Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are "mythologized history." In other words, based on the evidence available they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provide...
We do not. Almost no written records from that time period has survived. Everything that we “know” comes from a copy of a copy, often made many centuries after the event.
Nash papyrus
Gabriels Revelation
Polybius history
Tacitus’ history
There are also countless surviving frescoes, statues, carvings and monuments from the period that had every chance to record, you know, miracles.
Those are a handful of fragmentary texts. That actual proves my point.
You are conflating the biblical version of Jesus and the historical version of him. The mythicist position has always been that neither existed, but the historical view has always been that the latter (and only the latter) existed.
I would disagree.
You would need positive evidence for your claim, saying the biblical Jesus doesn’t exist in neither important nor mundane records does not prove anything.
And claiming that because the miracles aren’t mentioned in any records is evidence of a historical Jesus is also false.
What is commonly meant by the claim that a historical Jesus could exist, is that it would be entirely banale for a mundane historical Jesus to exist. Meaning we can’t disprove him, and so current best practice to assume he did, just like all the other Jeushas, Marks, and Petruses we never hear about.
That is however not proof a historical Jesus did exist, it is just the working assumption when we can’t possibly tell.
And the post here puts doubt on that assumption, as there has been proof that stories where attributed to the Jesus character, and he might only be as real as Superman or Kilroy.
Those are generic Mythicist arguments. You lose credibility by even using such lazy and unoriginal ones. The fundamental problem is that it makes it impossible to demonstration that virtually anyone in history has ever existed because the burden of proof is set so high.
My credibility isn’t on the table, You made the claim, the burden to back it up on you. Thus far you’ve offered assertions, question begging and ad hominem attacks, do you have any actual evidence for your position?
This is not a new debate. It is been around for decades, and historical scholars have pretty much dismissed the mythicist position ages ago. The fact is that there is textual evidence of a historical Jesus, enough for historical scholars to conclude that there was one. In response, mythicists have resorted to dismissing all such evidence as being insufficient. Everything is a fake or forgery according to them.
The result is an argument that can be used against any person from history, until you can dismiss virtually all of history as being not real. That’s the problem with your argument. It has very little credibility because of that history.