I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Eilonnwy]

No. That is emphatically not what I said.
I said very specifically that the historical existence of a person who has some important place in a religion, doesn't need to be disputed, to dispute the truth of the position of that person or religion. As I said, just because I don't dispute the historical existence of persons important to other religions, that doesn't mean I accept them as gods or accept their religious claims, nor does it necessitate it.

Of course you can dispute the historical existence of ANYTHING if the evidence warrants it. Your distinction is silly, and only goes to prove my point anyway since you agree that historical evidence isn't enough to prove divinity. So where's your proof for Jesus's divinity?

It was not valid. It was taking the most pessimistic viewpoint as to the Gospel dating and proclaiming victory. The first versions of the first Gospel was written down possibly as close, to the contrary, as within 15 years of Jesus death, meaning in the time of his contemporaries. Of course, that is only possible so long as one doesn't presuppose that the prediction of the fall of the Jerusalem was not just either a coincidental (and somewhat vague) prediction and therefore naturally possible, from the naturalistic standpoint, OR a priori exclude the Christian viewpoint of the possibility of such a prediction. Both options are perfectly possible, rather than taking it to mean that the first Gospel was written down later than all other facts indicate. In this case, it depends on what is mandated by philosophical presuppositions brought in ready-form to the material.

Bullshit. The earliest gospel was written approximately 40 years after the claimed death and resurrection, that is commonly accepted as historical fact. Anything else you put forth you need to provide evidence. What "first versions" and where's your proof?