It sounds to me like you want to argue about the second point more than the first one.

You appear to have issues with how historical research is performed, and you have difficulty accepting secondary sources in historical records. You have repeatedly asked for primary sources. It appears that you, falsely, believe that primary sources are more valuable than secondary sources in historical context. (A reasonable discussion of how and why neither is more valuable/reliable than the other: https://www.historyskills.com/2023/05/02/primary-or-secondary-sources-which-are-more-reliable/ )

The issue, primarily, is that any and all probable first hand accounts of Jesus are part of the new testament, but have been so heavily edited as to be removed from being reliable first hand accounts. Basically we can't trust the recorded "first hand accounts" because the people who copied them had very heavy imputes to embellish or rewrite them to create a convincing first hand narrative.

Tl;Dr: the first hand accounts were edited by secondary sources creating an unreliable first hand narrator. Basically what we always say, the people who wrote the new testament a couple hundred years after Jesus life lied and wrote a bunch of garbage and obliterated any reliable first hand account.

To be crystal clear, what this means is that first hand accounts probably existed but were so heavily editorialized that they became invalid.

Basically, what you are asking for no longer exists (or does and is intentionally hidden by the Catholic church, since they are the ones who might have any documents that old) in any credible form.

That only leaves us with secondary sources. Of which, one is the bible itself. We know that the bible does contain some historical events, but that it is also a fairly poor source for historical accuracy. We know this because we can compare it to other secondary sources and we evaluate their congruency.

There are only two pieces of information that all known secondary sources agree upon with respect to Jesus.

1. there was a man who was baptized by John the Baptist.

2. that same man was executed by the Romans via crucifixion.

There is enough secondary evidence to have reasonable certainty that this man existed, was baptized and was crucified.

That's it.

This is a reasonably small claim and this requires reasonably small evidence to accept.

Under no circumstances am I asking you accept or believe that any of the other claims about Jesus life are real or valid. There is no other corroboration for any other events.

The argument is a pointless one to have for most of us as it holds no bearing on anything. There are a couple million people named Jesus today... And some of them probably think they are the son of god. That doesn't make their existence less real. It doesn't make their delusions more real. It doesn't mean a god exists.

Historical Jesus most likely existed. So what?

With regards to your assertion that "You link dumped."

Your arguments were poor and continue to be poor. Poor arguments don't deserve more than a cursory dismissal. I dismissed your argument, made positive statements and provided sources for my position.

I know you feel strongly about this, but that doesn't mean jack shit.

I know what you want, but asking for it shows a distinct dismissal of historical research and the way you demanded it demonstrated a lack of willingness to participate, if not an intentional facade to advance a tenuous position.

Either you already knew that any primary sources that might have existed for Jesus were obliterated in the churches re-write of the new testament during its construction by the secondary authors and instead of engaging in a good faith argument as to the validity of secondary sources cross referencing or the validity of using the christian bible as a secondary source at all you demanded a thing you knew to be impossible to obtain... Or you were ignorant of the existing historicity discussion.

At the end of the day, you were either ignorantly defending a fringe position or you are actively baiting people into a bad faith discussion trying to further a fringe position.

A fringe position that is irrelevant to the discussion of if the historical Jesus has anything to do with a god.

Jesus H Christ man. What the fuck do you want? At this point you are an asshole either way. Either you are willfully ignoring the arguments people are making (not just me) or you are actively trying to make them mad.

Like I said. You are at a bad place here in the discussion.