[thecavemaster]

Evidence is essential, especially for historical claims. If there were no evidence for George Washington, then why we would teach he is our first president.

That's what I said. It means that we know by close examination and written documentation that GW was our first president, and we know much about his life. By that same process, we know that Jesus lived, taught, and was crucified. By historically reliable documentation, we have references to his resurrection, over 500 eyewitness accounts, and radically changed lives who believed to the point of death under persecution.

We have more evidence for George Washington because it is closer to modern time, but we have a great deal of verifiable documentation for the life of Jesus as well - more so than Julius Caesar and many other great people of before Christ, and we write large sections about that smaller amount of information in our history texts.

Josephus, Flavius...et al. men and women argue back and forth as to reliability, as to who knew what and to what degree of historical accuracy. Here is my point: if I read the Gospels, find there a figure that captivates my imagination, challenges my worldview, divides my prejudices, exposes my frailty, speaks to somewhere deep within me, then (personally) I don't need to find ancient artifacts to believe. A still, small voice witnesses to a truth no artifact can illuminate. The earliest believers had no such tome upon tome of voluminous verbage, yet they were burned in flames, devoured by lions. Love and gratitude produce a loyalty no book can fathom.