Comment: Absolutely 100% untrue

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It is simply unreasonable to (see in situ)

Absolutely 100% untrue

The following statement made by you is 100% untrue.

"It is simply unreasonable to deny the historical existence of Jesus. Evidence from a vast array of cultures and belief systems (even those ardently opposed to Christianity) attest to his physical existence."

I too used to think that there was certainly a historical Jesus Christ even if I did not believe the magic story line. After years of research, I have found ZERO evidence of a historical Jesus Christ and changed my position. If someone comes forward with some credible evidence, I'll reevaluate my position.

As it stands now, there is ZERO evidence for a physical Jesus Christ. N O T H I N G was written about him at the supposed time of his existence, nothing. The earliest writings about him that are in existence today were written about three hundred years after his purported birth. If nothing had been written about the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock, how reliable do you think the oral telling of it would be today? If Jesus Christ were as big of a mover and shaker as the bible claims, with the multitudes and the temple disruptions etc., surely someone would have taken note. The Romans were pretty good record keepers but there has NEVER been any credible writings attributed to anyone living 2000 or so years ago that even so much as mention Jesus Christ.

The burden of evidence rest on those who make the extraordinary claims. Faith does not cut it, just ask the relatives of the followers of Jim Jones and of the Heaven's Gate cult.

Evidence is everything, anything else is a distraction from the truth.