I just asked the historical method, and she called me a moron. Also something about "speculation". She's drunk. I'll have to ask her later.

Most persons and events in antiquity do not come from written contemporary attestation, however they are often validated by archaeology and supporting cumulative evidence deriving from anthropology and socio-cultural studies, and often after years of analyzing the evidence. 

In many cases, especially when suggested events and persons contain large traces of mythical or legendary instances, the miraculous events are immediately discounted and the process of examining the data begins.  Often the Argument from Silence will be reviewed to see if the criteria would meet to make a successful stance of silence.  The criteria are:

According to Gilbert Garraghan (A Guide to Historical Method, 1946, p. 149)

"To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer[s] whose silence is invoked would certainly have known about it; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty."

In addition, the historian Richard Carrier suggests two additional criteria to strengthen an argument from silence:

1) Whether or not it is common for men to create similar myths.

It is prima facie true that this is the case. History is replete not only with 'god' claims, but with claims for messiah status.

2) The claim is of an extraordinary nature, it violates what we already know of nature.

(Important note: this is not to rule out extraordinary claims, a priori.)

The miracle claims in the Gospel of Mark, for example, violate what we know of nature.

In this instance, because Silence is such a powerful case, especially when reviewed with all the additional cumulative evidence, historicity looks extremely weak. 

Regards,

Rook

 Another major historical figure of which there is a lot of debate is Socrates.

There is sufficient evidence to suggest that he was in fact a real person convicted of the crimes that Plato claims.  But Plato is the best source of information we have on the man.  A quick analysis of Plato reveals a Socrates character that evolved with Plato's writing (changing massively around Symposium - Republic into what is believed to be a character named Socrates that represents Plato as a youth).  The writings considered to be the most accurate are his early accounts.  His first three stories (generally believed) are the Crito, Euthyphro, and The Apology.  His death occurs in Crito, a death by drinking hemlock.  According to Plato, Socrates drank the hemlock and drifted into an eternal slumber.  In reality, a person who drinks hemlocks last few minutes on this earth is a far noisier and violent affair.

The only other contemporary source didn't care for Socrates and painted an image of the man as an idiotic baffoon.  Several centuries later, Diogenese Laertes (if memory serves), said that Socrates was only really interested in indoctrinating the youths of Athens. 

Uh.  maybe that was a lot of off-topic information..  but I think it's interesting..

to answer the OP's question, no, historical evidence does not need to be contemporaneous. if you say otherwise, lots of ancient history goes out the window.

I felt obligated to respond when this load of absurdity just exploded in my face.

The point of contention is not "miracles are real" but that "miracles are so improbable that history cannot prove them". Secondly, you have yet to respond to the point that I made which was, briefly summarized, that science has not and cannot contradict these miraculous reports as they are the result of a supernatural agent.

I actually was saying that the lack of evidence prevents us from making positive claims such as "Not a single piece of writing from any contemporaries of Jesus mentions Jesus".

well for one these are known to be mythical characters, the same does not reign true with Jesus. Secondly, the claim "Jesus did not exist" and "The Gospels are by and large unreliable" ARE positive claims.

this is really a standard atheist argument I encounter. Name a random fallacy and never once specify where the theist commited that fallacy. you sir a a textbook example of an Internet Atheist.

I see you completely dodged my point. very well then. you can read it again, it's still there, I don't think the RRS is censoring their boards yet.

*facepalm* you completely missed my point. Davo wanted "irrefutable proof". I was merely pointing out that there is no such thing as irrefutable proof outside of mathematics. secondly, as noted above, the claim "Jesus did not exist" and "The Gospel portrait of Jesus is unreliable" ARE positive claims.

I really have no other means to express just how incredulous and absurd I find your (as in everyone) arguments

My arguments for the resurrection can be saved for another day. however, this is not contradicted by science, and that was my point, and you still have yet to address that specific point.

How am I using it in a positive way? is expressing skepticism towards a positive claim in of itself a positive claim?

the complete lack of any historical evidence whatsoever despite the fact that we should find such evidence is a good starting point.

Believing in Robin Hood or Thor or Zeus simply is not as incredulous as claiming "Jesus, the figure around whom the New Testament revolves, walked the earth", and to assert such is absurd and ridiculous (and you deserve whatever ridicule you get for putting on such a spectacular display of lunacy) in fact, I would argue that the negation of that statement is vastly more incredulous.

no actually it was the influence of Christian missionaries, not "further research".

You may want to read the work of the following scholars if you seriously think that there is no evidence for the Historical Jesus:

Gary Habermas

Michael Licona

William Craig

Craig Blomberg

N.T. Wright

Richard Bauckham

Paul Rhodes Eddy

Gregory Boyd

The evidence for the historical Jesus is compelling to say the least.

Those figures you mentioned were not confirmed as fictitious by "research" but merely by intuition. However, the lack of evidence supports the non-existence of an entity if and only if we should expect to find evidence. However, no such evidence should be found if Jesus were a historical figure. as John Meier notes in his landmark series on the Historical Jesus (I read about this from other scholars, so I do not claim to have personally read his work) A Marginal Jew, Jesus was a marginal jew in a marginal province of a vast Roman Empire. add the fact that there were many other people claiming to be the messiah (although none of them believed that their messiahship was linked with a death and resurrection), and many other people were purported to do miraclese (Hanina Ben Dosa, Honi the circle drawer)

just posting a rebuttal of your own would suffice.

I actually provided these points. if you wish to sway me (and I'm not so sure that's the case with anyone on these forums), then you will have to make a satisfactory rebuttal to my argument, otherwise you will never sway me in the least.

no actually you never once responded to my point that there is no such thing as "irrefutable proof" outside of mathematics. secondly, the canard about "beyond reasonable doubt" is subjective and useless. what is reasonable for me may be unreasonable for you. lastly, if you wish to say that Jesus never existed, then you shoulder the burden of proof because "Jesus never existed" IS a positive claim.