Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
I agree. I was simply rejecting the idea that not a single scholar had recorded evidence or found evidence of his existence.
|
Except that part would be false. Troutman is right. Virtually all the evidence for the existence of Jesus is circumstantial. There is nothing that any historian would accept as direct evidence for the existence of Jesus. However, where most people make mistakes in this discussion is dismissing circumstantial evidence as worthless. We accept all sorts of historical probabilities as virtually incontrovertible on nothing more than second hand circumstantial source material.