I'm well aware that those sources are for the most part not independent.
Apparently, there are different views as to what "independent" means around here.
The New Testament is based on the commonly-held beliefs of those Christians who won the orthodoxy battles in the emerging church rather than on actual history.
Completely false. Thank goodness we have the letters of good ole' Paul, who said that he "received" the famous creed (1Cor 15:3-8), which is that Jesus died, was buried, raised, and seen post-mortem by his followers.
And what is remarkable is that 1 Corinthians was written BEFORE the Gospels and the belief in the Resurrection was held BEFORE the Churches were established. So, those MAIN, CORE beliefs of Christianity (Resurrection, Post Mortem) were not beliefs that were held decades and centuries down the line...they were held shortly after Jesus' death.
So, the above paragraph coming from your fingertips is just completely wrong, sir.
One of those commonly-held beliefs is that Jesus existed as a man in first-century Palestine. Real-Jesus apologists either are ignorant of this fact or are deliberately misleading people.
So, real-Jesus apologists are ignorant of the fact that Jesus existed as a man in first-century Palestine? But I thought that was the case that we were advocating for?
Even Tacitus and Josephus cannot be said to be truly independent.
Um, both of them were HISTORIANS. Unless you are implying that one of the criterias of a historian is that you have to have been living/present at the time of historical event in question.
So, that being said, I guess there shouldn't be any Civil War historians, Ancient Egyptian historian, or Ancient Rome historians living today. Yet, there is..which means that your assessment below is completely bogus and not in touch with how historical methodology
Although neither one of them was a Christian, they most likely got their "information" about Jesus from Christians.
So, because they got their information about Jesus from Christians, that makes the information automatically invalid? This is a text book example of the genetic fallacy
. Most people who don't know anything about historical methodology makes commits this fallacy.
In any case, we don't know their sources and cannot with confidence say that their mentioning Jesus is independent corroboration.
Both of them makes mention (or implies) Pontius Pilate...so I guess Pontius Pilate also isn't a historical figure.
Man, the hate on Jesus is real. That is ok, though. That is quite ok. LOL.