Imagine this...

[Drich]

Which of the historical jesi do you believe in?

None of them worked any miracles.

says who?

 Only one of them can be The Guy.  

jesus of the gospels. remember luke was a secular historian till he was conscripted. so the book of luke is technically a secular account. he was not chosen by jesus and technically not a disciple of christ but a student of paul. (which is why we know the book of luke was written first and closer to the time of christ than most believe.

If jesus was a composite character, he's not historical, you see.  

didn't say he was composit.. the other secular historians obviously have a varying degree of understanding of christ and simply wrote what THEY PERSONALLY understood to be true. Christ was a large and complex person and ad many facets to him. it is not surprising that a common man 2000 years ago did not see the big picture spelled out in the bible. how could they it took several apostoles to compile what we know of christ. and to expect a man 2000 years ago who primary qualification is he could read and write to understand the nature of god with out god holding his hand (like he did with luke/which seemingly invalidates his secular status automatically) what we have is the best a finite mind could produce depending on how close a given historian was to jesus

Every single historical jesus candidate would be, if any of them existed, the single best argument against the religion of christianity that could be offered.  Some random jew who bitched about the world as it was and died, achieving nothing.

You sure you don't throw your chips in with some mythical christ, instead?  Remember, big guys listening.

all in.

---

and like it or not in the official writing of josephus, jesus is mention as well in 4 other historical documents written by period historians:
https://dowym.com/voices/5-secular-non-b...-ministry/

He did no such thing. Here are archeologists, historians, and religious scholars explaining how Josephus didn't write abut Jesus, but that Christians fabricated those writings - you know how you Lie for Jesus.

sweetheart your little video is call/considered a tertiary commentary and can be refuted with a nut-huh. I provided you with 5 primary sources. in the world of intellectual honesty and deep study primary source material is damn near irrefutable let alone 5 separate period correct sources. 5 sources that have no period challengers to them.. this means you out of sheer faith have to want to believe what is in the video over these primary sources that documented christ with in his era. you are expending more faith at this point than what it takes to believe in christ and to have God directly respond to you.