Hi, I'm a Christian. Help Me Disprove My Religion!

[TheRocketSurgeon]

That makes sense, except that there is no accurate historical evidence of stated Jesus character, neither divine nor human, having existed.

There is hard historical evidence for the existence of Jesus as a human, this has already been covered, so let's move on.

Yeah, I'm afraid I'm going to have to sternly disagree with you on that one. What we have evidence for is that there were Christians in Rome during the reign of Emperor Nero, and they were put on trial for their disgusting (by Roman standards) religious practices, and who may or may not (even Tacitus says so) have been blamed by Nero for the fires. We have the writings of men who may or may not have been interviewing Christians and/or working from records of their trials, from which the two historians may or may not have gotten their information (or the very weak presumption that they were working from official Roman records, now lost, of the trial of Jesus by Pilate, which somehow manage to get Pilate's rank at the time of the trial incorrect), who record the common belief of Christians in the first century that their Messiah was crucified by Pilate.

Is it evidence? Yes, but only very weak evidence, that depends on a lot of suppositions at every point, above, where I said "may or may not". And even if you make all of the above assumptions in the necessary way, it's still  only a secondary source. Not "hard evidence".

So it's plausible to you that Yeshua ben Yosef, 100% human son of a carpenter in Nazareth, amateur rabbi, came up with it... but not that another writer did, after his death?

I personally don't care if it was one of the rabbi's preachings or not... arguing over whether it was invented by Jesus or invented by one of his followers bent on turning their dead leader into a god who would "soon return" is just ridiculous!

I don't know what his father's occupation was. It is probable he was a carpenter, yes, but not certain. Just like it's probable his father is Yosef, but not certain. I didn't say Jesus was an "amateur rabbi", in fact he proves he has detailed knowledge of the Tanakh - he is able to answer questions regarding it that satisfy the Pharisees and Scribes who intently study the scriptures. So I'm not sure why you would think I think that he is an amateur.

Because he wasn't a professional rabbi, and we have zero evidence of him belonging to any organization of professional rabbis. It's entirely possible to be a highly-skilled amateur; look at the amateur astronomers who discover comets, like Thomas Bopp. The Pharisees and Scribes, on the other hand, would be professionals.

It is a good point that we don't know what Joseph's profession was. I just saw no reason to quibble with that detail of the story. I simply used the name by which he would have gone for most of his life, Jesus son of Joseph (Yeshua ben Yosef), as a way of humanizing him for emphasis.

If somebody else came up with the Good Samaritan then why is it attributed to Jesus? If somebody else came up with it then why is it exclusively found in the New Testament, and there is no other teaching like it in first century Palestine? Not just that, but many of his teachings are unique and not are found existing eternally, meaning they are his original thoughts.

So my question stands - who came up with them and why did they attribute them to Jesus instead of themselves? Paul doesn't invoke quoting Jesus when he talks about his concepts like Justification by Faith, so why would anyone attribute these teachings to Jesus instead of giving them themselves as Paul does in his epistles?

Why is any of it attributed to Jesus? Why the story of him walking on water, or raising the dead, or casting out demons? That the stories are unique doesn't mean they are his original thoughts, just that they are new stories not copied from others in the region. It's a good story (in fact, it's my favorite thing in the New Testament), but it doesn't prove a particular author, and it's rather silly to say "okay, I'll say that somebody made up the magic stuff, but the stories... those are solid!"

The Gospels are generally considered to be pseudonymous, and the Disciples attributed to them to not be the actual authors, for reasons with which I am sure you are quite familiar. I have already made it clear that I am convinced that there was a Rabbi Yeshua, who taught an apocalyptic message (not uncommon in those days) and who may have himself believed that he was the Annointed One (Messiah)... certainly several of his followers and enemies thought he was, if the story is to be believed. I think a debate among the disciples existed, between one group who felt he was the Davidic Messiah, the warrior-king who would free the Hebrews from their new Roman conquerors at last, and those who felt that he was Elijah or even Yahweh incarnate, and when the King of the Jews was killed by the Romans it fell to the disheartened believers in the "coming-soon apocalypse" to find a way to keep believing and keep spreading the message. Over time, the message changed in the retelling, like a game of Telephone (or Rumor, as it's called in some places), rooted on a few events that did happen and a lot of myths that got added, which is why we see the expansion of the story from Mark to Matthew (despite the overall similarities, by the time Matthew got written, the story had evolved a bit from what was originally told from the "Q-document" or early Mark... even Mark got "evolved" a bit, which is why the extra verses at the end), then to Luke/Acts.

Then the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, scattering the people who survived it, and by the time of the writing of John two decades later, you have a seriously, heavily mythologized Jesus by the same process... so different that we use synoptic for the pre-disaster myth-stories, leaving John standing by himself. The earliest records we have, as you point out, are the (genuine) epistles of Paul, in which there is a lot of talk of spirits and Pharisee-esque positions on sin and redemption, but little knowledge of what was in the Gospels about Jesus. This implies that Paul's ideas contributed to the stories in the Gospels, rather than the other way 'round. As goes the game of Telephone, there are doubtless many smaller sets of fingers in that pie.

TL;dr version: No "strong" corroborating evidence of Jesus, only of the beliefs of Roman Christians during NERO's reign, unless a massive number and degree of presuppositions are taken as just-so. The story was the victory of the "Jesus is Magic!" camp over the "Jesus is Warrior-King" camp, and after the death was reinvented to suit a narrative of godhood and imminent return, possibly as a way to keep from admitting they'd been fools for the past three years, possibly out of groupthink, and possibly out of straight cynicism... and their tale grew over time with each retelling until written down in collected-stories form by various groups who heard slightly different additions to their basic tales.