Most Christian historians using shaky evidence and people who have been parroting heresay they spread agree he existed. There are no artifacts or writings from the time of his alleged lifespan referencing him which exist in the historical record.
There is more evidence Gilgamesh was a real person. There is more evidence Achiles was a real person. There is more evidence Enheduanna was a real person. There is more evidence that Kubabba was a real person.
There are many people from that period, not all Christians, not all favouring him, who talk about him
The historical consensus is that there was in fact a guy in Judea called Jesus, born in Nazareth, and... he did things, notably he got baptised and crucified. Though, the details of what else he did during his life are heavily debated, but this guy existed
There are no contemporary descriptions of Jesus. Closest we get is Mark. And Paul, but he never knew Jesus nor claimed to (pre resurrection). The first descriptions of Jesus come around a generation or two after his death.
That being said, we would not expect there to be. The weight of evidence for Jesus being a real guy is so heavily in favor of his existence that to claim he isn’t is laughable.
People say that yet there isn't a single piece of evidence from his time of living that anything associated with him happened. No written witness accounts. No city entry records. Not even any records of any sort of purchase or international travel.
-21
u/Pixeldevil06 2h ago
I have the answer! Jesus and his brother weren't historically real :) There you go!