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.
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.