[lucozade]

> There is scientific consensus that Jesus was a historical figure

It's fair to say that there is general consensus amongst Biblical scholars that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Calling it a scientific consensus is a bit of a stretch though. As far as I'm aware there's zero scientific evidence for His existence. Just that the surviving textual evidence makes little sense if He didn't.

[stryan]

I've always heard it as there's enough textual/historical evidence for Jesus (Josephus, etc) that if we didn't count that as proof of his historical existence that would raise the bar high enough to remove hundreds of other historical figures.

[mannyv]

There's a ton of textual evidence for the existence of Santa Claus.

[abrenuntio]

Correct, he lived in Turkey around the late third-early fourth century.

[_DeadFred_]

Pretty sure he lived in Anatolia or the Roman empire. There was no 'Turkey' to live in around the late third century.

[margalabargala]

He can't have lived in the Roman Empire, because those are words written in English, a language that didn't exist back then.

What's that? You meant, he lived within the bounds of the region that we call one thing, but would have been something else contemporaneously, but both refer to the same geographical location? Great, we agree he lived in Turkey.