History is established through multiple lines evidence. The gospels are our sole source of information that we have on Jesus, and they are written by unknown authors/believers decades or more after the described events.
Many would argue that there are indeed “multiple lines” of evidence.
One of you can correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t it Bart Ehrman that said that there is more evidence corroborating the historicity of Jesus than any other figure from “antiquity.”
You just choose to disbelieve the evidence…..
It has been argued endlessly, yet there is still no evidence from multiple independent, objective sources....of course, Josephus, Tacitus, et al, were not witnesses.
So, we see the impact of Jesus short ministry on earth…. We do have the accounts of the apostles…. They were witnesses who took the time to write about Him…. He is also a figure of historical record…
But, you,come up with this self designed hurdle…..”…..yet there is still no evidence from multiple independent, objective source….” This is musta not excuse to justify your rejection.
No, you would choose to reject the the evidence if it included “videotape.” After all, the videotape could be altered…right?
The takeaway here is not that the evidence, including creation is not sufficient, the takeaway is that you will choose to reject any evidence at all as you desire to cling to …..what?….perhaps your pride?
You are indeed in the same category as the Pharisees of Jesus day…… rejecting Jesus in the face of the abundance of evidence that He was indeed the Son of God.
