We are dealing with historical facts and trying to determine causal plausibility. So far, you haven't offered anything that would account for even one of the historical facts established by the majority of scholars
No SB, I am dealing with historical and you are dealing with Faith. And there is a Big difference.
A “Historian is not interested in what is possible, a Historian is interested in what is likely.
The person of “Faith is interested is what is possible but not very likely.
Historical Truth for us living today is different from Historical Truth from those living some 2000 years ago.
Our idea of Historical Truth means “An Accumulation of Empirical—Verifiable -----FACTS.
For the “Ancient Mind” in particular the early Christians, History was NOT ABOUT UNCOVERING FACTS. It was about revealing truths. “The stories that they crafted about Jesus, and the issue of Historical truth was irrelevant to the larger purpose of these stories, which was to declare something that is true about Jesus, like Jesus was the Messiah, that Jesus was of the linage of King David, that Jesus was the son of god, etc.”
The Gospels were not Historical Documents in the way that we living today view historical documents.
They were testimonies of faith, written by communities of faith. In other words the writers “Already Believed Jesus was the Messiah, or the Son of God. So when they Wrote the Gospels---IT WAS TO PROVE THEIR BELIEF.
It was biased writing of belief.
Thus the Gospels of Jesus were “An Argument-----NOT A WORK OF HISTORY.