Most of the "evidence" are stories, so if we take those at face value it does indeed require us to have many religions.
The only difference between Christianity and other claims is that Christianity was mainly started by people trying to assert a specific history of events for a brief period. The problem is that the gospels themselves aren't historical works and contain only bits of truth about the time period.
Paul is a better source but he doesn't really give us the history (and wasn't there).
I wouldn't expect him to be mentioned outside of the area.
There were a lot of people in Palestine though, he seems to be completely unknown even there. Which is difficult to say for someone who rose from the dead and appeared to hundreds of people.
One would think it would cause much commotion if he had some following before he did that. You would think his religious opponents who had the occasion to seek out his death would also propagandize against him in his lifetime. Denounce the idea that they had to kill a religious leader for.
Our first and best source is from an outsider who never saw the man.
Well the gospels have plenty of issues like that. Two are attributed to people who might have seen the events but don't read like eye witnesses complied them.
They seem to invent places that we've no other record of at the time like Nazareth and Aramatheia. We've got anachronisms in the text that read like people who never visited them during Jesus's life like saying there were synagogues in Galilee.
The Pharisees of the time which we do have writings of seem to embrace many tenets of Jesus supposed ministry.
ect.
Last edited:
Upvote
0