I tried to do some research recently, trying to find if there were any actual non-religious historic or roman government documentation covering the events that coincide with the four gospels. Strangely, every site that I've tried to search for such documentation leads me to dead ends. Even the most fervorous Christian sites only confer the historical acuracy of the Bible with just the text of the Bible. I am not disputing the fact that the New Testament was recorded when it is reported to be done so. Naturally it holds a level of literary antiquity like Homer's Illiad.
However....the argument I am making is that there appears to be no documents outside of the Bible that support and defend the events that lie therein. In fact, it is strange that there is not enough historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus as an actual person. I was shocked to discover the possibility that Christianity is not based on history whatsoever, but the mere ravings of madmen.
Cornelius Tacitus (20-117 CE), a Roman senator, consul, speaker, and historian once recorded something on Christianity in his Annales, book 15, verse 44 (115 CE), quoting: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of... Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious [or wicked] superstition [Christianity] was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue." It is clear that Tacitus was mentioning what it is the Christians believe, quoting the historical value on what is said in the four gospels.
Tacitus and Tranquillus Gaius Suetonius (69-140 CE), a Roman historian and personal secretary of Emperor Hadrian, both mention Christ as being the symbol of worship by Christians. Suetonius said: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Claudius) expelled them from Rome".
One of the most astounding factors was the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius (38/39-? CE) who published Antiquities (93 CE), makes no mention of the person of Jesus, although he does mention, among others, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist and king Herod, as well as numerous events of minor and major political, religious, and economical interests in the area. Yet nothing of Jesus. WTF?
Justus of Tiberia (?-? [1st cent.] CE) (Tiberia was a place not far from Capernaum which Jesus often visited, according to the Bible), another Jewish historian, made no mention of Jesus in any of his writings. Philon of Alexandria (?-50 CE), scholar and leader of the Jewish society in Alexandria, also makes no mention of Jesus in his writings as well, and this is very strange as he was famous for his knowledge of the Old Testament and Jewish cults at the time.
There's a classic Christian line of questioning that forces one to think of the possibility of the divinity of Jesus, stating that Jesus was either: 1. a liar...(instating that he was a devious manipulator that intended to use his ability as a soothsayer to get the masses to worship him.) 2. a madman...(instating that he was mentally instable enough to believe himself the son of god and go around performing acts of goodness while saying things that would result in his worship.) 3. the son of god....(instating that he was the person who the bible says he is.) The problem with this system of deduction is that it fails to include a fourth option..... 4. did not exist...(instating that everything we know of Jesus was a matter of fiction by the writers of the four gospels to satisfy their rebellious-cult needs.)
I don't suspect that this topic will generate much uproar because it's clear that there's no real way to pose an argument against it.
