>>18932494>But muh Tacitus!Does not even contain the word "Jesus"
>But muh Josephus!The two passages mentioning Jesus were not in any Josephus manuscript before the fourth century. Therefore either (((Jewsephus))) lived to be 300 years old, or someone else wrote them
>But muh Pliny the Younger!Does not even mention Jesus
>and not to mention all the early church writersNot a single one of them mentions a historical Jesus until Irenaeus, writing in the 180s or 190s AD
>So in summary, the truth is out there it is not hard to findApparently you didn't bother reading any of these manuscriipts before posting them as "evidence", otherwise you would already know that they're not helpful to your case
>and the fact that Jesus did exist in time and place specified in the new testament and died due to crucifixion is impossible to argue againstLMAO
>is impossible to argue againstThe Gospels are a literal rewrite of the Septuagint, with just the names changed, and Paul's letters never actually mention the historical Jesus apart from one infamous interpolation. There, I just argued against it in just one sentence, even though retards like you think it is "impossible" to argue against it
>much like with julius caesar or alexanderWe have numismatic, archaeological, primary and secondary source manuscript evidence for Caesar and Alexander, none of those things for Jesus
