i don't think it matters how expert of an opinon one has when considering confidence on whether someone truly existed or not.

being an expert in history wouldn't help you confidently confirm that anything you read wasn't part of a big popular information conspiracy unfortunately.

their examples of Shakespeare, Socrates, etc. are much more strongly suggestive of being true because of a larger sample size of "historical evidence" from people claiming to exist at the same time as those who wrote about them, and the several events popularly known to be directly caused by them, and not some 50 years removed gospels which may very possibly have been hear-say. (told indirect information, then made a claim based on that)

regardless, it pretty much doesn't matter in philosophy whether someone exists or not since the important thing is the idea associated with the person. the issue is that theology is associated with Jesus, and since theism is a confident belief position, it just doesn't make a ton of sense to live and believe by historical evidence alone. i think complimenting historical evidence with empirical science is a lot more reasonable

to me this would be like if someone had a box, and i really wanted to know what was in it, and they told me it was a carrot and sent me off. now i can believe it was a carrot because they were right there and if they were honest then it should be a carrot in the box, but to personally commit myself to that belief, i would have the see inside the box myself.

How did this expert determine which model of the events was true vs which was false? What experiments did they run? What primary evidence did they study?

There are as many versions of historical Jesus as there are people studying the subject. All of them can't be true, but all of them can be false.

If anything, what I did was a false equivalence. God, you sound like me 15 years ago, and I was a twat. You also sound like my mum and she's an antivaxxer.

I marked my edit with an asterisk, as is/was standard for the Internet for a long time.

I assumed your position from the rest of your comments: groups of experts (or a consensus of experts) are not reliable, contemporary sources as considered in the general field are unreliable unless you want to use them to further your point (tacitus or Josephus). And contemporary sources are the only thing that matter.

So by these standards, what do we know of history? Not much, I'd argue. And I'd also bring it back home: what's the fuckin point of your post except to be an angsty lil kid? Who are you impressing here