Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[abaris]

Also, I don't know why you said there is ''no evidence'' for Jesus - there's about as much evidence as one would expect for a 1st century preacher - we have 2 historical references to him which I explained.

Which only repeat what christians said at that time. Color me not impressed, since that's kind of expected. Outside the gospels there's absolutely no evidence for Jesus acutally being real.

People, you actually have to look up what being a historian or author actually meant in the old world. It was taking oral history at face value without checking the sources. It was also painting an ideal instead or reality and transporting an agenda wasn't frowned upon. So, Tacitus is only evidence for christians existing and making certain claims at the time.