Records similar to that of other Messiahs of the time would be one form of
hard evidence.
The denial of Peter is a wisp of information that might imply the writer
knew what happened to them.
The Romans killed them and *all* their followers.

A Roman politician giving the people a say in what happened to a condemned
man would rate a bit of notice, as would that same man's insane act of
crucifying somebody on a Friday.

In article <1155778602.077456.282230@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
derrick_abdulhakim@yahoo.com says...

Pastor Kutchie wrote:

How about howcomethereisnotashredofhardevidencethatjesuseverexisted?

What would "hard" evidence be?

Think about the hard evidence that Julius Caesar existed. His face was
on virtually every coin. Not only did many friends (and enemies) write
about him, but he himself wrote works. We also have quite elaborate
biographical information from him, far more so that is available for
jesus. We have statues, busts, murals and accounts of his specific
deeds that are contemporary. BTW, some believers ludicrously claim that
there is as much or more evidence for jesus as there is for Caesar. But
this is belied by the fact that Jesus is only mentioned in a few
equivocal interpolations, such as the obviously distorted TF, whereas
Caesar is mentioned by thousands of contemporary sources. Jesus only
seems to be mentioned by sources that have been monkied with long after
by xian polemicists and often the accounts are mutually inconsistent.

And why must there be hard evidence in
the first place?

Because extraordinary claims carry a burden of extraordinary evidence.
This is acutely so because believers claim that it is absolutely critical
that one accept these several thousand year old claims at face value, in
order to achieve salvation. The position of the skeptic is that lack of
believe, in the absence of evidence is non-culpable, given that there was
no good reason to believe.

That sounds similiar to the antagonizing question,
"where is the *hard* evidence for God?" doesn't it?

Well, where is the evidence and if you don't think that any is required
why not? How do you expect to persuade anyone in absence of good
evidence or arguments?

How is it "antagonizing" when it wouldn't even be asked if believers
had the sense and courtesy not to insist that their religious beliefs
be taken seriously, if they didn't push them where they are neither
wanted nor needed, if they didn't insist that their creation myths be
taught as fact, etc?

It should be remarkably obvious that the begged question gets asked -
in "put up or shut up" mode.