http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][3][4][9][10][11] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[33][34] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.[9] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and the agreement on his existence does not include agreement on his divinity.[5][6][7][8]
Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and virtually all scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[8][30] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[30] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[11]
A number of ancient non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[35] These include the works of 1st-century Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus.[35][36] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[37][38][39][40] Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.[41]
The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician.[42][43][44][45] Other possible references to Jesus and his execution may exist in the Talmud, but they also aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.[42][46][47]
Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30â36 AD.[12][13] However, in a review of the state of modern scholarship, Amy-Jill Levine stated: "Beyond recognizing that 'Jesus was Jewish' rarely does scholarship address what being 'Jewish' means."[48]
Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea.[15][16][17] The Talmud refers to "Jesus the Nazarene" several times and scholars such as Andreas Kostenberger and Robert Van Voorst hold that some of these references are to Jesus.[47][49] Nazareth is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian gospels portray it as an insignificant village, John 1:46 asking "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"[50] Craig S. Keener states that it is rarely disputed that Jesus was from Nazareth, an obscure small village not worthy of invention.[50][51] Gerd Theissen concurs with that conclusion.[52]
The languages spoken in Galilee and Judea during the first century include the Semitic Aramaic and Hebrew languages as well as Greek, with Aramaic being the predominant language.[18][19] Most scholars agree that during the early part of the first century, Aramaic was the mother tongue of virtually all women in Galilee and Judea.[20] Most scholars support the theory that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that he may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[18][19][53][54]
Most scholars reject that there is any evidence that an adult Jesus traveled or studied outside Galilee and Judea.[55][56] Robert Van Voorst states that modern scholarship has "almost unanimously agreed" that claims of the travels of Jesus to Tibet, Kashmir or India contain "nothing of value".[57]
You're a sick bastard!