Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spend some time reading up on ancient religions to see how the mythology surrounding Jesus is derived from older myths.

I take no position on whether or not he was real.

I am sure scholars and historians around the world are very impressed with your opinion and research

DP here. PP is telling the truth.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/paganshadowchrist_article_01.shtml

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology

A simple google shows article after article, with citation after citation supporting PP’s claim. They are from scholars and historians. This is not intended to challenge anyone’s belief, just to provide evidence for those to make up their own minds.

Tbh scholars and historians are not impressed by your Wikipedia articles

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spend some time reading up on ancient religions to see how the mythology surrounding Jesus is derived from older myths.

I take no position on whether or not he was real.

I am sure scholars and historians around the world are very impressed with your opinion and research

DP here. PP is telling the truth.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/paganshadowchrist_article_01.shtml

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology

A simple google shows article after article, with citation after citation supporting PP’s claim. They are from scholars and historians. This is not intended to challenge anyone’s belief, just to provide evidence for those to make up their own minds.

Tbh scholars and historians are not impressed by your Wikipedia articles

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spend some time reading up on ancient religions to see how the mythology surrounding Jesus is derived from older myths.

I take no position on whether or not he was real.

I am sure scholars and historians around the world are very impressed with your opinion and research

DP here. PP is telling the truth.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/paganshadowchrist_article_01.shtml

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology

A simple google shows article after article, with citation after citation supporting PP’s claim. They are from scholars and historians. This is not intended to challenge anyone’s belief, just to provide evidence for those to make up their own minds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

How is that “a lie”?

Historians and scholars agree Jesus was a man who walked the earth. They are certain of it. Why does pp get to say likely? It’s a lie to say likely. What are pp’s bonafides to contradict the multitudes of learned scholars who say historical Jesus existed, especially if they mistake confidant for confident?

Maybe you should re-read your sources.

The consensus is that he likely existed. No one has definite proof.

It’s historical certainty Jesus existed. Even Jewish people mentioned him in the Talmud.

No , it is not an historical certainty that Jesus existed. Mention in the Talmud shows only that people heard of him, not that he was flesh and blood.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spend some time reading up on ancient religions to see how the mythology surrounding Jesus is derived from older myths.

I take no position on whether or not he was real.

I am sure scholars and historians around the world are very impressed with your opinion and research

Anonymous wrote:Spend some time reading up on ancient religions to see how the mythology surrounding Jesus is derived from older myths.

I take no position on whether or not he was real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

How is that “a lie”?

Historians and scholars agree Jesus was a man who walked the earth. They are certain of it. Why does pp get to say likely? It’s a lie to say likely. What are pp’s bonafides to contradict the multitudes of learned scholars who say historical Jesus existed, especially if they mistake confidant for confident?

Maybe you should re-read your sources.

The consensus is that he likely existed. No one has definite proof.

It’s historical certainty Jesus existed. Even Jewish people mentioned him in the Talmud.

No , it is not an historical certainty that Jesus existed. Mention in the Talmud shows only that people heard of him, not that he was flesh and blood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

How is that “a lie”?

Historians and scholars agree Jesus was a man who walked the earth. They are certain of it. Why does pp get to say likely? It’s a lie to say likely. What are pp’s bonafides to contradict the multitudes of learned scholars who say historical Jesus existed, especially if they mistake confidant for confident?

Maybe you should re-read your sources.

The consensus is that he likely existed. No one has definite proof.

It’s historical certainty Jesus existed. Even Jewish people mentioned him in the Talmud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

How is that “a lie”?

Historians and scholars agree Jesus was a man who walked the earth. They are certain of it. Why does pp get to say likely? It’s a lie to say likely. What are pp’s bonafides to contradict the multitudes of learned scholars who say historical Jesus existed, especially if they mistake confidant for confident?

Maybe you should re-read your sources.

The consensus is that he likely existed. No one has definite proof.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

How is that “a lie”?

Historians and scholars agree Jesus was a man who walked the earth. They are certain of it. Why does pp get to say likely? It’s a lie to say likely. What are pp’s bonafides to contradict the multitudes of learned scholars who say historical Jesus existed, especially if they mistake confidant for confident?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

Another DP. Claiming you’re the smartest person in the room and then making grammatical errors sort of makes you fair game.

- NMSSF

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

How is that “a lie”?

Historians and scholars agree Jesus was a man who walked the earth. They are certain of it. Why does pp get to say likely? It’s a lie to say likely. What are pp’s bonafides to contradict the multitudes of learned scholars who say historical Jesus existed, especially if they mistake confidant for confident?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

How is that “a lie”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.