> I don't think that's correct. I have no sources on me. But I think historians generally agree - son of god or not - he did exist. PSA: * https://en.wikipedi

> I don't think that's correct. I have no sources on me. But I think historians generally agree - son of god or not - he did exist. PSA: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus With regards to the idea of "no contemporary sources": * https://historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-contemporary-references-to-jesus/ https://historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence It should be noted that while Jesus was still alive he was a nobody: just another itinerant teacher in some backwater Roman province. It was only after he was executed (and supposedly resurrected) that that he perhaps became more noteworthy. And the 'cult' around that grew only later was when people started to notice. We only care about [Hh]im now because of what that 'personality cult' became, but then (between 1AD and 32AD) why would anyone care to write things down about him?