This is going to be my attempt to support the argument for the existance of Jesus. As the old saying goes: "I will use all the brains I can borrow".
First we will hear some vioces from some leading historians:
"There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus' life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity... I shall first offer a list of statements about Jesus that meet two standards: they are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life,and especially of his public career: Jesus was born c. 4BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great; he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village; he was baptised by John the Baptist; he called disciples; he taught in the towns, villages and counrtyside of Galilee (apparently not the cities); he preached 'the kingdom of God'; about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover; he created a disturbance in the Temple area; he had a final meal with the disciples; he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the High Priest; he was executed on the orders of the Roman perfect, Pontius Pilate. We may add here a short list of equally secure facts about the aftermath of Jesus' life: his disciples fled; they saw him (in what sence is not certain) after his death; as a consequence, they believed that he would return to found the kingdom; they formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God's Messiah." - Ed Sanders of Duke University (USA), one of the leading figures in the historical study of Jesus over the last three decades, and a self-confessed agnostic (E. P. Sanders, 'The Historical Figure of Jesus', Penguin Books, 1993, p.11.)
"All this does is render highly implausable any far fetched theories that even Jesus' very existance was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score." -Christopher Tucket, University of Oxfprd, author of the Cambridge University textbook on the historical Jesus (Christopher Tuckett, "Sources and Methods", in 'The Cambridge Companion to Jesus', ed. Mark Bockmuehl, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.124.)
"The mentions of Jesus in ancient historians allay doubt about his historicity. The notices about Jesus in Jewish and pagan writers... - especially those in Josephus, the letter of Sarapion and Tactitus - indicate that in antiquity the historicity of Jesus was taken for granted, and rightly so, as two observations on the above mentioned sources show:
The notices about Jesus are independent of one onother. Three authors from different backgrounds utilize informatioon about Jesus independently: a Jewish aristocrat and historian, a Syrian philosopher, and a Roman statesman and historian.
All three know of the execution of Jesus, but in different ways: Tacitus puts the responsibility on Pontius Pilate, Mara bar Sapapion on the Jewish people, and the Testimonium Flavianum (probably) on a co-operation between the Jewish aristocracy and the Roman governor. The execution was offensive for any worship of Jesus. As a "scandal" it cannot have been invented" - Gerd Thiessen, a leading German New Testament historian (Gerd Theissen and Annette Marz, 'The Historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide', Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1998, pp.93-94)
From these quotes alone we can see that Bertand Russell was talking in sheer ignorance of the facts, when he wrote in his book 'Why I Am Not a Christian', in which he wrote:
"Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and even if he did we know nothing about him." - (Bernard Russell, 'Why I Am Not a Christian, London, George Allen and Unvin, 1957, p.16.)
:waggles finger:
