How do we KNOW that it was JESUS???

[The Pie Swindler]

a few observations:

first, if anyone noticed, the arguement presented to start this thread by lawdog is the CS lewis "liar, lunatic, lord" arguement. While logical, it has its flaws, such as discounting the possibility of "legend" as the fouth L. Perhaps someone else noticed this.. though i really dont feel like reading through this whole thread right now.

Secondly, alot of Hitler/Jesus comparisons have been talked about here, but saying "Hitler was a liar and insane" in response to the claim that jesus couldnt have been either of these based on his actions... is somewhat of a straw man and is similar to likening Bush to Hitler, though that is probably more comparable pairing. Anyways, the discrepency in this this: Hitler was certainly a lunatic and an insane man, but lets look and see why he was able to gain so many followers. First of all, germany had been humiliated in the first WW, and was certainly itching to assert itself again. This meant that the nation was ripe for the picking for someone like Hitler, who could use this to create fervent, jingoistic national sentiment. Hitler used mass media and massive rallies, as well as institutions such as the Hitler youth, to put his influence on all parts of society.
Jesus, OTOH, really had no vessel to convert followers other than his own actions/words. To add to things, his message, at least the ones presented in the canonical gospels (which is what we are debating here), was not really what most Jews desired. All jews at the time were waiting for the messianic prophecies described in the prophetic writings to happen, and thought that it would be someone who would rise against the Roman overlords in Judea and reclaim it for the Jews. When Jesus supposedly came, his message was allegedly much different than this, and didnt attract many followers at first. Whether you believe the divine nature of Jesus was true or not, most of the dozens of gospels (many dated before the canonical ones) are in a general agreement about the teachings of jesus. Jesus was no hitler, and his message of peace, love, forgiveness, etc, even if he was not divine, is certainly not the message of a madman.

Now Cris, you talk about storytellers and traveling bards, which certainly existed in 1st century Judea, but really, what is the likelihood that a religion which has grown to encompass 1/3 of the world as adherents, was began by a few Jewish storytellers? Sure, its possible, but not likely. Now its very possible (and probably true) that many of the stories of Jesus were muddled through the pages of history, and this is confirmed by the many different books and gospels written about Jesus. They confirm his existence, but have many different views as to his divinity. It is generally accepted by many in archaeology and history fields that Jesus existed, but we dont really know which Jesus was the one who walked the streets of jerusalem 2000 years ago. The divinity of Jesus is the question, not his actual existance. The evidence shows that Christianity is not a total myth. It does not, however, by any means prove Christianity is entirely true, as its quite possible that much of the early Christian literature was changed to reflect the attitudes and theological consensus of the early church. We may never know to the fullest extent...

Both sides have good points, but Lawdog and Yorda are somewhat borrowing and using the common arguements for Jesus and not really bringing anything new to the fore. And the Shroud of Turin? Come on guys, i mean, everyone in Europe has a piece of the Original Cross(according to my old history teacher, who was from greece, lots of her friends and relatives claimed to have true, holy pieces of the cross), so of course the Shroud of Turin is a real relic!

carry on

oh and... sorry this post is kinda hypocritical.. i only skimmed the forums and stated i didnt read through alot of it, yet typed a long-ass post for you to all read...

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

i have demonstrated its historic authenticity.

Where? Your statements and claims so far have been shot down – there is nothing left standing.

You dont accept that because you dont want to, not because you are thinking with objectively, but like the others, you seem to hide your prejudice beneath the cloak of rationalism garbed as science.

With such massive claims we must expect some reasonable degree of credibility in the evidence. Your claims of evidence are paltry, unverifiable, disproved, and clearly very weak. Surely the creator of the universe, the most powerful being in existence, has left some better meaningful clues as to his existence. Why are you struggling here? Doesn’t the very lack of any substantial evidence mean that such beings do not exist?

I pleasantly note that your attempts to attack me by criticizing my objectivity is a healthy sign of the losing debater who when failing to win an argument by reason usually resorts to attacking the integrity of his opponent instead. You do that a lot.

Even if I were to show you the execution order written in Pilate's own hand, you would say itsa medieval forgery or concoct some other excuse.

There are many verifiable documents that exist that show the existence of other historical figures before and after the time of the alleged Jesus. Why is it that you cannot produce anything substantial for your claims?

It is quite OK for you to accept that there is no evidence that shows that Jesus ever existed or indeed that no gods have ever existed either. Religionists have known for a long time they cannot prove their claims, that is why they so strongly stress the need for faith – a conviction of truth in the absence of evidence. That’s what makes you a religionist.

 

[The Pie Swindler]

i have demonstrated its historic authenticity.

no, you really havent

its a shame too because ive seen many evangelicals give better, far better arguements for divinity of christ. Not that i much agree with them, but the fact that you use something such as the Shroud of Turin which is obviously a hoax and has been verified as one by radiocarbon dating, to try to give as hard evidence astounds me.

I feel sorry for evangelicals that have to be represented by you, as many i know are quite intelligent people.

 

[Lawdog]

Welcome to this forum, but your not helping.

The weight of proof lies upon those who claim he did not exist. For example, can you prove that Achilles did not exist?

 

[SnakeLord]

Ok, perhaps I should not have trusted scientists, who almost all believe in the folly of Evolution, to come up with an accurate date. truly that was foolish, i give you that.

You mean the same fucking scientists who dated your biblical text?

Nevertheless, if it were up to them Im sure that they would find every relic a medieval forgery and only pagan things to have existed from the Roman times, thats assinine.

From an archaeological perspective you are completely wrong - it was in fact the opposite. It was the church that told them everything had to be dated from 4004 BC, (the time of creation). This meant that dinosaur remains could only be a maximum of 6000 years old. Needless to say the scientists are far more intelligent than the best your kind have ever produced.

What the scientists cannot explain to papyrologists and philologists is how its possible the titulus, if its susposedly medieval forgery like they say the shroud is,could possibly be designed with accurate Roman alphabetic characters from the exact time period of Pontius Pilate. Given the knowledge of Roman papyrology in medieval times, that would be impossible. The radio carbon dating is therefore inaccurate, as its wide reputation usually mantains

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Why do you think that? Only because they are similar?

I think the word "similar" is quite naive in this instance.

Of course they are similar since they talk about the same thing. The stories about a Christ are not "based" on earlier stories. They are based on the same event, the same concept, the same truth.

Ok, so if that's the case as you suggest then the only plausible reality is that the earlier version is more accurate. Let's say the Sumerian flood and the biblical flood are speaking of the same event. The Sumerian text predates the biblical text by a hu-fucking-mungous 1,500 years. That's one and a half millennia difference. If they are both speaking about the same event, it is without doubt that the event must have occured during or before the Sumerian times, (either that or they can see a millennium and a half into the future). Any story written about an event 1,500 years after the event will never be as accurate as a story written during the event. That is simply undeniable, and in saying this, you now espouse that we should all be reading the Sumerian version and pretty much ignoring the biblical version which was written 1,500 too late to be of any real worth.

The same would hold true for jesus-like stories. The only story which would be of any true worth would be the original.

The Christ represents the true self (logos) within us. At the same time, while the Christ is allegorical, Christ has also been born on earth, in a human body.

This entire statement is worthless... to anything.

Many cultures have written about the Christ, because he has come to many places on earth.

The doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's as simple as that.

This "son of God" is an earthly representation of the "heavenly lamb". Because, just as the divine Self of the world sacrifices itself and takes upon himself the 3-dimensional material world and suffers an eternal crucifixion on the two girders of space and time, so must the "son of God" express his divine "Self" fully in a human body and resist the revenge of the spirit of matter (satan), and because of ignorant humans, he has to die.

Another meaningless statement and completely irrelevant to anything I said.

At the time when the flood was about to occur, the "sons of God" built ships all over the world. Noah and Gilgamesh were just two of the many sons of God. Although they were not THE sons of God (the "giants"), but they had inherited their wisdom and love. The ones who built the pyramids weren't "giants" either. The real giants (both physically and spiritually/mentally) died out a very long time ago.

I know you cannot seemingly resist talking about your fantastical giant folk, I fail to see it's relevance here.

 

[The Pie Swindler]

Welcome to this forum, but your not helping.

The weight of proof lies upon those who claim he did not exist. For example, can you prove that Achilles did not exist?

first of all, thank you, as i assume your talking to me since im the only one here with a low post count.

Secondly, its not really your decision to say who the burden of proof is upon. There is really no burden of proof, as the facts speak for themselves and dont need to be spun to be for or against either side of the arguement. ANd btw,i actually agree with you that Jesus existed, i just dont necessarily agree with the other points you are making. And your shooting yourself it the foot (Achilles heel?) by mentioning Achilles. We of course dont know if he existed, but there is one reference to him - the Iliad - that exists. And those are certainly myths, even Christians would agree that. It doesnt help your cause by comparing what you believe as as a myth to something you believe to be true.

 

[Lawdog]

4004 BC. A date which was determined by an Anglican Priest, not doctrine, not Catholic.

Pie Swindler: I never read Lewis, but i know that most of what you say about bringing anything new is unnecessary, because the old argument are quite satisfactory.

I think the Achilles point is a good one, since they are constantly saying Jesus is mythological, but there no reason to believe that Homer's work is not based on actual events.

i recommend you dont waste your time here like me, its rather unpleasant after a while.

I am not going to post any more.

 

[SnakeLord]

4004 BC. A date which was determined by an Anglican Priest, not doctrine, not Catholic.

Yeah, by a religious fucking halfwit. That's all you're saying.

 

[The Pie Swindler]

Pie Swindler: I never read Lewis, but i know that most of what you say about bringing anything new is unnecessary, because the old argument are quite satisfactory.

Perhaps your right... however, most people that have debated with evangelicals about the divinity of Christ know this arguement well, and have ways of debunking it. The best way to improve your arguement is to use an arguement with fresh ideas, not one that has been overused to the point of monotony.

I think the Achilles point is a good one, since they are constantly saying Jesus is mythological.

But... you dont...
it means nothing to someone who thinks they are both mythological to have you compare them, as it looks even worse. To effectively state your point, compare him to someone with more historical references than a single story meant, in the first place, to be a myth (i dont think Homer ever saw the gods sitting on the wall of troy, watching the battle, did he?)



I gotta say though, its a bummer these kinds of debates always degernate into, or at least are inserted with, lots of attacks on a person's religion or lackthereof. Its really an interesting topic, and since i have always looked at a debate as a way of refining your own belief system, its disheartening when both sides have to resort to, or at least insert snide remarks into their posts. Just make your point without the insults. Often, your arguements will be taken into account (at least when its a civilised debate) much more warmly without the added personal attacks.

 

[Lawdog]

Can you prove that St. Patrick did not exist? St. Paul?

Can you prove that Pocahantas was just a nice story?

 

[Cris]

Pie,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

Now Cris, you talk about storytellers and traveling bards, which certainly existed in 1st century Judea, but really, what is the likelihood that a religion which has grown to encompass 1/3 of the world as adherents, was began by a few Jewish storytellers?

That is disingenuous of you. It grew so large not because of the way it began but because Constantine chose it to be the official religion of the world dominant power at that time. Had he chosen a different religion then the mythmakers stories would likely have died like so may other budding religions would have died.

..Now its very possible (and probably true) that many of the stories of Jesus were muddled through the pages of history, and this is confirmed by the many different books and gospels written about Jesus. They confirm his existence, but have many different views as to his divinity.

But that is a logical fallacy – the widespread and varied propagation of a myth has no bearing on whether the original is true or not. The original letters of Paul for example that originated at different times and in different places share little of the stories found in the gospels. His view of a Messiah, was different to that of the mythmakers Christ. The origins of both sets of stories come from earlier pre BCE mythologies. There is still nothing that indicates that this anticipated savior ever actually existed. An appeal to a propagation of material doesn’t help the claim any further.

It is generally accepted by many in archaeology and history fields that Jesus existed,

But not because they have any evidence only that they are using your same argument that so much has been written that it must be true. This is just another logical fallacy Argumentum ad populum.

The divinity of Jesus is the question, not his actual existance.

But if he never existed then the question of his divinity is moot.

The evidence shows that Christianity is not a total myth.

What particular evidence are you referencing? It is exactly this argument that so many use but still no one can show any evidence.

 

[Lawdog]

May you be wiser than me and leave this evil place before continuing more. I now hand over my work to Pie Swindler.

 

[The Pie Swindler]

Can you prove that St. Patrick did not exist? St. Paul?

Can you prove that Pocahantas was just a nice story?

Paul and Patrick most likely did exist, as did Jesus. This doesnt mean they were exactly the people we think they were.

Pocahantas? Uh, that did happen actually, not the disney version, but there was a young indian woman with her same name that did have something to do with the interactions between the Jamestown settlers and the natives. This really has no relevence to Jesus anyways.

 

[The Pie Swindler]

hmm, Cris, your right about alot of what i said having some logical flaws, now that i look back over it. However, while its true that you cant base the existence of a person simply on the amount of literature about him, the simple fact that so many documents refering to Jesus even existed gives some credence to this possibility. And Josephus' works, while most likely tampered with by the Church at some point (as Josephus was certainly not a messianic jew based on the majority of his works, yet he refers to Jesus as divine in one passage.. strange.. )

Your certainty that Jesus didnt exist is well based, but there isnt necessarily any reason to believe he didnt exist. Jewish Rabbis were commonplace at that time, and thats really all i believe Jesus was, a jewish rabbi with a radical message. Most historians appeal to certain documents because they have in some way deemed them at least partially believable. For example, Luke refers to places and people in Acts that have been verified as true historical figures, and have been confirmed by discoveries at the sites he mentions. If i can try to find the link to the article i speak of, ill give it. He is at least partially credible, so the author "luke", who also supposedly wrote the book of the same name (and the styles of writing are matching, as scholars have noted based on Greek translations of the book even though these are not the original language of the text), has some credibility. Thus, the possibility of jesus existing is realistic, though not completely verfied. I dont know 100% if jesus existed, but the secondhand evidence of his existance (as firsthand is obviously impossible) leaves open the likelihood that he was a historical figure.

Honestly, i cant really confirm or deny his existence, though i suppose ive seemed pretty sure of his existence in my first post, no? Its not like a Jewish Rabbi was uncommon at this time. What my guess, based on what ive read/studied, is that Jesus was simply a Jewish rabbi who had a message of love, forgiveness, and the like, but his followers wanted to take it to the next level, and heralded him as the Messiah. How it went from that point to now i have no idea, and dont claim to. Mythmaking, stories, legends, muddy recounts? I dont know.

Cris, your obviously a polished debater and can reason and use logic effectively. Hard evidence of Jesus' existence doesnt exist, obviously, but what other forms of evidence would suffice? Ive read articles and reports from often renowned archaeologists that certain biblical or pseudobibilical documents (such as gnostic texts) have been dated in the mid to late 1st century, and that some details in them are true. I cant show you specifically what im talking about, but id be happy to look it up (since i have read this, and need to verify it to remain credible) and post links. Based on information such as this, the conclusion that a historical Jesus of some sort possibly existed is a realistic one. But what sort of evidence should i present to perhaps make my case more effective? (im asking you genuinely)

And lawdog.. im not really taking over for you. I entered this discussion out of curiosity, and i dont really agree with your position though you have made a few good points. Im simply trying to increase my knowledge and perhaps share some with others. I beleive Jesus' existence is a possibility based on some evidence that ive found to be decent, but i really cant say any more than that as i have no clue to Jesus' divinity. Most likely fantasy added on to truth, but one cant really know without sufficient evidence for or against. Logic points toward no, however.

 

[SnakeLord]

However, while its true that you cant base the existence of a person simply on the amount of literature about him, the simple fact that so many documents refering to Jesus even existed gives some credence to this possibility.

Do you have any idea how much literature there is concerning vampires? It doesn't in any way give credence to there being flying, sharp-toothed dudes roaming about the place.

And when you say "so many", are we talking more than a dozen small references?

 

[Bells]

Ok, perhaps I should not have trusted scientists, who almost all believe in the folly of Evolution, to come up with an accurate date. truly that was foolish, i give you that. Nevertheless, if it were up to them Im sure that they would find every relic a medieval forgery and only pagan things to have existed from the Roman times, thats assinine.

What the scientists cannot explain to papyrologists and philologists is how its possible the titulus, if its susposedly medieval forgery like they say the shroud is,could possibly be designed with accurate Roman alphabetic characters from the exact time period of Pontius Pilate. Given the knowledge of Roman papyrology in medieval times, that would be impossible. The radio carbon dating is therefore inaccurate, as its wide reputation usually mantains.

Interesting. You seemed to trust the scientists when you were trying to prove a point but when you realise that you had no idea what the hell you were arguing and you were proven wrong, you then say you shouldn't trust the scientists? What's the matter doggy, the scientists disagree with you so therefore they are wrong? You're the only person who can ever be correct? So if the radiocarbon dating showed that it was from Jesus' time you'd be crowing like a fool because then you'd trust science because it followed your reasoning. But when it doesn't and in all the arguments you've posted so far, it has not as you are pathetically misinformed, you declare that science must be wrong.

The reason why it is written in the exact Roman characters and dated as it was is because the Roman language was still used and studied in some parts of Europe during medieval times. Monks, priests and scholars still studied the Roman language in its written form.

Lawdog, it is clear that you are a religious fanatic and fundamentalist who will claim that everything that does not fall into your way of thinking is wrong. That's fine. That's who you are. However do not attempt to show that science is supporting your hypothesis and claims without reading the reports you're quoting in the first place. May I remind you that the link you originally gave for the scientific study on the Titulus Crucis only stated that the report was for sale as part of the scientific journal. You had obviously never even read the report. You were merely stupidly gleeful that science was studying something religious and you jumped ahead of yourself and claimed that they were proving you right. Had you even bothered to read the report before posting the link that mentions it in the first place, you'd have looked like less of a fool.

i have demonstrated its historic authenticity. You dont accept that because you dont want to, not because you are thinking with objectively, but like the others, you seem to hide your prejudice beneath the cloak of rationalism garbed as science.

Lawdog, as much as you may value your own opinion and your own understanding of things, you merely claiming that it is authentic does not make it so. You may think that the ability to post the picture of the item as being the same as demonstrating it's authenticity but it does not. It only shows that you've mastered the 'insert image' icon.

But then again, the fact that you are posting links to scientific studies and when we point out to you that the studies do not support your findings nor do they demonstrate the historic authenticity you cry foul.

In short Lawdog, you have demonstrated nothing aside from a complete lack of understanding. What you have shown however is that you obviously do not read the links you post. You are in fact your worst enemy in the way you try to argue your point. You post arguments with a complete lack of understanding or knowledge. You have even shown a complete lack of knowledge in regards to your own religion and its history.

 

[The Pie Swindler]

but literature about vampires, at least the mythical kind, is most likely going to be falsifiable based on the credibility of the sources, and the underground nature of much of the literature. Some of the sources mentioning Jesus are by historians who have listed facts in their works that are often verifiable, leading you to judge whether or not the writer is a true historian or just a mythmaker. Many of the Gospels (non canonical ones included) have parts that agree and parts that dont, but there are often facts in each that have been confirmed through an archaeological finding. This brings attention to the work, showing that there are parts of it that are true, and that there could possibly be more.

As for sources, they are not exhaustive, but sufficient, at least in the eyes of many historians. Alot of them disagree, which youd expect since many of the people reporting about Jesus had different agendas, but they all verify his existence as fact.

Sources:
Some Extrabiblical Jewish texts

Apocryphal NT Gospels take it for what it worth.. im sure alot of them are just bullshit in terms of theology and religious stories, but they are still references to jesus by various authors, many of which wrote their works before the accepted canonical Gospels

More NT Gospels, some repeated perhaps

Article on various references to Jesus

Scholarly Viewpoints

I can add more. Im not trying to show that im right (since i might not be), im just adding some reading material to read and think upon.

An article about historicity

 

[The Pie Swindler]

But not because they have any evidence only that they are using your same argument that so much has been written that it must be true. This is just another logical fallacy Argumentum ad populum.

My arguement is based on their findings, which i generally trust and notice that most historians are people trying to avoid Argumentum ad populum fallacies in their work, and searching for historical truth, not popular opinions on a topic. Historians have methods of testing texts and forming exegetical opinions. Obviously not all historians do this (and are detrimental to the field) but i doubt all biblical scholars and archaeologists, as well as historians of Roman/Jewish cultures who critically interpret extrabiblical texts, are guilty of this sin.

 

[Yorda]

Ok, so if that's the case as you suggest then the only plausible reality is that the earlier version is more accurate. Let's say the Sumerian flood and the biblical flood are speaking of the same event. The Sumerian text predates the biblical text by a hu-fucking-mungous 1,500 years. That's one and a half millennia difference.

I guess 1,500 years is a pretty long time. Maybe there has been more than one great flood. But if if there hasn't. It's possible that Noah and the people just didn't want to write about it instantly. They told about it to people, to their children, and their children passed it on. And later, I guess, Moses or whoever, wrote about it... of course, Moses would know that the flood occured, even though no one had ever told him.

Now later, of course, it has become like "myth". Most things become myths sooner or later. If our civilization would be destroyed in a great natural disaster, survivors would tell about us, and later they might write about it. Everyone would believe it, but after a long time, like after 5000 years, many people would consider it to be a myth... that we had rockets which could fly to the moon and other kind of "technology".

If they are both speaking about the same event, it is without doubt that the event must have occured during or before the Sumerian times, (either that or they can see a millennium and a half into the future).

Actually they Could see into the future. I mean, people like Noah. How else do you think he knew that the flood would come? The sumerians had "kings" who could experience past and future as present. They could even see to our time.

The same would hold true for jesus-like stories. The only story which would be of any true worth would be the original.

Like I said, I think Christ has come many times. So there are many original stories. And you might be confusing the allegorical and the real stories.

Another meaningless statement and completely irrelevant to anything I said.

Not really, I just wanted to tell you something about the allegorical story of "Christ".

I know you cannot seemingly resist talking about your fantastical giant folk, I fail to see it's relevance here.

Hehe. Yeah, I can't resist. But I wanted to say that Noah and Gilgamesh weren't the only survivors of the flood.

 

[SnakeLord]

but literature about vampires, at least the mythical kind, is most likely going to be falsifiable based on the credibility of the sources

Eh? You don't know them. We're left in exactly the same position for both vampires and biblical accounts. You cannot in any way offer credibility for Paul or Mark or Luke or Mr.Vampire creator. Absolutely none.

You cannot offer credibility to the stories, the supposed events or the supposed characters. Perhaps if all the accounts matched you would assign it a certain level of credibility, which would be added to for any other external matching accounts - but what we actually have are some very highly contradictory accounts that can't match anything from time of death, what was said, who was in the tomb yada yada yada. What you have is a piss poor attempt at several people trying to tell the same story - none of who would have been first hand witnesses and all of whom follow the very typical pattern of "sprucing up" a story as time passes. You have 2 miracles in the first, then 3, then 4... etc.

All you are left with are a small handful of people who all state this person existed. The same holds true for vampires - which have dozens of books attesting to their existence.

Seriously, any other book and you wouldn't give it the time of day - any court evidence and the judge wouldn't give it the time of day. Four people who are all supposedly at the death of this person and yet none of them agree on anything, (other than he died). It's simply preposterous to try and claim any credibility to the biblical texts.

god himself comes down to earth, and other than these 4 people who disagree on everything, nobody wrote a word concerning it. Probably the most important event in the history of mankind and nobody said a bloody word other than 4 people who could not even take the time to sit down and establish what god really said when he kicked the bucket. No collaboration whatsoever, just 4 completely contradictory stories that shows an absolute lack of care for the presence of god who was supposedly among them and left his biography in their highly incapable hands.

I would dread such a thing after I'm dead. My wife says my final words were: "Sorry about the bills I've left you with", my daughter says my final words were: "I love you my daughter, you can have the car", my brother says my final words were: "Sorry I used to bully you, feel free to have my playstation".

Man, you wouldn't even dare assign credibility to any of them simply because none of the claims match up. If they all said that I said: "arrg that hurts", then you'd have very few problems. You would assign a high level of credibility to it. The chances are, given the complimentary claims, that I did indeed say "arrg..."

What we have are four claims that don't agree on anything written by people that wouldn't have even been there.

Some of the sources mentioning Jesus are by historians who have listed facts in their works that are often verifiable, leading you to judge whether or not the writer is a true historian or just a mythmaker.

ALL of which are written second hand. None of them would have been there to witness the events/person and simply have no say on the matter.

but there are often facts in each that have been confirmed through an archaeological finding.

Such as? If you refer to places then I would merely submit that places are a large part of storytelling. As an avid writer myself I often, (in fact always), use locations that I am aware of and know. You could say I'm limited for imagination perhaps, but I find when writing a story that I use familiar places for location details. I might give it the same name or a different name, but the places and things will be real. For instance: I wrote a story that included a strange tree. That tree exists. Would you now say my story is complete fact because I added a real tree in it?

but they all verify his existence as fact.

They do? Not to my knowledge, but as you've brought it up kindly provide details to show that "all historians" verify jesus existence as fact.

but they are still references to jesus by various authors, many of which wrote their works before the accepted canonical Gospels

There's many references to vampires, minotaurs, odin, and a whole host of other gods and demi gods written before the "official guide to". What is your point? A story often works upon an older story/idea. If these people had the ability to read and write, it's quite probable that they would continue on from someone elses story - ammending and updating it to suit.