rationalskepticism.org

All written 'religio-historic sources' from such a distant depth in time must be considered suspect. Truth had a different meaning back then (some would argue it still does). Where are the bones, the accounts of social upheaval, the billboards with 'The End is Nigh'? Let's say he was real - his impact must have been on a par with Napolean in order to get himself on the front pages of the Neolthic Times (not being literal). There must be more evidence, significantly more evidence, of the social chaos his rise and fall produced. How could it be otherwise? except for him being a fictional character. Yes, I believe in evidence on a rational board but why should I feel obliged to provide evidence for Jesus non-existance? Those who claim his existance on the other hand must provide something more than the tittle-tattle of a bygone era. They must bring substantial, multi-layered and irrufutable proof that this guy existed, they must bring the ugly bones.