Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Aractus]

True but the historical Jesus has never been proven either.
Was there one, maybe, but there is no more proof for an actual non-magical Jesus as there is for a non-magical Harry Potter.
So it comes down to a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact.

Neither has the historical Hitler. Nothing can be proven. What I've said consistently is that the weight of evidence makes it more likely than not that Jesus existed, and the weight of evidence is enough to convince the vast majority of Historians in the field to find that Jesus was a historical person. I didn't say it proves it outright.

And it's not just a matter of opinion any more than Hitler as a historical person is a 'matter of opinion'. As I said in my last post, why waste your time on crackpot nonsense like the Jesus Myth Theory instead of focusing on valid points that Christians can't dispute (for example the condoning of ancient slavery)?

And hey you don't get to have it both ways. You can't say "there's not enough evidence to establish that Jesus existed" and then also say "oh and the evidence shows that the Exodus never happened either", because then a Christian will just use your own argument against you and say "nup there's not enough evidence to show that the Exodus didn't happen"... and you know what that's precisely the argument they use even though they're misinformed. So if you use the same misinformed argument it just goes to show your bias and uninformed knowledge of history and what constitutes evidence on a historical level. Not only that, but it shows that you don't understand why that argument is wrong: because it's wrong in both cases for the same reason. The clear evidence that shows that Exodus didn't happen is just as clear as the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a human being and had a short ministry c. 30AD before being executed by crucifixion.

Not to mention that the only people who support this hypothesis are unqualified crackpots that are not real scholars. You have to appeal to people who are unqualified to make an assessment of historical evidence to support this argument! It just makes you guys look really stupid. If sceptical scholars like Bart Ehrman say that people who support Jesus Mythers are unqualified because they aren't real scholars - which by the way he says here:

http://youtu.be/WUQMJR2BP1w

Then why are you taking an argument - that's at best a really bad one that you can't support with real academic content or evidence? What's the point of making (or supporting) such terrible arguments??