you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

It is generally accepted that there was a person that the stories of Jesus were based off of that existed at that time. He has as much (if not more) evidence of his existence as most historical figures from around that era. If we decided that he didn't have enough evidence, we would have to erase the vast majority of ancient history.

Now, that doesn't mean that stories of his miracles are accepted as historical. Those are still a matter of faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    There is next to no evidence of Jesus Christ unless you count Christian sources, which have a bit of a bias.

    The Romans for example were big on book keeping, yet no mention of Jesus can be found.

    The existence of Jesus is possible, but far from certain - of course that's something Christians don't like to hear and the Christian church actively fights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Not sure what you'd expect to find? 2000 year old court records from an outlying province? A long form birth certificate? His tax returns?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In that case there are tons of historical figures that should be assumed to have not existed. If we had such high standards we would have to erase most of our ancient history as rumor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    A lot of historical figures get mentioned by contemporary writing of that period- the more important that person is the more information can generally be found. Yet Jesus who, even if you ignore the miracles, should have been an important spiritual leader wasn't mentioned.

  • source
  • parent