why is any other religion wrong?

[KarenNC]

Fine. Can you inform me where and when these gods were born? AFAIK, Jesus is the only one whose time and place were known. have there been “failed messiahs” or folks claiming to be God. yes, but how many of them are followed today. Jesus took a bunch of illiterate fishermen and swept the world with His faith. How many people claiming to be God have done that?

No, can’t give you time and place for birth. They were/are believed to have lived and died and lived again well before the time of written history.

Okuninushi is a Shinto god, and his temple is still very active, one of the oldest in Japan --hosts 15 festivals a year. sacredsites.com/asia/japan/izumo_taisha.html

I can certainly point you toward folks today who worship Dionysus and Osiris. I don’t claim continuous worship for them, however.

Many religions have “swept the world” (at least the world known to their adherents at the time) at various points during history. There are more non-Christians than there are Christians, according to www.adherents.com. That even includes as Christian groups that I constantly see listed as not Christian (or not “really” Christian) on these fora–Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Unity, Christian Science,etc.

Is the existence, value, worth, power or reality of your God dependent on the number of worshippers that can be claimed? Would it make your God less of a God or less “real” if fewer people believed in him? If no-one believed? At what point did Jesus amass enough followers to be “real” or for Christianity to be a "real’ religion? When 5 followed? 50? 500? 5000? 5 million?

 

[deb1]

Other gods have been said to have risen from the dead. Osiris, Tammuz, Baal and Dionysus are examples. Others are Aray (war god of the Armenians), Okuni-Nushi (Japanese), Adon (Phoenicia), and Attis.

www.pantheon.org (Encyclopedia Mythica)–search on “resurrection”
or “resurrected god”

Very good bit of information.

I knew about Osiris, Tammuz and the others but I didn’t know about Okuni-Nushi. That is interesting.

As a Christian, my belief is that God allowed such stories to exist in order to prepare mankind for Jesus’ death and resurrection. To me it is further proof of Christianity’s truth.

Most religions have some degree of truth in them, but I have to ask in each of the above stories how is it told that mankind benefited from the deaths and resurrection of these gods? I

 

[KarenNC]

As a Christian, my belief is that God allowed such stories to exist in order to prepare mankind for Jesus’ death and resurrection. To me it is further proof of Christianity’s truth.

Fair enough. I pointed it out to show the poster that it is simply not a valid argument to claim that Christianity is the true religion solely or primarily because of a uniqueness of the resurrection of Jesus or of his claims to be God.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

rbarcia, this is confusing. First you say that religion is a man made invention, then you list a string of religious tenets. Then you list Catholicism with Islam and Hinduism as a system of requirements and works. What are you smoking?

rbarcia is obviously the sort of protestant fundmanetalist who thinks by using a definition of “religion” other than what’s in the dictionary they can redefine anyone who dosn’t follow their truncated Chrisitianity out of Christianity.

First rule of discusion: Define your terms

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Ok first things first. I’ve been asked a few questions (by various people) and I’ve said I’m going to try and tell you what I believe. I’ll answer the questions first and then move on to what I believe and why I believe it. I’m going to take a bit of time over this and try and make it coherent. Sorry what I’ve written is so long, but sometimes I feel I could write a book about some of the junk bouncing around in my head!

These are the questions I’ve been asked:

1. Would you consider Jesus a lunatic? Not even Jesus’ enemies considered him a lunatic.
2. I would like to know what research/studies led you to believe there is no God?
3. I believe have seen Gods work in my life and others repeatedly during my lifetime. I am nuts? Naive?
4. What makes you so much smarter than all those who have come before us? Are telling me that C S Lewis, Thomas Aquinas, Edith Stein, Theresa, Augustine et all are a bunch of quacks? Who should one believe?
5. How do you know none can be proved?
6. Why are we here?
7. Where did the world come from?

So question one.

No I don’t consider Jesus a lunatic. I doubt he ever said he was God. I think that is just other peoples interpretations. (‘Are you the son of god?’ ‘It is you who say it.’) Jesus was a monotheistic Jew. The idea of him being the son of God would be opposed to his religion. Of course you will say, if he actually was the son of God then he would say he was. However, I don’t believe he was or did. I think he was a Jewish holy man. Can you trust the bible to retell his story accurately? ‘He wrote no books himself, and his words have been reported by writers who demonstrably distort their account of things to persuade us of their point of view.’ (Source: Jesus, A.N. Wilson).

When Jesus was living religion working in peoples lives would have seemed more obvious. People with epilepsy or various neurological diseases and problems would have been considered to have been possessed by demons. It would have been less likely that people who made prophesies would have been considered lunatics.

Question Two

I actually have read some works that have lead me to take my views, but actually I think much of what I believe has come about due to thinking long and hard about the nature of religion, how it arises and how it manifests itself. I’ll mention this again when I explain my beliefs. (Possibly read ‘Jesus’ by A.N. Wilson if you feel like it.)

Question Three

Are you nuts just because you believe in God? No I don’t think so. I think lots of people believe lots of things. When a lot of people believe in one thing, it becomes more likely that others will believe in it too. I think that your environment has lead to your beliefs. Religion is a form of brainwashing (sorry for using that word) even if it is unintentional. I mean by this, that people doing the brainwashing/indoctrination believe what they are saying too. However the effects of religion are similar to that of other forms of brainwashing. You have been intensively exposed to religion from birth. So are you nuts? No, its human nature.

Question Four

I don’t think I’m more clever then the list of people you gave, but I don’t think you’re more clever then various atheists I could list, Richard Dawkins, A.N Wilson and literally thousands of others. It works for other religions too: (Quote) Religious believe shouldn’t come down to a competition of who can name the most intelligent people who back them up.

No one can be completely right about everything. If a clever person is indoctrinated from birth and grow up in a religious culture its very likely they will be able to say lots of clever things about religion. Just because they are wrong, doesn’t make them less clever.

Who should one believe? None of them. I certainly don’t expect you to agree with me. It’s important that people make up their own minds. However you will go into any argument leaning strongly towards the God side. You can’t be objective about it. I know this because I’ve been there. No matter what people said I would argue for God, I couldn’t look at it from the other side of the argument. Eventually I did start to see where atheist belief was coming from, I began to look at the whole of religion and how it might fit into the big picture of human nature. That was a very difficult time for me. I spent a lot of time praying that I would stay a believer, praying for faith, but now I think this was a product of my own human nature. I wanted to cling onto something I found comforting. Now I think I don’t need the comfort of something bigger then me, because what’s to be afraid of?

(CONT next post)

 

[Jake_Ellison]

(CONT from previous post)

Question Five

This is one of my favourite questions. I know religious belief cannot be proved for exactly the same reason that it cannot be disproved. No one ever has. When ever you read a book that proves religion, either you think ‘yes that’s obvious, I agree!’ If you read a book that denies religion, you think ‘that’s just rubbish.’ For an atheist it would be the alternate. I’m not trying to prove religions non existence, there is no way I could convince people who have strong faith. Strong faith is blind it does not need evidence. You might say atheism is blind faith. I’d disagree. Atheism tries to be rational, religion is irrational, even as a believer I thought that. You could give me examples of people who have been ‘healed’ but these are uncorroborated urban myths. Almost always, its something along the lines of ‘I knew someone who heard of someone in India who did this or that.’ A religious person seeing something that seems to confirm their faith is never going to say, ‘actually there might be a more rational explanation. Maybe once the endorphins wear off they’ll need there crutches back, maybe I’m watching a hoax, maybe I have such a strong faith that the way may brain is making me feel tricks me into thinking I’m being touched by God.’ Seemingly miraculous things can happen. If you have ever seen the effects of thalidomide on a leprosy sufferer you will know what I mean. Even over night, it looks like they have been ‘healed.’

Question Six

Since it developed the ability to imagine and reason, mankind has been searching for reasons. Why are we here? Does that question need an answer? I don’t think it has one.

Question Seven

This is a question I’ll answer later.

Ok so now that’s out of the way (comments on what I’ve said very much welcome and expected) I’ll move on to what I believe and why. I’ve probably said a lot of it already, but little about my personal journey.

I think there were two main reasons why I became an atheist. I started off by becoming slightly disillusioned by teachings of Catholicism and I began to see the similarities between the nature of faith in different religions.

Moral teachings of religion have always been important to me. Yes, I believed Jesus to be the son of God, but more important to me in my life was having good morals. Jesus (the Jesus of the bible) is a person I respect a lot and I follow some, if not all of his teachings. These teachings applied to how my life interacts with others. Other moral teachings of the church seemed to me to be less about being good to others and more morals for their own sake, morality of the sake of morality. Two examples I have are premarital sex and eating pork (not a Christian teaching now). I believe these two things were banned for the same reason. In hot countries pork would go bad rapidly. When it wasn’t cooked properly people who ate it would get ill, pork worms can be fatal. Pork was therefore viewed as unclean. Pretty soon, eating an animal God has made unclean is a sin, and bang! its in the bible. Of course today we have fridges, and in Peter and Paul’s time that particular teaching work its way out. I know a family of Jews who eat pork because they believe the same as me (when it comes to teachings on pork).

Premarital sex is the same. Unwanted pregnancies, STIs, AIDS, sex can cause problems. Fidelity to one partner overcomes these problems, and so into the bible that goes. Obviously God is punishing sexual immorality with horrible diseases. Of course now, in much the same was that we have fridges, we have condoms, now sex can be safe! Maybe there is still a risk, but if people are careful this risk is reduced, and premarital sex is not a sin because of those risks.

So not having premarital sex is morality for its own sake. You just don’t do it because God said so and we must do what God says. But are you hurting people? No, in fact you could be giving pleasure. Is sex always moral? No. Clearly things like sex with underage children, rape and so forth are terrible crimes. Playing tricks with peoples feelings is wrong i.e. having sex with someone who thinks you love them and then finishing with them. But in a relationship that may or may not lead to marriage, when both people know what to expect from the other I don’t see that sex is wrong.

Sex is natural, its something that evolved, its something two people do together, and should not be tainted with guilt (crimes aside). Interestingly, not all religion is opposed to sex, (Wiccans help me out I’m not too sure on this) but some pagan religions even use it to help communicate with their Gods. Its just a use of nature, and a way of getting in touch with it.

(CONT next post)

 

[Jake_Ellison]

(CONT from previous post)

However, not being entirely satisfied by the nature of religious morals is not reason to stop believing, and so there is more to just being dissatisfied as to why I am an atheist.

This is what I came to believe. Religious believe is a by product of human nature. I think I’ve mentioned this in other posts. Religion is used to explain the unexplainable. The big bang is an example. Science doesn’t know everything about it so religion fills in the gaps. Religion is just running backwards though. Hundreds of years ago, religion explained how the world existed. Once that was explained scientifically it moves back to how the universe existed. Once it was believed that the sun moved round the earth. The earth was the centre of the universe. People were killed because they denied this. This was so offensive to religious people. Of course the world is the centre of the universe, God made us, we are his chosen people, everything revolves around us. Egyptians thought the sun was carried across the sky by a scarab beetle. Why not? Science couldn’t do any better, why not just put it on a beetle or a chariot, explains it away and there is no need to worry about the how. Religion has it covered.

So just because science can’t explain the details of the Big Bang now, doesn’t mean it won’t be able to ever. At the beginning of the 19 hundreds a great scientist said ‘we know all there is to know about science.’ Considering the development since then, perhaps he wasn’t so great after all.

Religion doesn’t just explain that what science can’t. It also gives us that hope in an afterlife. Can you imagine having no consciousness permanently, not even on the slightest level? It would be like you never existed. Oblivion is a terrible thought and its no wonder we are afraid of death. Its also no wonder belief in the afterlife arose. Religion comforts. Its not over yet, it tells us. Of course on that basic level, we still are afraid to just die. Maybe once you’re very old you begin to feel tired with life. Sometimes you’re just so desperate you can’t bare life anymore. But in general people, Christians as well, will do whatever they can to stay alive. People go through aggressive cancer treatment even in their last year of life, when chances of recovery are vanishingly small. People kill to stay alive, people fight. On that basic level we still fear death.

Origins of religion dealt with, on to History. Often my arguments with my Christian friends at school (very interesting one today about whether or not stealing a chocolate bar is a crime punishable by eternal torture) lead to this phrase being used: ‘But the bible says…’ or ‘Jesus says…’ The bible is a historical source. Historical sources are not always reliable. When you pick up a document saying what a great guy Stalin was and how Russians under his control have never been happier you may view it with a touch of scepticism. Perhaps this source doesn’t give the whole picture. When you read the bible, you aren’t treating it with the same scepticism. After all its God’s word.

It has been said, I think the thread ‘Good news to all wiccans’ that most scholars view the bible as historical fact. I disagree with that statement. Once you look at the bible and compare and contrast it to other sources you see it does not fit fully with the history of the time. A few things are bent a bit, probably to fit with prophesies. Also some things have been added to the bible. An example of that: Luke 24.51: ‘As he was blessing them he departed from them and was taken up to heaven.’ Interestingly enough some old translations of the bible, historical documents, do not have ‘and was taken up to heaven.’ An example of the historical clashes is the birth place of Jesus. Personally I think its likely that it was Nazareth and not Bethlehem. While there are records of censuses occurring, there is no record of one at the time when Jesus was thought to have been born. The bible says that the census that took Mary to Bethlehem occurred when Herrod was King and Quirinius was Governor of Syria. Herrod died in the year 4 B.C and Qurinius was not Governor during his reign. We know this historically. Jesus is thought to have been born in around 4.A.D, the guy working out when A.D began got it a bit wrong.

The above are some of the reasons I don’t follow a religion. I’d like to make the point that I am not anti religion. I’m not an antitheist just an atheist. I have great friends with are religious and I respect religious belief. I don’t think what I’ve said would turn anyone from their beliefs, I think its in peoples nature to want to cling on, I know I did even though I began to feel in my heart I didn’t believe. Some of you reading this will be Christians maybe Wiccans, maybe others. I respect your faiths equally and congratulate you on being strong in faith. I hope you understand why I believe what I believe and I’m happy to clarify anything (or argue about it!).

 

[1ke]

okay this i’ve been putting off for way way to long.

why is any other relgion besides christianity wrong?

1. is it because you have been told this your whole life?
2. its cause the devil has created all of them?

those are only two examples i can think of right now…but please tell me why?

i may be just 15 but i know the line of good and evil and i stay on the good side. i know that what i do is right for me, i can feel it from head to toe…or is that just the devil playing tricks on me?

Well, objectively, there can be only one (as the Highlander would say). Subjectively, you and I believe two different things. Clearly, only one of them can be true.

Any religion that proposes that everyone can be right isn’t much of a religion. There is only one Truth.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

No, can’t give you time and place for birth. They were/are believed to have lived and died and lived again well before the time of written history…

That’s one of the primary charecteristics of “myth”–the persons and events are before time, before history, before confirmation of existence in a verifiable time,place, and cultural complex.

Example, the Krishna devotees will place the birth/incarnation of that person 3rd Millenium BC (they actually give an EXACT year date, but I don’t have the reference handy) Now this is the time of the pre-Aryan invasions of the Indian sub-continent (circa 1200 BC), however, the stories of Krishna and the Ramayama and the Mahabarata are clearly told in the context of post Aryan Invasion culture. When these tales were composed clearly influenced by the contemporary cultural milleu but the composers put them in a context where they could not be verified or corraboratted.

However, Jesus CAN be located in the historiical 1st century Judea and there are NO post 1st century anachronisms in the cannonical gospels & epistles–and the extra Christian texts testifying to his existence and that of the early Church is appropriate for what you would expect for non believers

 

[Ahimsa]

That’s one of the primary charecteristics of “myth”–the persons and events are before time, before history, before confirmation of existence in a verifiable time,place, and cultural complex.

Example, the Krishna devotees will place the birth/incarnation of that person 3rd Millenium BC (they actually give an EXACT year date, but I don’t have the reference handy) Now this is the time of the pre-Aryan invasions of the Indian sub-continent (circa 1200 BC), however, the stories of Krishna and the Ramayama and the Mahabarata are clearly told in the context of post Aryan Invasion culture. When these tales were composed clearly influenced by the contemporary cultural milleu but the composers put them in a context where they could not be verified or corraboratted.

I don’t want to get into a debate about the Aryan Invasion Theory, but I just want to point out that that theory is becoming less convincing as of late.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I don’t want to get into a debate about the Aryan Invasion Theory, but I just want to point out that that theory is becoming less convincing as of late.

The 19th Century’s philoligists/linguits/anthropologists “invasion” bias may have been over stated–however, what remains is we cannot tanslate the pre-Sanskrit incriptions of the pre 1200 BC complex–a culture that was contemporary w/ Sumer & lst Kingdom Egypt. whose writings we can translate. The succeeding culture so changed India that to place a “person” in this pre-history is to conviently place him beyond verification–however, the milleu of the Vedic scripts does describe a post 1200 BC culture complex (chariots-mounted archery armed warriors, steel weapons, emphasis on cattle as wealth), which may very well indicate a mixture of pre & post 1200 BC beliefs, tales, & myths

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

okay this i’ve been putting off for way way to long.

why is any other relgion besides christianity wrong?

1. is it because you have been told this your whole life?
2. its cause the devil has created all of them?

those are only two examples i can think of right now…but please tell me why?

i may be just 15 but i know the line of good and evil and i stay on the good side. i know that what i do is right for me, i can feel it from head to toe…or is that just the devil playing tricks on me?

This princible goes back to at least Aristotle and probably has it’s origin in Socrates refuting the Soliphists, the post-modernist/deconstructionists of his era. This ultimate princible is why the Catholic Church (and Christianity in general) claims “truth”:

"One speaks the truth when one says of what is that it is and what is not that it is not.

“One does not speak the truth when one says of what is that it is not and of what is not that it is.”

—via Peter Kreeft, Between Heaven and Hell

 

[KarenNC]

That’s one of the primary charecteristics of “myth”–the persons and events are before time, before history, before confirmation of existence in a verifiable time,place, and cultural complex.

So how does that work in the case of the Old Testament, the basis for the God that Christians believe Jesus to be?

Actually it is entirely possible to have a myth about someone who exists within a verifiable time, place, and cultural complex. Ask most Americans if George Washington chopped down a cherry tree or had wooden teeth.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

So how does that work in the case of the Old Testament, the basis for the God that Christians believe Jesus to be?

Actually it is entirely possible to have a myth about someone who exists within a verifiable time, place, and cultural complex. Ask most Americans if George Washington chopped down a cherry tree or had wooden teeth.

First part, there are allegorical tales in the OT that may not be literally “true”, in a scientific sense–or even the historical meaning. For example, the Books of Esther and Job both seem to be religious fiction–but the spiritual truths they convey are still valid. The Church never officialy held that the people in Jesus’s parables had existed in fact, none the less, the truths are still valid. Even the grand creation story in Genesis may be a pre-scientific rendering–except somehow in Genesis 3, our “first parents”–Adam and Eve (might as well call them those names as any other), greviously sinned and occasioned a real fall from grace that affected all of humanity–if no real fall from grace then no need for redemption. And, as CS Lewis remarked, it very well may have involved a very real, literal tree in a very real literal garden.

Again using Lewis (Mere Christianity) the focus of the OT becomes increasing historical as one progresses in the story, from dealing with primordial ancestors of all of us, to a particular people singled out, tested, “hammered”, purified with the idea there is One God–until finaly all this narrowing focuses down to one girl at her prayers, in a very real village, in a very real time and place.

The composition of the Gospels is one of eye witness accounts: Jesus was here, Jesus did *this–*they do not read like “myth tales” of the ancient world–they arent written good enough–and the accountingof the miracles and the claims is not done in an accepting atmosphere (unlike Parson Weem’s “work”) but in milleu of at best skepticism and at worst persecution.

“The Gospels were written not to create Christians, but to ellucidate Christians already made–converted by one historical fact–the Incarnation–and one theological doctrine–the Redemption–a Redeption from a sense of sin they already had…”
—The Screwtape Letters, #XXV, CS Lewis

 

[KarenNC]

the extra Christian texts testifying to his existence

Could you point me toward the extra-Christian texts you mention that testify to the existence of Jesus, in particular the verifiable specifics of his birth, life and death? I am only aware of a few contested mentions in Josephus.

 

[KarenNC]

First part, there are allegorical tales in the OT that may not be literally “true”, in a scientific sense–or even the historical meaning. For example, the Books of Esther and Job both seem to be religious fiction–but the spiritual truths they convey are still valid.

And that is exactly the point of all sacred literature and story, regardless of culture. It conveys spiritual meaning.

I have never claimed that the sacred literature and story of any culture or religion has to be literally and historically true to have value. In fact, I believe that these sacred stories are actually more powerful and important than mere historical fact ever can be.

** Even the grand creation story in Genesis may be a pre-scientific rendering–except somehow in Genesis 3, our “first parents”–Adam and Eve (might as well call them those names as any other), greviously sinned and occasioned a real fall from grace that affected all of humanity–if no real fall from grace then no need for redemption. **

Absolutely agreed. That is why I reject the teaching of original sin and therefore a need for a Savior.

** And, as CS Lewis remarked, it very well may have involved a very real, literal tree in a very real literal garden.**

Or it very well may really literally not.

**The composition of the Gospels is one of eye witness accounts: Jesus was here, Jesus did this–they do not read like “myth tales” of the ancient world–they arent written good enough–and the accountingof the miracles and the claims is not done in an accepting atmosphere (unlike Parson Weem’s “work”) but in milleu of at best skepticism and at worst persecution.

The sacred stories of many ancient cultures read very much like the ones of the Gospels, including the use of “x did this” and “y was here.”

Are you saying that these accounts must be true because if they weren’t true, people would not have believed them to be true in the face of skepticism and persecution?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

First part, there are allegorical tales in the OT that may not be literally “true”, in a scientific sense–or even the historical meaning. For example, the Books of Esther and Job both seem to be religious fiction–but the spiritual truths they convey are still valid.

And that is exactly the point of all sacred literature and story, regardless of culture. It conveys spiritual meaning.

I have never claimed that the sacred literature and story of any culture or religion has to be literally and historically true to have value. In fact, I believe that these sacred stories are actually more powerful and important than mere historical fact ever can be.

response: And that is precisely what Christianity disallows–it is why Chrisitanity is not just “mythic” becuase we hold it happened and it matters–like birth and death actually happens and matters. We don’t deal in symbols alone. As Flannery O’Conner once responded to a condescending Mary McCarthy who said “The Eucharist is a pretty good symbol”, O’Conner snapped back “If it’s just a symbol, the Hell with it!”

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Even the grand creation story in Genesis may be a pre-scientific rendering–except somehow in Genesis 3, our “first parents”–Adam and Eve (might as well call them those names as any other), greviously sinned and occasioned a real fall from grace that affected all of humanity–if no real fall from grace then no need for redemption.

Absolutely agreed. That is why I reject the teaching of original sin and therefore a need for a Savior.

response: Why?–are you pre-disposed to "man is innatly good?–Or is it from a misundertanding of what Original sin actually means? Original sin is NOT the same as personal sin. see: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

The composition of the Gospels is one of eye witness accounts: Jesus was here, Jesus did *this–*they do not read like “myth tales” of the ancient world–they arent written good enough–and the accountingof the miracles and the claims is not done in an accepting atmosphere (unlike Parson Weem’s “work”) but in milleu of at best skepticism and at worst persecution.

The sacred stories of many ancient cultures read very much like the ones of the Gospels, including the use of “x did this” and “y was here.”

response: But the composition is very different–and utterly lacking in such homey details that do nothing to advance the story–like Jesus drawing in the dust–or actually detract from the “reliability” of the account–like women being the first witnesses to the Resurection. Some recent scholarship has tried to refute Lewis (a professional mythologist he knew a LOT of myths,) saing some ancient world fiction matches the Gospel’s style–but the comparisions to date have been very strained at best

Are you saying that these accounts must be true because if they weren’t true, people would not have believed them to be true in the face of skepticism and persecution?

response:Eessentially, yes. Because we are talking about people who the composition of a mythic story would have gained the composers nothing but ridicule, alienation from their communities, persecution, and even shamefull death. They were NOT talking about a wonderworking “Apollonius” of 2-3 centuries prior, who did fantastic things in some far away land that no one heard of. We are talking about people, in the hundreds, who had met Jesus in Judea & Gallili, heard Him, had their lives changed by Him–and claimed to witness what He did and how that underscored who He was–and IS

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Could you point me toward the extra-Christian texts you mention that testify to the existence of Jesus, in particular the verifiable specifics of his birth, life and death? I am only aware of a few contested mentions in Josephus.

this article nicely sums up the availble non-Christian references and also discusses actual scholarship instead of the skeptical naysaying of His existence:

Extrabiblical, Non-Christian Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d.

christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

 

[KarenNC]

**it is why Chrisitanity is not just “mythic” becuase we hold it happened and it matters–like birth and death actually happens and matters. **

So just to be sure I am understanding you --I hear you saying that

1. It is acceptable to look at the Old Testament stories that say things actually happened as being allegorical or enhanced to emphasize their spiritual message, because these stories were set in prehistory and have anachronistic elements.
2. It is unacceptable to view any of the New Testament stories that say things actually happened as being allegorical or enhanced to emphasize their spiritual message because they are said to have occurred during a time for which we do have contemporary historical documents whether or not any historical documents outside of those written by believers actually attest to all the events within the stories.