I did read the article, and it seems to be entirely things like "there's no evidence Jesus was there, but historians say he could have been" or "according to the Gospels". Neither of those rise remotely to the level of what I'd call "evidence". The former establishes that the historical Jesus is plausible, but that could just as easily mean that the authors who invented Jesus were aware of the real-world setting their character occupied.

The whole article reads much more like a believer going on a quest to develop a more personal connection to events which they have faith occured. That's fine, and I'm sure is interesting to believers, but it did nothing to convince me of the historical Jesus.

No, it isn't.

The historical Jesus did exist, and as they say, no scholar believes otherwise.

Bethlehem, miracles, etc. do indeed have no proof. Why he was crucified: no proof there either.

I'm not sure which of the many things I said your "No, it isn't" is in response to.

I care less about what the scholars believe, than I do about wanting to hear some scrap of evidence for it. There's a ton of evidence that the stories in the bible could have happened (churches existed at the right places and right times, it references real-world people and places), I just haven't seen any evidence that they did.

> I'm not sure which of the many things I said your "No, it isn't" is in response to.

It was the very top: "it seems to be entirely things like ..."

"a scrap of evidence" -- you mean like video or something? What do you expect?

No one can provide a link that'll convince you. For something this ancient, scholars spend their lives weighing all the evidence and determining what's most probable. So if you think that just dismissing all that as "no evidence" is reasonable, then there's nothing to debate here.

The apocryphal Jesus traveled a fair bit, led a religious sect, was a somewhat known public figure, and was publicly executed with some amount of fanfare. Basically anything contemporaneous would be a good start. Given that multiple of the supposed references to him refer to multiple people by the name, it seems far more likely that a variety of Jewish men named Yehoshua were after the fact agglomerated into one historical invention.

At this point, someone needs to do a whole lot of research. I think that "someone" is you. I'm not going to do it for you.

From what I've gathered, scholars compare the various pieces of evidence for consistency with what else is known. That's why they know that the canonical Gospels weren't written until the latter part of the first century, for instance, and there is one lost text that three of them derived from.

"it seems far more likely that a variety of Jewish men named Yehoshua" -- ok, to you. I don't care to argue that because I'm not a scholar of that period. I suspect you're not, either.

I see you got in a debate below, but Jesus is mentioned in Tacitus's Annals, and if you don't believe those, then you don't believe a lot of what we accept for fact about Rome in the First Century.