Evidence is a collection of facts. The facts are that some writers wrote some things.
Paul wrote to try to turn a widely known simple story into an elaborate theology. But the story was widely known already since Paul did not need to inform anyone of the basic story: a religious figure named Jesus with messianic overtones got crucified and supposedly rose from the dead, although there was some skepticism about that part. Paul tried to turn that jarring element - a messiah got crucified? - into something positive rather than negative and invented a new religion in the process. Why would he need to expend such efforts to salvage the story if the story was not already out there?
Mark wrote to flesh out the character of Jesus as a real historic figure, incorporating episodes about Jesus that take place in a social, political and religious environment that ceased to exist about 30 years before Mark wrote. These sound like early traditions passed down. The great similarities between several passages (calming the storm 2x, feeding the multitudes 2x) suggest that these stem from traditions old enough to have spawned variations.
One passage in Mark deserves special consideration. Mark 7:1-13 recounts an acrimonious
debate between Jesus and some Pharisees concerning Oral Torah versus Written Torah. Mark wrote sometime after 70 AD. No audience interested in reading Mark would have understood what this was about. Nor would even a non-Christian Jewish audience understand it. After the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, the only Jewish school of thought left standing was the Pharisees, champions of the Oral Torah. Their opponent in the Mark story is Jesus, portrayed as champion of the Written Torah and opponent of th Oral Torah. By contrast, Paul’s Jesus – the one he claimed talked to him in visions – said to abandon the Torah. This passage in Mark is clearly an early tradition.
Mark’s resurrection non-story – empty tomb, Jesus a no show – if viewed as an early tradition could explain the origin of the resurrection story. We know that Mark read Paul, specifically 1 Corinthians. In Mark 14:22-25 we see a close copy of 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, the institution of the bread and wine ritual. Mark has at his disposal the 500+ witnesses to the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:3-6 yet goes with his no witness version. If Mark had invented his Sunday morning story, he would surely have incorporated Paul’s witness story as he incorporated Paul’s bread and wine story, especially considering how utterly important Paul said the resurrection was. Unless of course Mark was in possession of an early tradition about what really happened and went with that instead of Paul’s rather over-the-top version.
Matthew tells us that there were stories about the body of Jesus being stolen instead of Jesus being resurrected, an embarrassing statement and obviously not an invention of Matthew. To counteract these stories, Matthew tells an elaborate tale about an angel opening the tomb witnessed by the guards who are then bribed to shut up and a cover story prepared. And of course, he has people see the risen Jesus, although that part is rather minimalist compared to Luke’s later version. (All of this is in Mathew 28)
The simplest explanation for all this is to assume a real historical Jesus, although not a magical one. Proof, no. I never claimed it was. Just the simplest explanation.
What you want is a sworn affidavit from Pontius Pilate that says “I killed Jesus”, although I suspect that this would not be ‘evidence’ in your eyes either. What you really want is to prevent discussion of the possibility that there might have been a real Jesus, even a non-magical one. Which is why I take every opportunity to present and explain my proposal. I will not be so easily sidetracked.
Your silly word games about evidence, your outrageous claim that the application of reason is not allowable in discussions of this sort, your claims that I have ‘faith’ in anything, your statements such as ‘massage your sensibilities’, combined with your claim that anti-Christian Celsus is an unimpeachable source, all add up to opposition to anyone being allowed to discuss the subject. Why? Is it that you are that afraid of the idea of a real Jesus, even a non-magical one? As I said before, my rejection of Christianity was based on research and reason. I am not afraid to consider that there may have been a real Jesus because I know that would change nothing. Is it that yours was based on emotion, which would demand an all or nothing attitude and leave you no capability for nuance? It sure sounds like it.