Your statement is demonstrably false. The historical evidence for Christ is well known.  The fact is that there is more historical evidence for Jesus Christ than there is for Alexander the Great but hardly anyone questions his existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

That's just drivel. That the man existed is not up for historical debate, there are records from non-Christian sources.

According to IMDB it does not look like it is coming to Spain:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596345/releaseinfo

Sorry.

This is false, outside Christianity there are only 3 sources to confirm the existence of Jesus. Alexander has around the same.

Flavius Josephus documented the life of Jesus of Nazareth in his Antiquity of the Jews.  Josephus was born Jewish and participated in the revolt against the Romans, but later became a Roman citizen.

He is considered by scholars to be factual and accurate, with no particular pro-Jewish or pro-Christian bias.

Thanks for the info.

Really?

The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great

This simply cannot be said of Christ for the Gospels were written by contemporaries and some within a mere 60 years after his death, so NO its not false to state that Christ is better attested to historically than Alexander and there is NO reason to add a proviso discounting the Gospels.  Its a historical fact.

I love the randomness of this thread from Sam Sloan, to Jesus Christ, to Alexander the Great, all we need is a recipe from Jamie and its fixed!

Lord, Sam Sloan. Do we need to keep bringing him up?

If you would have read better you would see I said sources outside Christianity. I don't think these biased sources are much help, they are mostly a description of a spiritualised version of Jesus not the accurate historical version.

And no just because someone wrote gospels does not make it historical fact.

Definition of fact: "A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability."

Gospels can't be verified against the non Christian sources of Jesus because they are not verifiable, gospels don't talk about the historical version of Jesus, instead the gospel talks about the spiritualised version. So no, gospels are not facts and you presenting them as historical accurate sources is a sham.

@MonkeyH - Most scholars, both secular and theological, do not dispaute the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. What the debate usually centers upon is the fact that He is the Son of God and rose from the dead.

I am aware of this. That's why I made a difference between the historical version and the spiritual version of Jesus. And why I don't think the gospels are a reputable source for the historical version, but are reputable if it concerns the spiritualised version ( son of god, rose from the dead).

Also you run into a fallacy when you describe most scholars describe something. Just because most people think it is so, does not mean it is necessarily true. This fallacy is called: argumentum ad populum: appeal to the people, is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "if many believe so, it is so"

I know what you said but I simply rejected it. 

You seem to think that you can simply make provisos to substantiate your claims. Its intellectually dishonest and nonsense.  You cannot simply discount the gospels because they are Christian sources.  They are historical documents in their own right whether you like it or not, written by contemporaries of the historical figure, in this case Jesus Christ. There are literally thousands of extant manuscripts, papyri and codices. Why you think that you can simply dismiss them is nonsense. 

Does Alexander have a single source from a contemporary to corroborate his existence? No not a single one and yet there are literally thousands of extant documents detailing Christs existence and here you are saying that they cannot be corroborated??? You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

@MonkeyH - Sorry, must have skimmed over that part of your posts.

Not saying that it is true based on that at all, not sure why you assumed that about my post. Perhaps I should have been clearer. However, to say that the argument is an argument ad populum is wrong. It is a fact that most scholars believe Jesus of Nazareth existed, I did not state that that made it so. Merely that most scholars agree He actually existed. So perhaps I would not have been able to make it any clearer for you. 

I personally believe it but that is my personal belief due to my own life experience of 50+ years, many of which I did not believe (as well as studying it for many, many years). 

"Contemporaries" I guess. The gospels were written 70 to 100 years after Jesus died. Other gospels were written too, and various counsels, over 1000 years later, decided certain books go and certain books stay in what is today the modern Christian Bible.

If historical preservation is the standard of the truth though, look no further than the Old Testament. 1000s of years, and by the way Jews aren't Christian ;)

Modern Christianity is a derivative of a derivative at best. Not that it matters, faith needs no rationale.

The wife and I went to see it last Friday, the day it opened in that theater (had to drive an hour to find a theater it was even showing in, and this is in the Chicago metro area). Aside from my wife and myself there were four other people in the auditorium, and none of them looked younger than their mid-50s. One week later and it's already out of most theaters as far as I can tell. So yeah, this ain't gonna be the catalyst for some great chess resurgence (I'm blocked from that other thread too, the TC there seems kinda petty).

Skinny carbonara

Ingredients

Here you go.  something from antiquity, that might have been eaten by Jesus himself - Charoset

http://www.jewishrecipes.org/recipes/passover/charoset/sephardic-charoset.html

There are many contrary views (e.g. Bultmann) of the historical Jesus but the main point is that conducting any kind of historical analysis of 1st century Christianity is a wholly modern enterprise, starting in the early nineteenth century.
Corroborative evidence of Jesus' life outside those who had a vested interest in promoting him is so slight that many people have doubted he ever existed. The notable ‘Jesus’ document of Josephus is known to be a third century forgery and forgery in support of religious claims was very common at that time, but there are no other authentic first hand accounts which have come down from that time. The stories about him are so rich and full of the sort of detail one wouldn't think of making up that one is convinced there was an historical figure. I make an exception to the various miraculous events which are supposed to have happened in connection with him. Jesus wasn't the only charismatic preacher of his time, there were quite a number and many of them had equally impressive miracles associated with them, and that is documented BTW. If you didn't perform, or were not believed to have performed your quota of miracles then no-one would bother with you. Historical accuracy the way we understand it to-day is itself a modern fad. People routinely wrote up first person accounts of events even if they weren't there themselves on the basis that God wouldn't let them lie.This is common knowledge in theological seminaries who are honest about such things.
This view extended to the writers of the original synoptic gospels. The first of these was written in Rome by Mark in AD 70 and contains references which date it. This Mark was not the one who knew Jesus but was a follower of Paul, and he had a problem. If Jesus died on a Roman Cross how was he going to sell this to the Romans? They were hardly going to take to the supposed teachings of someone who had rebelled against the Romans, so the appalling calumny that the Jewish Sanhedrin were ultimately responsible and persuaded Pilate to crucify a man he regarded as innocent. The historical consequences have set Christian against Jew for thousands of years and yet there is no historical evidence it was true, outside the so-called synoptic gospels. they all say the same thing but there is a good reason for that. Matthew's gospel (about AD 80 written in Alexandria) was largely copied from Mark, as was Luke's (probably from Matthew rather than Mark but there is some scholarly dispute about this) Johns' gospel (2nd century AD, well away from the main events) is actually an amalgamation of two documents, according to A Q Morton who, apart from being a clergyman himself and a WW2 codebreaker, was a reputable forensic examiner of documents and proved ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in a well-publicised case in Manchester in the 1960s that a Police inspector had falsified a logbook using exactly the same methods as he applied to John. Morton can even show you where the joins are. Needless to say, historicity goes out of the window.

1. Many? Not really. I said "most" not all, of course you can find some that disagree. Those that disagree are really few and far between.

2. You bring up Christianity, I specifically said the historical. 

Done talking religion on a chess website. Good luck in your life. 

Untracking.