John's Gospel was eventually attributed to John largely because it never mentions the disciple called John, but does mention a "disciple whom Jesus loved". The Church Fathers concluded that the author himself must have been this disciple, but too modest to give his name. Since the Gospel never mentions John, the Church Fathers took the next step, to conclude that the beloved disciple was John.
As amateur psychologists, the Church Fathers thought this attribution was logical, and it does indeed suggest John to be quite modest. If not, then the strange references to the beloved disciple were written for quite different reasons than modesty. Clearly, if the authors of these books were all different people, they would have different personalities to the apostle, none of them the same as the disciple.
The historical records of the time in other histories. Such as Roman history. Also other historical books such as the bible. Jesus of Nazareth was mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus in his writings.
There is a great deal of what is termed "hearsay" evidence, from others. However, since Jesus was not known to have written anything down, and since the historians of his time do not mention him, we have only the circular reasoning of his apostles, especially Paul (who admits to having never met him), that he existed. Even the writings of Josephus, who was thought to have made a reference to Jesus, are now accepted, by the vast majority of scholars, to have been interpolated (meaning that these references were only inserted into the writings of Josephus at a much later date. There is no historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really did exist. None of his contemporaries mentioned him - not even Philo of Alexandria, who could be expected to have mentioned Jesus if he had known of him. And nothing occurred, whether in Rome, Palestine or elsewhere, as a direct result of the existence of Jesus. Here, we have to accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Based on our present knowledge, there is no reason to conclude that Jesus did not exist.
Unfortunately, the only evidence we have outside of the Bible for any of the actions of Jesus, or even his existence (aside from a line inserted into the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, probably by a later Christian) is heresay. Some testimony comes from people who supposedly saw Jesus, but this was reported long after their death by various early writers in the church. One such individual was supposedly named Papias. As far as physical evidence, or any writings from that time or immediately after, there is none, and we have to trust the Biblical texts.
His desipls did it for him
Jesus and Moses were not contemporaries, although Moses did appear with Elijah to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. Jesus did give respect and credibility to Moses' writings and referred to the fact that Moses spoke about Him in His writings.
There was no christian church in Jesus' lifetime. We know of no writings, at all, that Jesus might have done.
Evidence ?? Heresay!
There is no evidence of this.
There is no extra-biblical evidence that Jesus ascended to heaven.
Mostly from the writings of the Apostle Paul (sometimes called the Pauline Letters), which make up the bulk of the New Testament.
The Bible
According to Christian tradition, Jesus had biological relatives like his mother Mary, father Joseph, and siblings such as James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. In addition, John the Baptist was considered a relative of Jesus based on Mary and Elizabeth being related.