@ Joc

And once again your ignorance goes before you like a banner:

In the case of Luke and Mark, they had primary sources close to them, Paul and Peter. Matthew is also a primary source and so is John.

Luke and Matthew are tertiary sources being ( in the main) copies of Mark (A secondary anonymous hearsay source), each differing to the tastes of the intended audience.

a) The Synoptic gospels are all anonymous, and, are not contemporary at all. The earliest fragment being P137 dating from 160 CE. Although there is mention of the 3 synoptic gospels before then (Even at the turn of the 1st Century) we have no idea of the original content. The current versions we have cannot “evidence” the Jesus figure.

b)The Gospel of John. Earliest known fragment,(P52) earliest possible date is 125CE. Most scholars now agree that 'John” is the work of up to four authors over a period of years. Not evidence.

c)The 1st and 2nd Century CE, Gnostic, Ebionite, Syriac and Marcionite gospels we know had considerable difference to, and with, the finally accepted (4th Century) versions of the Roman gospels. This further casts doubt on any content of the current version synoptic gospels and that of John.

d)The Epistles. i) the Epistles are anonymous. We do not know who 'Paul' was ii) Only the first three Epistles can be confidently assigned to the same writer. ii) The rest of The Epistles excluding the final three are either 'mash ups' of many letters, some interpolations, but all unreliable. iv). Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy and Hebrews are NOT by the same author and appear to be much later forgeries.
This renders most of the contents especially when describing the Jesus figure, as unreliable at best. And is certainly not evidence for a Jesus figure as described in the gospels.

e) A comparison of Acts and the Epistles quickly shows up glaring contradictions. Almost as if Acts is describing a different person. One can confidently disallow The Epistles as “evidence” of any Jesus figure.

Does that give you some idea of the importance of the 'contemporary sources?" We are not talking Joe Bloggs the potter in 1st century Judea. We are talking about someone you and a billion or so others claim to be the saviour and the killer of a large percentage of mankind. I would hazard to say, without fear of contradiction, an immensely important figure if he actually existed.

And there lies the rub....there is no contemporary evidence, or reliable third party corroboration for the existence of this "immensely important figure for the future of mankind" None.

That many of the books in the current bible are obvious later efforts, trying to pass themselves off as originals is not puzzling or in any way unlikely. The legend had become self pollinating by the middle of the Second Century CE and by the time the Roman influence had subsumed the original Messianic traces of the legend then anything went...and did. Lets examine known later forgeries/ anonymous entries...2 Peter, All but 3 of the the Epistles, including Titus 1 and 2 Timothy which are obviously much later pro Roman propaganda. 1 Peter is anonymous as is not mentioned until mid 2nd Century. Acts are both late 2nd century...

Does not leave you any original material as the gospel of Mark is anonymous and probably not written down until at least 70 to 80 CE if not much later.

Mark had always been attributed to Mark. Luke had always been attributed to Luke. John had always been attributed to John and Matthew to Matthew.

And that is just a lie. They were not attributed until the mid to late Second century it is just your Church Tradition. No direct evidence of authorship at all. None.

If you want credibility JoC, try for some accuracy.

(Edit 1st Century corrected to Second Century)

@ JoC

All you say is the arguments have been debunked. Doesn't mean they have been. Answer me then why at best the theory that Jesus never existed or the Jesus myth theory is a fringe theory by most reputable historians.

Dont be so absurdly dishonest. You used an argument about Caesar conflated with your Jesus figure. I said it had been debunked..(the Caesar argument)...why do you try and change the goalposts? Is is something you learnt at apologists 101?

I am very much on record for saying and I write once again In conclusion the best that we can say is, as I have stated many times: “There is no contemporary evidence for a Jesus figure as described in the gospels. None.”
That some people may take this as a starting point to mythicise the Jesus figure is understandable, others may deny the existence. Absence of evidence can, indeed, be 'evidence of absence.' However I prefer the Scottish verdict in Law ”Not Proven”.

Surely this should be clear enough even for a one eyed apologist like yourself JoC?