Did Jesus exist?

[GrandizerII]

I've kind of said this before, but I think it's worth bringing together:

Let's say we agree that there are details included which embarrass the author. We conclude that this means the author really believed those details to be true.

Now, if the author was an eye witness, we could conclude that those details were probably true (being generous). However, it is not evident they are eye witnesses. So what they believe is just based on the stories they have heard. All we know is they are faithfully reproducing an aspect of the story, which they find is embarrassing. So what? This doesn't tell us whether the detail arose out of a real event, or was a detail added to the story via Chinese Whispers. If more than one story ended up getting amalgamated over time, it wouldn't be surprising that some details don't sit very well with others.

I throw it all out of court. The authors did not have access to the truth, they had access to hearsay. Their embarrassment is irrelevant.

In fact, it is evident that the Gospel authors were NOT eyewitnesses to some of these embarrassing details, but now what happens?

Either:

Be completely agnostic and say "I don't know" (in which case you can't argue for the likelihood that Jesus did not exist because that would not be pure agnosticism). This is OK. You can be agnostic, and it would be reasonable thing to do.

Or (if you want to go for an explanatory position instead):

Dig deeper: Why do these embarrassing details exist? If Jesus was a pure myth, then what was the significance of the Messiah being from Nazareth? What was the significance of the Messiah being baptized by John the Baptist, being crucified, preaching the imminent end of the world. Why did he have to die at all rather than ascend straight away to the heavens? They liked tragic heroes? But if so, would death and failure suit the Messiah of God? What does the evidence we have say about Jewish beliefs regarding the Messiah? Figure how the puzzle pieces fit together in the best way you can see it. Compare and contrast both sides and figure out which one weighs more in terms of evidence quality and reasonability.

And that's just for the embarrassing/inconvient details criterion. You could use this approach for other aspects of the debate as well (such as Paul referring to James as Jesus' brother and what he really meant by that)