Ehhhhhh, you probably aren't trying to be technical, but it's worth noting that circumstancial evidence is definitely a thing; is evidence that suggests but doesn't definitively state. As mentioned in this tread, Nero calls out pilate for executing Jesus. There's also the often overlooked circumstancial evidence that there's a whole ass religion to the guy, which sure there are other religions etc etc, but most of them don't have a semi Devine being that you can point to specific dates and times...
I will continue on, I'm an atheist, so I'm not arguing for Christianity, so here's obligatory circumstancial evidence against historical J.
Wasn't a census when he was supposed to be born.
No written accounts of Herod executing every baby boy in Judea.
Etc etc lmgtfy if you need it
The Nero reference you are mentioning was written by Tacitus over a century after he was supposed to have lived. The fact of the matter js that there is no contemporary primary rvidence of hus exisrence.
Frankly, I have no primary evidence of your existence. I could be arguing with a bot right now and it wouldn't be unbelievable. Primary evidence is a motherfucker, the guy we are talking about was probably illiterate, talking to more people who were illiterate, what kind of primary evidence could there be? Even if we had a body, could we really point to it and say with any real confidence that it was Jesus or just some other person that was crucified?
Honestly ask yourself, what would you accept as primary evidence?
It really isn't so clearcut. You don't need an actual Jesus for the words attributed to him to be true. "Jesus" works perfectly fine as a container for an idea.
Thing is, it goes against man's desires. The other religions that took off generally allow men to take more than one wife, fight wars, etc. Christianity basically asks of one to be poor and selfless and pure
The context within which you are raised matters so much more than what's written in your chosen scripture. That and self interest. Between those two, pretty much anyone can wrangle themselves into believing anything they want. The history of how we got here from there is similarly irrelevant.
There's quite a bit of contrast between Christianity and Islam in terms of how scripture is presented, as Islam teaches that the Qur'an is literally the words of God. As for Judaism, it's unfulfilled, and if the New Testament about Jesus is actually true to what happened, then the Jewish prophecies clearly point to Him. Other than that it's a very elaborate scam made by well educated people which doesn't really give them any benefit.
My parents weren't executed horribly, what are you talking about about?
I'm still talking about contemporary Christian belief. Thesis: You can consider yourself Christian without belief in Jesus as a historical figure. Many Christians are happy to understand Jesus as metaphors and an ideal. Like if you took the actually good Superman stories and removed all the context, you could idealize the individual to the point of worship without believing he's real.
The whole point of Christianity isn't just to "do good". The foundation is that we aren't good enough by nature and are flawed by our own fault, but by trusting in and following God, we can be forgiven. Because Jesus literally existed and was executed for our sins.
That feels a lot like your personal interpretation. You do not get to decide how people who call themselves Christian define themselves.
Fables are worth listening to for the morals they include. Why wouldn't an ancient holy book be a moralistic guide to show the way to heaven, whatever that is which is not defined in scripture