One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

Actual proceedings of a person written in the framework of their actual existence would be considered contemporary, historical articles. This Jesus fellow has none of that, as anything written about him was done so decades after the fact.

No, a contemporary source is any source written by someone who lived at the same time as the person being written about. Mark, Jude, Matthew, Luke, Peter, Paul, and John all lived at the same time as Jesus, they are therefore contemporary sources.

So you also reject the existence of Julius Caesar? Plato? Aristotle? Homer? Cicero? Socrates?

“I can assure you, as a historian, that whatever else you might say about Jesus, he certainly existed.” -Dr. Bart Ehrman
“I don’t think there is any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus”- Dr. Bart Ehrman

This is one of the most prominent scholars in the skeptic community today, and he thinks your position is downright absurd. Why?

This is simply an astute observation. However, if we are going to say that Jesus lived and accomplished all the wonders contained within the gospels, then it would follow that there would be well documented works by the many scribes and authorities of the time that could lend further corroborating evidence.

…and there is. His works are documented in the greatest attested work of antiquity, the New Testament.

As this is completely lacking, we then can surmise that if even if someone by this name existed, his actions were probably so minor that only a handful of people only ever knew of them (which then contradicts the scope of his works described in the NT).

That’s a logical non-sequitur. We have greater attestation to the works of Jesus than any other historical figure of that time period. That’s remarkable for the son of a carpenter who never held an office.

So either he was great and didn't get the recognition he should have had at the time, or he was minor, and therefore the gospel writers were greatly exaggerating his influence in order to spread his influence postmortem. Please explain this paradox by showing how the gospel writers had no need for embellishment.

That’s another logical non-sequitur. Jesus would have been a great embarrassment to the Jewish leadership; I would not expect them to write about him. “Yes, there was this common Jew who claimed to be our Messiah, and he did great wonders just like the Messiah was prophesized to do, and he fulfilled all of our messianic prophecies, so we killed him just like scripture foretold that we would.”
Are you seriously suggesting that those who knew Jesus, would embellish his accomplishments all the while knowing that this would lead to their brutal deaths in a very anti-Christian Roman empire? That’s not even a remote possibility; people do not die for what they know to be false.