Objective evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ?

[Cephus]

Remember, the discussion is not about Christian belief. I think that has been repeated about a dozen times.

It's always about Christian belief because the only ones arguing that Jesus must have been real are Christians.  It's their blind belief that makes such a discussion necessary in the first place.  If nobody thought this mythical character was real, we wouldn't be talking about it.

---

LOL. First, nobody said "all information it contains is factually accurate." So, what are you talking about? Second, those other examples aren't relevant. There is no historian who treats those events as historical per biblical criticism, for one, because we know the creation and flood stories went through thousands of years of development and second, the documents were written much, much later than the events they purport to describe. And miracles can't be judged on the basis of the methods employed by historians. Everyone knows this. Literally. Go buy a book on history or spend about five minutes on the internet doing research so I don't have to explain common knowledge, please, and thank you. Third, as everyone also knows, the Bible is not one document. It's a collection of manuscripts, of various genres, by various writers. There's your multiple, independent sources, not including Josephus and Tacitus or extra-biblical material. Anything else?

Then it  doesn't matter how much of it is factually accurate if you're not making the claim that one part's accuracy affects our view on the accuracy of the rest.  If that's the case, why did you bring it up in the first place?  It's funny how you keep making claims, have those claims shredded and then pretend you never made those claims in the first place.  We proved that Josephus and Tacitus were not credible sources.  Which other ones do you want to pretend are valid?  You want to claim Pliny the Younger?  Suetonius?  Julius Africanus and Thallus?  You want to pretend the Talmud mentions Jesus?  I'll save you the trouble because all of them can be entirely discredited, just like Josephus and Tacitus were.

So please, stop waving your arms around like anyone is going to be impressed.  You've got nothing.  You've got less than nothing and everyone here knows it.

---

"The bible writers' purpose was to con people that they had knowledge of an invisible god and their intention was to use as much knowledge of the times as they had to make it as believable as they could."
What are you a psychic now?

No, there's evidence for that! But the church burned it!

And where is your evidence for that?  While it is absolutely true that the church purposely burned a lot of evidence against their beliefs.  We know, for example, that Pope Alexander VI ordered all copies of the Talmud destroyed, with the Spanish Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada (1420-98) responsible for the elimination of 6,000 volumes at Salamanca alone.  Solomon Romano (1554) also burnt many thousands of Hebrew scrolls and, in 1559, every Hebrew book in the city of Prague was confiscated. The mass destruction of Jewish books included hundreds of copies of the Old Testament and caused the irretrievable loss of many original handwritten documents.  We do have written quotes from early church fathers proudly admitting that non-Christian sources have been forever eliminated.  The only reason we have any of these sources today is that some distant churches, particularly in northern Europe and the pre-UK refused to follow the orders of the Vatican.  We do not, however, know what was in those writings that were destroyed and therefore cannot declare them as evidence for anything.  Neither can you unless you can produce the evidence, which it is painfully obvious that you can't do.  For anything.  Ever.