I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

But WHAT is it? I've heard the same bullshit response a thousand times and whenever I ask WHAT evidence that so-called "mainstream scholarly view" is based upon I get nothing but silence.

I have already pointed to many reasons why there is sufficient evidence to establish the historical existence of Jesus. As to the rest, I'm not going to continue a discussion ad nauseam, when it's clear that our difference is that I rely on what is generally accepted by historians as historical evidence, while you are a special pleader with your own special demands that I, or any professional and responsible historian couldn't care less about.

JP I notice how selective you are in answering specific post,but every time I bring up the Q document you ignore my refutations although I think that I have made valid points on the matter.As to the existence of Jesus Christ there is no evidence outside of the gospels that point to the existence of a literal Jesus.In fact as I have stated in other posts his so called earthly life is only captured in biographical form in the synoptic gospels and some of the apocryphal books.All these writers were believers in a literal Christ so I believe that that alone disqualifies them as witnesses since their testimony is swayed by their own personal convictions.Not to mention that none of them had ever met or walked with this fictional Christ.The entire N.T. is based on second and third person accounts and it could even be possibly further removed.

They are not "disqualified" for that, and certainly not according to the scholarly view since it is that the Gospels are a record of much earlier traditions and source material; this being generally accepted, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You have done nothing to disprove it, for your statement that we don't have earliest source material available is completely obvious for anyone but an illiterate or ignorant; if we did, scholars wouldn't need to reconstruct it through textual criticism. That does not mean the earlier source material doesn't exist, and in any case, doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist. In either case, you have also failed to address my demonstration that a late date for the first Gospel is proposed on largely presuppositional grounds, and than earlier date is historically defensible sheerly from the historical evidence at hand, thus positing it within the lifetime of Jesus contemporaries and -in any case- the first Gospel especially, is historical evidence for Jesus existence, and generally considered as such.

There is also that matter that Jesus Christ is not even a proper name but a title.
The name Jesus is a transliteration of the Hebrew "Joshua" (which is why you find Him occasionally referred to as Yeshua by people of Jewish background who have become Christians).

The Hebrew word Joshua means 'Jehovah is salvation', hence the meaning of Jesus name savior.

Christ="anointed one" or "messiah"

I know Christ is a title. The arguments you are making are non-arguments. Stop pretending that they support your case.

No one knows where he was crucified or where the actual tomb is located and all the locations that are currently used for tourists are symbolic.There is literally not a shred of valid unbiased evidence available to confirm the existence of Jesus Christ.And if he did exist I don't think he was named Jesus Christ in the first place.

There are archaeological reconstructions which give us a great deal of insight into the geographical locations, and together with other disciplines also verify (as I have already mentioned) the historical reliability of the Gospels, indicating their contemporary source with time and location of Jesus life.

Quoting myself:

What you have also completely ignored is that the New Testament (and the Old alike) contains historically verifiable data about real events and real locations in which the events it speaks of take place, and the timespace that they do. It demonstrates contemporary knowledge of the time and place in history in which it posites Jesus life which at the very least proves that the writers had access to a source of this knowledge which was contemporary with Jesus' existence. A review and verification of this contemporary and verifiable historical knowledge has been made by numerous mainstream scholars, in many different disciplines relevant to historical inquiry. I have recently read a great book in my own language on this topic, but there are also ones available in English, such as The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by C. Blomberg.

I will point to some additional resources here. Except for The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by C. Blomberg, there is also Is The New Testament Reliable? by Paul Barnett.

Relevant to the mentioned archeaological reconstruction and archaeological vericity of the New Testament reliability is Jesus and Archaeology, by James H. Charlesworth.

On the historicy of Jesus and his historical reconstruction, the most comprehensive single resource you can find is probably Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide by Gerd Theissen.