Zero evidence? For what? The man? His teachings? His crucifixion? His resurrection?
No real evidence of the man, the crucifixion, the resurrection, etc. (Rumors 60 years after he died don't count as evidence.)
"Teachings" attributed to him obviously exist. They were written long after his death, and rewritten and mistranslated many times since. They have historically been spun to justify just about anything.
This is obviously wrong. Roman, Jewish and of course Christian historians have accounts for his existence. This isn't even denied by atheist scholars. We have more accounts for Jesus than we do of the Roman emperor, Tiberius, at the time.
the crucifixion
Same thing. In fact, atheist scholars, such as those in the Jesus seminar, say that the singular most certain thing in Jesus' life was his death by crucifixion.
the resurrection
His disciples were martyred and held to their account that Jesus was resurrected. Even according to the non-Christian Jesus seminar, the account of Jesus dying, and resurrecting and appearing to his disciples and then to more than 500, was being said within months of his death - NOT 60 years after his death.
"Teachings"
Jesus' teachings were obviously captured in the part of the Bible called the New Testament. We have very reliable transmissions of them. There is a field of study called textual criticism where we try to assert what the original manuscript actually said. Through the numerous surviving manuscripts, some even going back to the 1st-2nd century, we can determine with pretty good reliability what they were. The very few things we are uncertain of existing in the original manuscripts have nothing to do with Jesus' teachings or have any theological implications about his death, burial, resurrection and purpose.
Zero evidence? For what? The man? His teachings? His crucifixion? His resurrection?
No real evidence of the man, the crucifixion, the resurrection, etc. (Rumors 60 years after he died don't count as evidence.)
"Teachings" attributed to him obviously exist. They were written long after his death, and rewritten and mistranslated many times since. They have historically been spun to justify just about anything.
Ok, let's go one by one.
This is obviously wrong. Roman, Jewish and of course Christian historians have accounts for his existence. This isn't even denied by atheist scholars. We have more accounts for Jesus than we do of the Roman emperor, Tiberius, at the time.
Same thing. In fact, atheist scholars, such as those in the Jesus seminar, say that the singular most certain thing in Jesus' life was his death by crucifixion.
His disciples were martyred and held to their account that Jesus was resurrected. Even according to the non-Christian Jesus seminar, the account of Jesus dying, and resurrecting and appearing to his disciples and then to more than 500, was being said within months of his death - NOT 60 years after his death.
Jesus' teachings were obviously captured in the part of the Bible called the New Testament. We have very reliable transmissions of them. There is a field of study called textual criticism where we try to assert what the original manuscript actually said. Through the numerous surviving manuscripts, some even going back to the 1st-2nd century, we can determine with pretty good reliability what they were. The very few things we are uncertain of existing in the original manuscripts have nothing to do with Jesus' teachings or have any theological implications about his death, burial, resurrection and purpose.