There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[leroy]

Ooh, another example of a dishonest tactic. I said that you were likely correct about non-magical Jesus. I never said that you were correct anywhere else. I never even implied that.

Weeks ago I said that the historical evidence for the resurrection is as strong (or even stronger) than the evidence for “naturalistic” claims that historians (and you presumably) would accept.

You simply have different standards for “magic”



And you rejected that statement; it is only until today that you begin to accept it

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is exactly what I said, and you together with your together with other users, rejected the assertion.

The problem is that you (plural) don’t even read other people´s comments, all you do is play skeptic just for the sake of being skeptic

No, you respond with so much nonsense that your posts are often almost indecipherable. You automatically earn a rejection when you do that. Stop blaming others for your bad behavior.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Weeks ago I said that the historical evidence for the resurrection is as strong (or even stronger) than the evidence for “naturalistic” claims that historians (and you presumably) would accept.

You simply have different standards for “magic”



And you rejected that statement; it is only until today that you begin to accept it

You may have made a claim, and I might have given a conditional agreement, but you never found any evidence for magic Jesus so your claim died.

You have to know that the Bible is far from being a valid source. Find some reliable evidence and then we can talk. As you know mistakes are made in the sciences quite often . But the difference between science and your holy book is that science has a self correcting mechanism. Where is the self correcting mechanism for the Bible? There does not appear to be one. So mistakes accumulate and just sit there. They actually make the whole book less trustworthy.

 

[Augustus]

Whatever is true, I am interested in. If that is how they destroyed churches then that is how they did it.

Looks like you did read a few. Won't admit to it. Huh.

You are not remotely interested in truth as your extreme cognitive dissonance on this topic shows.

You have just agreed with an argument I gave as an example of something so stupid not even a fundamentalist would make it.

Seeing the bankruptcy of many churches today as part of an atheist strategy to destroy churches is so inane no one would seriously make it (well actually I should never underestimate their potential to make dreadful arguments, so I have to allow that maybe the absolute rankest and most vapid kind of fundy might consider it)

Yet you consider it an accurate description of the current situation simply because you need to support a claim that not actively supporting = destruction?

It's hard to take you seriously on anything when your bias is so apparent.

you call this "conspiracy theory"? Nope.

The conspiracy theory is this:

“It's about the Roman Catholic church who went back and destroyed all temples from all pagan religions and also destroyed all material not in line with their canon”

Your words not mine.

Not defensible as hyperbole, just flat earth wrong.

Your arguments to support this have been:

1. Not actively using limited church or state resources to pay for the upkeep of thousands of temples is the same as actively destroying them
2. Constantine practiced, quote: "mild psychological warfare", not forgetting that Constantine was entirely dependent on the support of the majority pagan army, and majority pagan elites. (and again, this is not the Church, but the imperial power)
3. Even though there is no real evidence of widespread, systematic destruction, and there are other very good reasons to accept the sources overstated the degree of violence, perhaps the sources actually massively understated the degree of violence.
4. Despite them wanting to destroy systematically paganism, Paganism was still openly practiced for several more centuries throughout the empire in clearly identified temples that for some reason hadn't been destroyed in the systematic attempts to eradicate paganism.

Someone interested in the truth might question their assumptions at this point:

Contemporary scholars question using the Code, which was a legal document and not an historical work, for understanding history.[227] According to archaeologist Luke Lavan, reading law as history distorts understanding of what actually occurred during the fourth century.[228]: xxi, 138 [158] There are many signs that a healthy paganism continued into the fifth century, and in some places, into the sixth and beyond.[229]: 108–110 [230][231] [232]: 165–167  [233]: 156  Christian hostility toward pagans and their monuments is seen by most modern scholars as far from the general phenomenon that the law and literature implies.

So, like today, where we see significant religious change in Europe, especially the decline of Christianity and its replacement with more secular ideologies you have a long-term cultural shift (imagine what the religious landscape of Europe in 2300 may look like).

This shift started centuries before Constantine, and continued for centuries after him.

Many persecutions began before centuries before Constantine, for example:

private divination, astrology, and 'Chaldean practices' (formulae, incantations, and imprecations designed to repulse demons and protect the invoker[50]: 1, 78, 265 ) all became associated with magic in the early imperial period (AD 1–30), and carried the threat of banishment and execution even under the pagan emperors.[51]

The decline of temples and sacrifice, as previously shown, began centuries before Constantine too.

There were some violent destructions of temples, there was some coercion, there were laws against aspects of paganism that were inconsistently enforced and these aspects changed through time an place. Some times and places were worse, others less so.

That such a long, slow, inconsistent decline was in some way responsible for the systematic eradication of all the evidence needed to support your hypothesis is a bit fantastical is it not?

"For all their propaganda, Constantine and his successors did not bring about the end of paganism".[243] It continued.[244][245] Previously undervalued similarities in language, society, religion, and the arts, as well as current archaeological research, indicate that paganism slowly declined for a full two centuries and more in some places, thereby offering an argument for the ongoing vibrancy of Roman culture in late antiquity, and its continued unity and uniqueness long after the reign of Constantine.

No, that discussion is all later, 3rd century. The missing material is in the 50 year blackout period. Missing Epistles, missing anti-Christian writings.

So when you say “It's about the Roman Catholic church who went back and destroyed all temples from all pagan religions and also destroyed all material not in line with their canon” you aren't in fact discussing the later church?

Are you arguing that the Church and the Roman Empire were completely unable to eradicate heresy and turn everyone into proper Christians, yet the massively divided and diverse early Christian movement managed to eradicate all of the sources that would show the reality of the purely mythical space Jesus? Not only did they destroy the sources, but all cultural memory of it so of all the thousands of heresies, none actually reflect the true origins of the religion?

Do you think there was an army of Jesus ninjas hunting folk down, burning their texts and cutting out their tongues?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I said *if* resurrection where proven to be possible and common, then the resurrection of Jesus would have not been an extraordinary claim, …..and the current evidence that we have (Paul + gospels) would be good enough to establish the resurrection as an event that probably happened.

I disagree. There are many things established as fact that are not corroborated simply by being mentioned in stories of unknown origin and dubious provinance.

Speculating on ramifications of an event not known to occur and with no mechanism to even speculate could occur is just meaningless speculation. If bears could play baseball, then two stories that make claims about bears playing baseball are not sufficient to establish that bears were playing baseball.

As an example, historians can establish as probable, that Jesus had brothers because we have Paul + the gosples confirming that claim.

Any disagreement?

Historians cannot establish the existence of Christ based on the available information, so establishing that he had siblings based solely on the claims of the Bible is not an example of the use of independent sources.

 

[joelr]

You are not remotely interested in truth as your extreme cognitive dissonance on this topic shows.

You have just agreed with an argument I gave as an example of something so stupid not even a fundamentalist would make it.

Seeing the bankruptcy of many churches today as part of an atheist strategy to destroy churches is so inane no one would seriously make it (well actually I should never underestimate their potential to make dreadful arguments, so I have to allow that maybe the absolute rankest and most vapid kind of fundy might consider it)

Yet you consider it an accurate description of the current situation simply because you need to support a claim that not actively supporting = destruction?

It's hard to take you seriously on anything when your bias is so apparent.

There is so much wrong with this I'm not sure where to start. I said nothing about bankruptcy of churches today. Nothing about atheist strategy to destroy churches (not even a thing). I said nothing about any "current situation"? You sound unhinged. Then make some sort of false equivalence fallacy with trust and bias. The examples are part of THE DISCUSSION on ANCIENT ROME attempting to destroy, end, get rid of, whatever, pagan churches.
And they did, they destroyed temples, they removed idols and reclaimed the church for themself, they enacted laws against pagan practices. All documented in my sources. The archaeologists are also having issues understanding which churches underwent what changes because of incomplete records. So the archaeology report may not be accurate.
Even if it is there is still examples of many forms of anti-paganism in early Rome.

What you are talking about above is unclear and strange.

The conspiracy theory is this:

“It's about the Roman Catholic church who went back and destroyed all temples from all pagan religions and also destroyed all material not in line with their canon”

Your words not mine.

Not defensible as hyperbole, just flat earth wrong.

Not wrong, just not "all churches". The anti -pagan practices were vast.
You are now circling back to a post I already corrected.

Your arguments to support this have been:

1. Not actively using limited church or state resources to pay for the upkeep of thousands of temples is the same as actively destroying them
2. Constantine practiced, quote: "mild psychological warfare", not forgetting that Constantine was entirely dependent on the support of the majority pagan army, and majority pagan elites. (and again, this is not the Church, but the imperial power)
3. Even though there is no real evidence of widespread, systematic destruction, and there are other very good reasons to accept the sources overstated the degree of violence, perhaps the sources actually massively understated the degree of violence.
4. Despite them wanting to destroy systematically paganism, Paganism was still openly practiced for several more centuries throughout the empire in clearly identified temples that for some reason hadn't been destroyed in the systematic attempts to eradicate paganism.

Someone interested in the truth might question their assumptions at this point:

We are past this. It wasn't just Constantine. When he was in rule the army was still over half Mithriasm. So they had to keep it around for a time.
There is plenty of evidence. You continue to ignore it.

- "Anti-pagan legislation reflects what Brown calls "the most potent social and religious drama" of the fourth-century Roman empire."

NOT CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Post

• #2,370 has examples you have not refuted.

Temple conversion and pagan writings​

Some scholars have long asserted that not all temples were destroyed but were instead converted to churches throughout the empire.[100][101] According to modern archaeology, 120 pagan temples were converted to churches in the whole empire, out of the thousands of temples that existed, and only about 40 of them are dated before the end of the fifth century. R. P. C. Hanson says the direct conversion of temples into churches did not begin until the mid fifth century in any but a few isolated incidents.[102]: 257  In Rome the first recorded temple conversion was the Pantheon in 609.[103] : 65–72  None of the churches attributed to Martin of Tours can be proven to have existed in the fourth century.[104]

Some pagans blamed the Christian hegemony for the 410 Sack of Rome, while Christians in turn blamed the pagans, provoking Saint Augustine, a Christian bishop, to respond by writing The City of God, a seminal Christian text. It is alleged that Christians destroyed almost all pagan political literature and threatened to cut off the hands of any copyist who dared to make new copies of the offending writings.[

Contemporary scholars question using the Code, which was a legal document and not an historical work, for understanding history.[227] According to archaeologist Luke Lavan, reading law as history distorts understanding of what actually occurred during the fourth century.[228]: xxi, 138 [158] There are many signs that a healthy paganism continued into the fifth century, and in some places, into the sixth and beyond.[229]: 108–110 [230][231] [232]: 165–167  [233]: 156  Christian hostility toward pagans and their monuments is seen by most modern scholars as far from the general phenomenon that the law and literature implies.

So, like today, where we see significant religious change in Europe, especially the decline of Christianity and its replacement with more secular ideologies you have a long-term cultural shift (imagine what the religious landscape of Europe in 2300 may look like).

This shift started centuries before Constantine, and continued for centuries after him.

Many persecutions began before centuries before Constantine, for example:

private divination, astrology, and 'Chaldean practices' (formulae, incantations, and imprecations designed to repulse demons and protect the invoker[50]: 1, 78, 265 ) all became associated with magic in the early imperial period (AD 1–30), and carried the threat of banishment and execution even under the pagan emperors.[51]

The decline of temples and sacrifice, as previously shown, began centuries before Constantine too.

There were some violent destructions of temples, there was some coercion, there were laws against aspects of paganism that were inconsistently enforced and these aspects changed through time an place. Some times and places were worse, others less so.

That such a long, slow, inconsistent decline was in some way responsible for the systematic eradication of all the evidence needed to support your hypothesis is a bit fantastical is it not?

"For all their propaganda, Constantine and his successors did not bring about the end of paganism".[243] It continued.[244][245] Previously undervalued similarities in language, society, religion, and the arts, as well as current archaeological research, indicate that paganism slowly declined for a full two centuries and more in some places, thereby offering an argument for the ongoing vibrancy of Roman culture in late antiquity, and its continued unity and uniqueness long after the reign of Constantine.

Big deal, paganism slowly declined. They didn't completely wipe it out. None of this nullifies the evidence I presented. This is a coomplete waste of time.

 

[joelr]

So when you say “It's about the Roman Catholic church who went back and destroyed all temples from all pagan religions and also destroyed all material not in line with their canon” you aren't in fact discussing the later church?

Are you arguing that the Church and the Roman Empire were completely unable to eradicate heresy and turn everyone into proper Christians, yet the massively divided and diverse early Christian movement managed to eradicate all of the sources that would show the reality of the purely mythical space Jesus? Not only did they destroy the sources, but all cultural memory of it so of all the thousands of heresies, none actually reflect the true origins of the religion?

Do you think there was an army of Jesus ninjas hunting folk down, burning their texts and cutting out their tongues?

Well we don't know where the missing material is? Apologists often say some material was destroyed because it was "late" and tried to redefine Jesus.
Except historians believe there were many more Epistles. The FIRST official NT canon, the Marcionite Canon is forever lost to us. The 36 other Gospels are missing.
No material from the actual days of Jesus are available. So yes writings were being discarded.
The current NT underwent editing, interpolation, revising over the course of the first 2 centuries, not just scribal error but specific dogmatic intent. Same for extra-biblical literature. Ascension of Isaiah is highly redacted, 2 Peter is a forgery, many Epistles are forged late by the church.

Of course they eradicated many things? When the Dead Sea scrolls were found we learned more about Gnostic Christianity then we knew even existed?

 

[joelr]

Go to the point, woudl you give an example of a mundane claim or vent from ancient history (something that has on theological implications that atheist don’t like)

That:

1 is reported by Paul

2 is also reported by at least one gospel

3 that is not accepted by most historians?

No no no, it has nothing to do with atheism. Historians are not interested in what theism or general deism they believe in personally.

They are interested in historical facts, evidence and the process of doing historical work. I really don't think you understand the Gospels in terms of a historical perspective. You probably understand when it comes to the Quran or any of the thousands of other supernatural stories, but not here.
While some historians believe there is enough evidence to demonstrate it's all fabricated except the places, Ehrman believes there is some history, Jesus was a real human and some history can be found.
But legends as Ehrman calls them, in the case of the Gospels are stories passed down for many many years. There is no chance, like Quranic or Hindu mythology the supernatural is real and certainly no evidence.

Supernatural stories, passed down and re-told over generations, in an age where people assumed deities were real and did not know Jesus was actually just Persian/Greek and Jewish mythology, bought into the stories going around. The highly trained Greek writers took stories and made a mythology. I have explained how Mark devised his narrative and how he framed the tales fitting all the proper older theology into parables and newer theology into the plot. Re-wrote Kings, Romulus, Paul, Homer, Jesus Ben Ananias..
Understanding Ehrmans historical perspective might help.

Most People Have No Clue What The Gospels Are!

5:04 Scholars realize the Gospels are saying different things

8:30 Ehrman on apologist arguments



10:09 Did the disciples write the Gospels, no, historical evidence says no. There are very good reasons how this is known. They do not claim to be eyewitnesses and written by very high level Greek writing. The illiterate people in the story were not the writers.

12:35 Did the Gospel authors care about what actually happened. -

The Gospels contain historical information and they contain legendary information.



14:40 Can we trust the canonical Gospels? Gospels date probably from 40-65 years after Jesus death. NT writers would not have known eyewitnesses but may have sources who knew stories.

These stories have been passed down for many many years. Each writer probably thought they were writing the “one” Gospel.




BTW there were historians during the time of Jesus we can go over. None of them mention anything at all about any of it.

 

[joelr]

Yea, my point is that if resurrections where common and mundane events (every once in a while someone resurrects for some reason) historians (and you I suppose) would have no problem in granting that Jesus resurrected almost 2000y ago.

No, it's stories handed down and is a legend. Jesus also had supper with a bunch of people. Supper is common. But that story has evidence that Mark made it up based on a vision Paul claimed to have had from Jesus.

For example historians accept as a probable fact that Jesus had brothers (plural) despite the fact that all we have is “stories from the bible” confirming that claim.

Paul did not use "adelphoi", he in fact used a word that he uses in another passage to say "brothers in the lord". Paul never confirms which brother he means so we don't know.
Paul also saw Jesus in a spirit body that cannot be described and is unknown. Uh huh.

“stories from the bible” are typically good enough for historians to establish something as a historical fact. (as long as the event is reported by more than one independent source within the bible)……………. But magic claims require more evidence…………. Would you agree?

The Quran has primary source writings. So does Bahai. Three witnesses attested they saw the golden plates given by an angel to Joseph Smith. They also heard Gods voice. That was the 1800s.
Legends based on Greek Hellenism attached to Judaism written down 2000 years ago are forever legends. It can only be believed by faith. Which is not reliable for finding truth.

Even if a known historical figure claimed a magical experience, say Newton, not understanding something isn't cause to suspect the supernatural. Unknown is unknown. With Hellenized Mystery religions we know what is going on. It was a trend.
The OT was Egyptian, Mesopotamian and a bit Persian. Yahweh was a typical Near Eastern deity.

 

[joelr]

the point is that we have multiple contemporary authors that didn’t copied from each other that claim the resurrection as a historical event. You don’t have that for the illiad

You really should stop with that untruth. Believing Christian scholarship (not historians) have ruled Matthew, Luke and likely John sourced Mark.

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is essential in order to see how an author used his sources (both for reliability’s sake as well as for redactional criticism), as...

bible.org

So You also don't have it.

Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.
The authors of Matthew and Luke, acting independently, used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with the collection of sayings called the Q source and additional material unique to each called the M source (Matthew) and the L source (Luke).[

• Levine, Amy-Jill (2009). "Introduction". In Levine, Amy-Jill; Allison, Dale C. Jr.; Crossan, John Dominic (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1400827374.

Again, Mark Goodacre has demonstrated Q and M are not needed. Mark is the source.

please refute or grant my claim
"Sure, all I am expecting from you is to acknowledge that from the point of view of a theist (or even an agnostic who is 50% / 50%) miracles are not intrinsically very unlikely."

Yes and for people who buy into UFO lore the military hiding alien spaceships is not unlikely.
Does not mean it's true.

For Muslims the updates to Christianity in the Quran are VERY LIKELY.

Belief doesn't equal truth.

 

[leroy]

You don't have that for the Bible either. At least you have not been able to show one. You do not get to count the Bible more than once since it went through a process where any other sources that refuted it were eliminated. That makes it one sources that survived that process. This has been explained to you. What other sources make claims of magical Jesus?


Avoiding dishonest questions. You cannot ignore the explanation of what you did wrong.

No need to respond to nonsense. You need to support it. That is such a worthless statement that one can ignore it.

You invented your own language, and decided that “1 source” means something different.

But this is just semantics, you can use any words that you whant.

The point is that you have multiple contemporary authors, that probably didn’t copied from each other reporting the same event.

You don’t have that for the illiad,

Therefore your comparison is false.

 

[leroy]

I disagree. There are many things established as fact that are not corroborated simply by being mentioned in stories of unknown origin and dubious provinance.

We know that the sources where written by well-informed contemporary authors. ….. one of them (Paul) even knew the disciples and Jesus family.

It is hard to find such a good historical evidence for any event from ancient history

Historians cannot establish the existence of Christ based on the available information, so establishing that he had siblings based solely on the claims of the Bible is not an example of the use of independent sources.

This is demonstrably wrong; historians have established that Jesus excited and that he had brothers.

The fact that you have 1 or 2 crazy historians that sale books and make a living out of denying the existence of Jesus, doesn’t change the fact that most historians agree on the historical existence of Jesus.

 

[Audie]

There is so much wrong with this I'm not sure where to start. I said nothing about bankruptcy of churches today. Nothing about atheist strategy to destroy churches (not even a thing). I said nothing about any "current situation"? You sound unhinged. Then make some sort of false equivalence fallacy with trust and bias. The examples are part of THE DISCUSSION on ANCIENT ROME attempting to destroy, end, get rid of, whatever, pagan churches.
And they did, they destroyed temples, they removed idols and reclaimed the church for themself, they enacted laws against pagan practices. All documented in my sources. The archaeologists are also having issues understanding which churches underwent what changes because of incomplete records. So the archaeology report may not be accurate.
Even if it is there is still examples of many forms of anti-paganism in early Rome.

What you are talking about above is unclear and strange.






Not wrong, just not "all churches". The anti -pagan practices were vast.
You are now circling back to a post I already corrected.






We are past this. It wasn't just Constantine. When he was in rule the army was still over half Mithriasm. So they had to keep it around for a time.
There is plenty of evidence. You continue to ignore it.

- "Anti-pagan legislation reflects what Brown calls "the most potent social and religious drama" of the fourth-century Roman empire."

NOT CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Post

• #2,370 has examples you have not refuted.

Temple conversion and pagan writings​

Some scholars have long asserted that not all temples were destroyed but were instead converted to churches throughout the empire.[100][101] According to modern archaeology, 120 pagan temples were converted to churches in the whole empire, out of the thousands of temples that existed, and only about 40 of them are dated before the end of the fifth century. R. P. C. Hanson says the direct conversion of temples into churches did not begin until the mid fifth century in any but a few isolated incidents.[102]: 257  In Rome the first recorded temple conversion was the Pantheon in 609.[103] : 65–72  None of the churches attributed to Martin of Tours can be proven to have existed in the fourth century.[104]

Some pagans blamed the Christian hegemony for the 410 Sack of Rome, while Christians in turn blamed the pagans, provoking Saint Augustine, a Christian bishop, to respond by writing The City of God, a seminal Christian text. It is alleged that Christians destroyed almost all pagan political literature and threatened to cut off the hands of any copyist who dared to make new copies of the offending writings.[




Big deal, paganism slowly declined. They didn't completely wipe it out. None of this nullifies the evidence I presented. This is a coomplete waste of time.

When someone will argue with the
dictionary they are -or sound- unhinged,
and, yeah. It's a waste.

 

[leroy]

No, you respond with so much nonsense that your posts are often almost indecipherable. You automatically earn a rejection when you do that. Stop blaming others for your bad behavior.

Can you quote a single claim made by me that is nonsense? Nooooooooooooo once again you are just making things up

 

[leroy]

You may have made a claim, and I might have given a conditional agreement, but you never found any evidence for magic Jesus so your claim died.

You have to know that the Bible is far from being a valid source. Find some reliable evidence and then we can talk. As you know mistakes are made in the sciences quite often . But the difference between science and your holy book is that science has a self correcting mechanism. Where is the self correcting mechanism for the Bible? There does not appear to be one. So mistakes accumulate and just sit there. They actually make the whole book less trustworthy.

The alleged “problem” that you mention is common of all ancient documents, not just the bible.

Where is the self-correcting mechanisms that validate all the claims that you made using Josephus as a source?

The truth is that historians (like scientist) also have their methods, and there are objective ways to validate the truth of a document.

One of various methods is “independent attestation” , if more than one author reports the same event without coping from one another, the source is likely to be historically truth

 

[Subduction Zone]

The alleged “problem” that you mention is common of all ancient documents, not just the bible.

Where is the self-correcting mechanisms that validate all the claims that you made using Josephus as a source?

The truth is that historians (like scientist) also have their methods, and there are objective ways to validate the truth of a document.

One of various methods is “independent attestation” , if more than one author reports the same event without coping from one another, the source is likely to be historically truth

You lost the debate. You just lost it again by showing that you have not been following along.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you quote a single claim made by me that is nonsense? Nooooooooooooo once again you are just making things up

I could quote almost every single.post of yours. And to make demands you need to be an honest interlocutor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We know that the sources where written by well-informed contemporary authors. ….. one of them (Paul) even knew the disciples and Jesus family.

It is hard to find such a good historical evidence for any event from ancient history

This is demonstrably wrong; historians have established that Jesus excited and that he had brothers.

The fact that you have 1 or 2 crazy historians that sale books and make a living out of denying the existence of Jesus, doesn’t change the fact that most historians agree on the historical existence of Jesus.

The Bible went through a homogenization process. It is only one source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You invented your own language, and decided that “1 source” means something different.

But this is just semantics, you can use any words that you whant.

The point is that you have multiple contemporary authors, that probably didn’t copied from each other reporting the same event.

You don’t have that for the illiad,

Therefore your comparison is false.

Nope. It has been explained to you countless times. Your inability to understand is not a refutation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We know that the sources where written by well-informed contemporary authors. ….. one of them (Paul) even knew the disciples and Jesus family.

It is hard to find such a good historical evidence for any event from ancient history

This is demonstrably wrong; historians have established that Jesus excited and that he had brothers.

The fact that you have 1 or 2 crazy historians that sale books and make a living out of denying the existence of Jesus, doesn’t change the fact that most historians agree on the historical existence of Jesus.

I believe that Christ existed, obviously. But that isn't evidence that he did exist. Corroboration of the existence of Christ outside the Bible remains arguable and describing dissenting views as the work of the crazy in no way a valid refutation of that dissent.

There are two events in the story of Christ that many historians site as substantial to supporting acceptance of Christ's existence over the view as a figure of mythology. While many historians accept that Christ existed, there remains argument around that and that acceptance is based on far more than simply accepting two accounts.

Historical method - Wikipedia

This appears to be just your means to make existence of Christ equivalent to the claim of miracle and thus establish miracles as happening on those coattails. The claim of miracle remains a highly contested and discussed issue that has not been established as a fact.