Archaeologists believe they've found cross of Jesus of Nazareth

[sinkingfeeling]

19. Wikipedia isn't the source . Gerd Theissen is the source. He's a

German Protestant theologian, who has written several books arguing the historical Jesus.

Here's the argument against:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling,
works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.