> I think I can say with at least some minimum authority that the evidence that he existed is scant at best. I'm not a historian. There is a consensus among th

> I think I can say with at least some minimum authority that the evidence that he existed is scant at best. I'm not a historian. There is a consensus among the vast majority of historians that Jesus existed, right? I suppose there could be consensus without evidence, is that the case? > Anyway, your comment is also missing the whole point of my comment Yes, that's why I asked you to explain: I was missing the point of your comment. > The idea of Jesus is powerful; it almost doesn't matter what his exact existence entailed. Sure.