> But that doesn't mean the opposite; that there is nothing about Jesus doesn't become somehow a proof of his existence.
And nobody has argued otherwise, merely that we have the exact level of proof that we would expect of someone of Jesus’ position in Jesus’ geographic location and time period. In fact, we have non‐Christian sources from around the turn of the century, which is why the consensus of historians is that Jesus lived and was executed in that time period.
> Nothing in the new testament about Jesus can be said to have happened except that he was born, that he was poor, and that he was crucified.
Obviously, at least according to any scientific historic standard. But there are people who would deny even that, and can’t seem to accept the scholarly consensus that the man lived and died at all.
There are people in this thread who seem to.
> But that doesn't mean the opposite; that there is nothing about Jesus doesn't become somehow a proof of his existence.
And nobody has argued otherwise, merely that we have the exact level of proof that we would expect of someone of Jesus’ position in Jesus’ geographic location and time period. In fact, we have non‐Christian sources from around the turn of the century, which is why the consensus of historians is that Jesus lived and was executed in that time period.
> Nothing in the new testament about Jesus can be said to have happened except that he was born, that he was poor, and that he was crucified.
Obviously, at least according to any scientific historic standard. But there are people who would deny even that, and can’t seem to accept the scholarly consensus that the man lived and died at all.