Who said anything about Freke and Gandy, their similarities are well known, and those that deny it simly are putting their heads in the sand.
So far you have been unable to cite anyone more credible, and this appears to be your only source (which explains why your information is so bad).
This goes both ways as far as offering any proof for a historical Jesus. The passage in Josephus used to prove the existence of Jesus is a bit harder to nail down because Josephus lived in the right time, lived in the right area and perhaps most importantly, was Jewish but the passage often quoted as proof of the existence of the biblical Jesus is believed to have been inserted by a Roman Catholic bishop, Eusebius, in the fourth century A.D. I don't even think scholars today use this interpolation as a proof text.
Scholar's today are no longer seeking to "prove" the existence of the historical Jesus. They all acknowledge he existed. They are more concerned with determining what in the gospels is historical, what Jesus' mission was, how much of the gospels represents the early church rather than Jesus, etc. So you are right but for the wrong reasons. And there is a wide consensus that parts of this reference to Jesus is Josephus.
This is rich. Luke is not a good example. If we compare the "Book of Luke" to the "Book of Acts" we find in them there own set of inconsistencies.
You say things like this, but apparently you simply haven't read enough primary source material (i.e. histories and "lives" by ancient historians) to know enough to make comparison. Herodotus is full of inconsistencies. Livy includes miraculous tales. All ancient historians (and true, some are better than others) hold themselves to far lower standards than modern historians.
Furthermore, The author of the book of Luke says outright that the information he wrote down was gathered by those who said they were eyewitnesses. But it's without a doubt that his gospel is pretty much a carbon copy of Mark filled with even more stories from people he supposedly talked to.
You are without doubt but you are also without peer in the academic world when you assert this. There are a select few scholars who doubt the existence of Q, but most of them argue that Luke therefore borrowed from Mark and Matthew (in addition to some sayings of from his own traditions or innovation). There are even some today who argue priority of Luke (see Hengel's "The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ") or that Luke is the first gospel (see Flusser's book "Jesus" revised 1998).
However, no one argues that Luke or Matthew are "carbon copies" of Mark. In any case, your statement about eyewitnesses has been used in several ways. Many argue it is at least in part a mere literary device, or that he believed Mark and Q were eyewitnesses. Others (and I agree) argue that Luke, although he had access to Q and Mark, may have had access to seperate tradition(s), and also that he probably had knowledge of the oral Jesus tradition (which continued to exist alongside the written) and access to those to whom it had been "handed down" in order to check against Mark/Q (if Q wasn't entirely oral to begin with). None of this would have guarenteed accuracy by any means, as even within strictly controlled oral tradition one must leave room for distortion and innovation, and in any event, even if all sayings and events were accurately transmitted (which, so far as I know, no serious historian argues) this only means that those around Jesus passed on the information
as they saw it.
You can't be serious. Tacticus most likely gathered his information from the christians of the day. The Annals do not prove that the biblical Jesus existed but merely that Christians existed in the First Century A.D., which no scholar has ever disputed. Tacitus lived too far away from the events that supposedly took place in Galilee almost a hundred years before his birth to know about them first hand.
Apparently you don't take the time to read my posts very carefully, which I suggest you do if you have any desire to actually remark on them intelligently. I said that the reference by Tacitus and Josephus alone provide MORE evidence than many ancient persons. You seem to think I said the provide GOOD evidence for the historical Jesus. Many ancient people, like Homer or Pythagoras, have no evidence for their existence a century or so after they lived. With Tacitus and Josephus, we have two references within a century, and one of them (after removing Christian addition/corruption) is close enough to argue for the historicity of Jesus alone. Arguments have been made on less for the historicity of ancient people.
So I thought I'd look outside the box (book) and to see if there was anything reported in the Dead Sea Scrolls and there is nothing there mentioning the biblical Jesus.The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D. Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of the supposed biblical Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of his follower's as described in the New Testament. So even here we have "documentation" recorded in history outside the bible but does not mention this supposed longtime awaited savior nor does its mentions his followers.
Before you can comment intelligently on just how much evidence is needed and of what type to talk about "historical" people, I suggest you acquaint yourself with at least the nature of ancient sources. Not only were they full of the same kind of problems contained in the gospels, but often enough they were very removed from the period in question. So far, the only person any one in this thread (other than me) has compared to Jesus (as far as the amount of evidence for their existence goes) is Julias Caesar, are horrible example. There are many, many people in ancient history for whom the only evidence of existence is a passing reference almost a century later, or even less. Many ancient biographies were written centuries after the person in question.
