There is actually evidence that Jesus existed in Paul’s Letters 50-60 AD although he did not have direct contact with him but he met his followers and wrote about him.
Evidence for him being God is completely different question and can probably neither be proven or disproven.
“Paul” is an anonymous author, and therefore has no credentials.
By your own account it was written decades after the fact, and based only on 3rd party account, which in itself is similar to hearsay in a court, which for good reason is inadmissible as evidence.
That does not count as reliable historical evidence. It’s actually 3 steps removed from it, as there are 3 obvious sources of error.
I think more likely “Paul” or whatever his actual name was, was one of the original authors of the story of Jesus Christ, similar to being the author of Harry Potter.
As in the whole thing was completely and totally made up, and there is no rational reason to believe otherwise.
You can then pretty much say that most classical history is made up since it’s just some accounts of people often written post-mortem.
Often in history from the time of the Roman Empire the sources are few and far between since it’d have to survive 2000 years to get to the present.
All we know is that suddenly a bunch of people starting talking about a rando in the desert called Jesus. Even though we don’t have an eye witness writing we have a person that spoke with the eye witnesses.
Then also, it’s just some letters he’s sending to a Christian community in modern day Turkey that happened to survive.
I’m an atheist but I feel the evidence is pretty solid for Jesus existing. Rest of it is exaggeration I think.
There is actually evidence that Jesus existed in Paul’s Letters 50-60 AD although he did not have direct contact with him but he met his followers and wrote about him.
Evidence for him being God is completely different question and can probably neither be proven or disproven.
“Paul” is an anonymous author, and therefore has no credentials.
By your own account it was written decades after the fact, and based only on 3rd party account, which in itself is similar to hearsay in a court, which for good reason is inadmissible as evidence.
That does not count as reliable historical evidence. It’s actually 3 steps removed from it, as there are 3 obvious sources of error.
I think more likely “Paul” or whatever his actual name was, was one of the original authors of the story of Jesus Christ, similar to being the author of Harry Potter.
As in the whole thing was completely and totally made up, and there is no rational reason to believe otherwise.
You can then pretty much say that most classical history is made up since it’s just some accounts of people often written post-mortem.
Often in history from the time of the Roman Empire the sources are few and far between since it’d have to survive 2000 years to get to the present.
All we know is that suddenly a bunch of people starting talking about a rando in the desert called Jesus. Even though we don’t have an eye witness writing we have a person that spoke with the eye witnesses.
Then also, it’s just some letters he’s sending to a Christian community in modern day Turkey that happened to survive.
I’m an atheist but I feel the evidence is pretty solid for Jesus existing. Rest of it is exaggeration I think.