Tis probably, but not entirely proven.

Most probable

The question of most probable and least probable is not really a question. With out undeniable proof, all possibilities are equally possible and probable. I just like asking the question: why is Jesus portrayed as white, when he originated from the Middle East? If he was white then he would be from Europe or the aryan regions further east.

[quote]The question of most probable and least probable is not really a question. With out undeniable proof, all possibilities are equally possible and probable. I just like asking the question: why is Jesus portrayed as white, when he originated from the Middle East? If he was white then he would be from Europe or the aryan regions further east.[/quote] 1) Without undeniable proof, not all possibilities are equal. There are razors, the most famous being Occam's, that weed out hypotheses. Occam's Razor states that the option that makes the fewest assumptions is the correct one: in this instance, the choice that Jesus existed is far more probable than a group of 12 men created a character that was killed by the Romans and perpetuated by Jews in their lifetime. Especially since this man supposedly had a role in a revolt at around the same time. 2) Jesus is often portrayed as white because he was portrayed by white people in Europe. This is also true for the Greek pantheon, and was (in classical literature) to be a symbol of holiness or deification. The same goes for men like Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, who were clearly not white in the same way they are portrayed.

My reasoning is that probability does not define absoluteness. Base the probabilities on what evidence we have, but at the same time you have to consider bias, misinformation, and credibility. If we see the evidence and only the evidence, then yes his existence is most probable, but only probable. When you look at everything down to a minute detail and analyze the sources and the evidence themselves, then you really can't assume anything unless you were there. History is portrayed as one thing or another, which leads back to the saying, "history is written by the victor". In the next couple of centuries after the birth of Christianity, Christians made up two thirds of the Roman Empire, and eventually they were the top denomination when Constantine became the first pope. History is filled with bias, therefore one can not always see the full picture. Most probable leads to assumption that something happened, but just because we assume something happened does not make it fact. We have discovered no remains and no belongings. We only have mentionings and scriptures about him. No official roman, who were quite efficient at record keeping, record exists about him until Josephus' mentioning of him nearly a century later when Christians already made up a large majority of the roman people. All possibilities are accepted because nothing is certain.

Nothing can be certain if your regimen of evidence is that strict.

That's the point, nothing is infallibly certain unless you see or experience something for yourself. You can accept something and operate on the basis that it is fact, but you don't truly know if that information is entirely true unless you witness it firsthand.

Not even if you witness it first hand

Were you there when Jesus was crucified? Was I? The answer is no therefore we can only assume and determine what is probable, without knowing what is undeniable fact. My point is not to put down my own religion. My point is that we must all learn to look at things from different angles, and consider all possibilities. I think the creed of the assassins brotherhood fits this situation perfectly, "nothing is true. Everything is permitted".

Have you ever been to Mars? How do you know it's real? That argument is silly, as most things (evolution, cosmology, etc) is taken without personal experience, but with either evidence or probability (based on what evidence is available).

I don't need to go to Mars to know its real. All I have to do is look up in the sky in someplace where there isn't a lot of light pollution. The theory of evolution is still a theory, but I accept it because it is the most logical explanation. Scientific discovery is based on empirical evidence, that has been confirmed time and time again. Historical fact is often warped and re shaped, depending on who's stating. An example of this is the Armenian genocide. One side calls it genocide because the Turks killed about 1.5 million Armenians, and the other side denies that it was genocide and merely an action of retaliation against the Armenians, and that they didn't kill that many. History is debated and debated, but scientific discoveries can be confirmed again and again because evidence can be renewed and rediscovered. If all you have are the mentionings and writings of long deceased figures, then how can you know how credible they actually are. Historical fact is defined by record keeping. Record keeping is vulnerable to human flaws and errors as well as exaggeration. It is only until hard, concrete evidence, which can deteriorate over time, is discovered.

You're at John Locke levels of evidence. The beautiful part about whether or not Jesus existed is that it doesn't matter. Evolution deniers and climate change deniers matter.