The first historian, rather than religious writer, to mention Jesus was Josephus, in the late 1st century. However, there is substantial evidence that his _Antiquities of the Jews_ was altered by Christian copyists over the centuries, as he was quoted by Origen without including any of his strongest statements about the historic Jesus, which seems incredible. Indeed, since many versions of Josephus have survived, and the later the version, the more it supports the Christian religion, all but the most oblique references are in dispute.

Indeed, the very lack of Roman records is one of the strongest arguments regularly used against the existence of a historic Jesus, because the Romans documented anything of note. There are records about fines that prostitutes paid for walking in the wrong districts, records of flogging for people wearing colours they weren’t allowed to wear, and records of gladiatorial results. There’s a list of 6000 slaves crucified along the Appian Way, but not a mention of Jesus of Nazareth as a rabbi, as a wanted criminal, or as an executed criminal. The only decent response I’ve gotten from Christians who don’t like these facts, was to ask if Pontius Pilate “washing his hands” of the matter might mean that he expunged his records, as well. It might, or it might be a convenient explanation inserted into the gospels for why there’s no Roman record.

If there was such documented evidence of a historic Jesus as you indicate, then the writings of Lessing, Schweitzer, Barth and Bultmann would have been easily repudiated, and the debate would not continue to be an open question among serious scholars. I consider it an open question, one that will likely never be answered without time travel, such as is discussed here.

http://www.vista-preschool.com

http://www.lead411.com/Michelle_Barrett_1985611.html

http://www.brisbanehousepainter.net/

Your girl Mary
http://www.electroniccigarettesource.com

Your girl Mary
http://www.electroniccigarettesource.com“>electric cigarette