You want evidence of the historical Jesus, that article contains almost 300 references and about 40 external sources.
The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is widely accepted. If you believe otherwise, you need to provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims.
No, not true. Go read Wikipedia for some reliable sources on the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
Wikipedia is never to be used as a source for contested topics because anyone can edit it.
Do link to a source that you think can prove he was real, and I’ll take a look at it.
I said go there for some reliable sources.
You want evidence of the historical Jesus, that article contains almost 300 references and about 40 external sources.
The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is widely accepted. If you believe otherwise, you need to provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims.
You’re defending the claim that Jesus was a real person. Cite sources.
“Do your own research” isn’t going to cut it because I did, and obviously came to a different conclusion from you.
There are usually sources listed on Wikipedia articles
Yes, but a response like that is just someone trying to shift the burden of proof.
Do you notice the comment you replied to explicitly said “first hand” and you explicitly said “reliable”.
You are talking about different things.
deleted by creator