Do you think jesus christ existed

[Aractus]

The NT is evidence but then so is the Koran.

The Qurʼan was written in the 7th century, it's hardly going to be as reliable as evidence for events in the 1st century than those written in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

Considering that Yakoff is one of the most common names in Hebrew and Yoshua is pretty damned common too there must have been an awful lot of guys called Yakoff with brothers called Yoshua in Jerusalem

Did you read what I said?

• Ant. XX.9.1:
  AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

What part of that is obscure as to which James he is talking about, and why are you disagreeing with the consensus view?

Again your nonsense about 'scholars'. lecturers at Bible colleges are hardly rigourous academics. There is no consensus at all from proper historians that Jesus existed

The only proper New Testament historians are New Testament scholars that specialize in texts written around the first 5 centuries AD, which includes the New Testament, gnostic texts, church records, other texts, etc. That would include the works of Josephus. The faith of the scholar makes no difference to their academic credentials, rather their studies of the ancient manuscripts do.

Scholars can specialize on more narrow aspects of this, of course, and so you have scholars that specifically specialize on the gnostic texts, or the works of Josephus, etc, rather than say the letters of the church fathers.

New Testament scholars are not Old Testament scholars, and vice-versa. Old Testament scholars are intently interested in the (non-biblical) works found in the DSS, and other materials from the time of the OT times written in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, etc.