Oh, there is. You just asked for "What is the evidence for Jesus you mentioned?" What I had just mentioned was a response to fictional beings vs. real beings. Before that I had mentioned that Christianity was a historical religion, as opposed to other religions, especially the mythologies. So I guess I misunderstood your reference. My apologies.

> I thought you meant there was evidence that Jesus was divine, rose from the dead, or other of the miraculous claims made about him.

Of course there is evidence of such things. The resurrection was a historical event, so it's possible to investigate the evidence as we might attempt to do with any historical event. As to the miraculous claims about him, there are three extra-biblical sources of which I'm aware.

- Josephus, in Antiquities, book 18 (in a segment of the Testimonium Flavianum regarded as historically reliable), says that Jesus was "one who did surprising deeds."
- A bowl recently discovered in Alexandria, Egypt, dates from about 125 BC to the first century AD. The engraving reads (in Greek) "[i]dia chrstou o goistais[/i]," translated by the excavation team as "through Christ the magician." It is speculated that a first-century magician used it in the work he was doing to invoke the name of Jesus, showing from an extra-biblical source that Jesus was known for his miracles.
- The [i]Paris Magical Papyrus[/i], dated to about AD 300. It describes an elaborate exorcism ritual that begins with, "I beseech you by the god of the Hebrews," and then lists a number of mystical names, of which [i]Jesu[/i] is the first one listed. The papyrus then continues with numerous other references to biblical events and persons, some of which are undecipherable. It's another evidence from an extra-biblical source that Jesus was known as a wonder worker, a successful exorcist, and called "the god of the Hebrews."

Sorry, I thought you meant there was evidence that Jesus was divine, rose from the dead, or other of the miraculous claims made about him. It's perfectly reasonable to accept the existence of a historical Jesus, just as it's reasonable to accept the existence of the historical Muhammad or Buddha.

That's quite a large question. You know we have a 10K character limit here. There are evidences in cosmology, ontology, teleology, science, nature, logic, people's experiences, linguistics, morality, personality, purpose, and even beauty. If you haven't seen it yet, even if someone came back from the dead you would most likely find a way to refute it. I have learned many things on this forum, and at least one is that people are not easily convinced by logical argument and presentation of evidence. There's a theory in psychology about consensus of evidence: "Your theories are unprovable" (which I assume you will claim no matter what I respond with evidence). It's a cognitive trick that keeps people from admitting that not everything fits the easy explanation of your agnostic position, enabling you to pass off any evidence I give. I've seen it many times in this forum.

So I'll leave it at this: The evidences of God's existence are prolific and abundant. If you were open to it, you would have seen them already. Since you don't see much proof that my god isn't fake, it shows that you are close-minded to the evidence, and no matter what I present you will find a way to find fault with it and disregard it. Open-mindedness and freedom of thought are the only way to examine something objectively.

So then why are their gods fake and yours is real? Can I get some evidence? Because I don’t see much proof that your god isn’t fake

Tacitus, Roman historian and Senator, generally regarded as the greatest historian of the Roman Empire, writing in about AD 110, mentions Christus, the founder of the sect popularly known as "Christians." He says that this "Cristus" was put to death by Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea, while Tiberius was emperor.

Josephus, a questioned by not disregarded Jewish historian, mentions Jesus twice in his book called Antiquities. He also mentions Jesus' execution at the hands of Pilate.

Ignatius, a Christian, writing in about AD 100 give or take, mentions Jesus as being crucified and dying by order of Pontius Pilate.

Suetonius, another Roman historian highly lauded for his accuracy and objectivity, writing in about AD 100, writes of the followers of "Chrestus" who had instigated disturbances against Rome.

Pliny the Younger (AD 61-112), a Roman author, lawyer, and magistrate, three times mentions a man named "Christ" as the focus of the Christian faith.

Lucian of Samosata (AD 125-180) mentions a "man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world."

Saul of Tarsus (c. AD 1 - AD 65ish), a man hostile to Christianity, writes extensively in the 50s about this historical Jesus's death on a cross. He, of course, began to believe in Jesus, and we know him as the Apostle Paul.

And, of course, we have the record of the four Gospels, which contain many accurate historical records.

There is so much scholarly agreement on Jesus's crucifixion that it is considered to be historically indisputable, and therefore we have evidence for the historicity of a man from Nazareth named Jesus who founded Christianity.

What is the evidence for Jesus you mentioned?

Of course they could. Anyone can say anything they want. That's why it comes down to evidence, not just claims.

> what they were worshipping was simply fictional beings invented to explain spiritual reality to themselves.
> in reality they were atheists because they were worshipping something that didn't exist.

Oh boy. You can’t see how anyone could say this about your god? Couldn’t a Muslim say the same thing about you?

Thanks. I'll accept that correction. I was just tapping off the terminology of the original post without thinking that part through very much. But you're right. Therefore the original poster and myself were wrong to identify the ancient mythologists as atheist. They were, instead, mistaken theists worshipping fictional deities. Thanks for the correction.

> "in reality they were atheists because they were worshipping something that didn't exist."

This betrays a complete misunderstanding of the word "atheist." The word denotes a lack of belief in gods; it does NOT denote people who mistakenly believe in false gods.