> evidence for many figures of the ancient world.  not really. even for people like hannibal of carthage, the best evidence is from second hand sources from several decades after the events. > none of those things for jesus. because jesus was a wandering teacher/prophet/healer, not a fucking emperor. of course we don't coins with his face on them or archaelogical evidence of his palaces because they didn't exist. > none of those manuscripts contain actual eyewitness testimonies the gospels are based on eyewitness testimonies, and the quotations of jesus within the gospels are almost certainly taken from a collection of jesus's words that were written down during his lifetime. > paul's letters doesn't actually mention the historical jesus because paul didn't meet the historical jesus and wasn't a direct witness to any of that stuff, and was focused more on religious doctrine than the biographical details of jesus.  paul does mention meeting with james, the brother of jesus, and the apostles john and peter, which wouldn't make any sense if jesus didn't exist. > tacitus probably doesn't mention jesus and  tacitus describes the persecutions of early christians who were called that because they followed a guy named christus who was executed at the hands of pontius pilate. > josephus definitely doesn't.  josephus mentions the trial and execution of james, brother of jesus christ. > again, you haven't read them, have you yes of course, you haven't though and are clearly just repeating nonsense you read in the book by that fringe historian and r/atheism.
United States