the fire which Tacitus describes. (Large fires were common in Rome--tenements were built of wood, and as many people as possible packed into them, since they were taxed by the hearth, and not the head.) He, in fact, contradicts the Tacitus account on the behavior of Nero after the fire. He does mention christians, but that's just evidence that they existed, it is not evidence that anything in the so-called new testaments is true. He was not alive when your boy Jesus is said to have lived and died.
Lucian was born even later, more than 50 years after Seutonius. He wrote a single satire which ridicules the gullibility of christians. He is not a source for your boy Jesus, just that there were christians, which i don't believe any here disputes. He was not alive when your boy Jesus was said to have lived and died.
Celsus, who lived in the second century, is the first one you have here, apart from the Josephus interpolation, who actually mentions an historical Jesus--and he was an opponent of christianity. He cannot be considered a confirmation that anything in the so-called new testament took place as described. He was not alive when your boy Jesus is said to have lived and died. He is the closest you can come to a source for an historical Jesus, but he lived more than a hundred years later, so his sources are suspect.
You're going even further off the deep end with Mara Bar-Serapion. He just mentions "a wise king" who was killed by his own people, the Jews--he doesn't name any names. That's pretty slim pickin's there, Bubba. He was not alive when your boy Jesus was said to have lived and died. The letter in which he mentions this "wise king" was first referred to in a christian source some 400 years after he, Mara, had died. The source couldn't be more ambiguous and suspect.
The Talmud passages are even more ambiguous. None of them mention anyone but "Yeshu," and that in a passage dealing with a man who lived a hundred years before your boy Jesus, if he ever actually existed, was born.
I've not said that Jesus didn't exist. Just that there's no evidence, and certainly no contemporary evidence. You have completely failed to provide any evidence.
There is no external corroborating evidence for the earthquake to which you refer.
There are millions and millions of copies of
The Lord of the Rings. Do you think that in 2000 years, people will be justified in using that as evidence that the events described actually took place?
You have failed completely to establish that the so-called new testament in an historical account.
