You have a very different definition of “time-concurrent access to primary witnesses” than leading scholars do.

Believe me. I have read dozens of books on this topic from leading New Testament scholars. I’m not pulling this out of my ass or Wikipedia.

The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which you claim dates to within John’s probable lifetime, is actually dated within the mid-to-late second century for a number of reasons. If the Disciple John wrote that, he’d be over a hundred years old when he wrote it. He’d also be literate in Greek, which as a first-century Jewish fisherman he definitely would not have been. He wouldn’t have been literate at all.

None of the names ascribed to the four Gospels are accurate. Scholarly consensus has agreed on this for a very long time.

Within those manuscripts, from these early references, one quick example of Jesus claiming deity is Matthew 26:63-66. Later, in the Gospel of John, he says “I and the father are one”–I and God are one. Pretty explicitly, he also says that “No one enters into the kingdom of heaven” except through him; that he is the only way to heaven (this debunks any idea that he thought the rest of us were somehow equal to him). John 8:48-58 has by far the most interesting claim, for those into Hebrew literature. In the original Hebrew, Yeshua uses the name of God, the one never to be said, YHWH, of himself. “Before Abraham was, I am,” he says, instead of “I was.” This was so offensive to his religious countrymen that they threatened to stone him on the spot.

Honestly, I hope you will look at some of these references. If you skip to the middle of the giant book “Evidence that Demans a Verdict”–admittedly a Christian apologetics books–you can find some good bibliography (I find that books meant to make a point are really most useful for their bibliographies.) You might also try asking a few university professors in Middle Eastern ancient history–it has to be middle eastern, because many historians will comment outside of their field with little evidence, based on rumors in the history department (I had an East Asian and European history teacher tell me for certain things I knew from Middle Eastern primary sources to be incorrect–it’s not that they were stupid, just that they were speaking outside of their field). You’ll be surprised how many things you assume about history, and how much is assumed in historical fields–for example, that Socrates existed.

So since Yeshua Ben-Joseph claimed to be God, the question remains whether or not the man was a lunatic, a liar, or in all honesty, God.

Is it arrogant if I say “take it from a history graduate…” Perhaps so.

Anyway, the claim that Jesus did not exist is pretty weak as well. Occam’s razor. Is it more likely that Christianity grew out of a cult founded by a Jewish minister “Jesus,” or that he and the religion based on him is completely fabricated?

That doesn’t change the fact that you stated uncategorically that it was conclusively proved to be paint when nothing of the kind is the case. It’s blanket inaccuracies like that which give people the impression that real science is not a valid form of inquiry into the origins of these kinds of items.

For the record, if Jesus had the body proportions on the Shroud, he’d look like a monster. That analysis of it alone proves its likely inauthentic nature, much less the carbon dating (which has been argued to be tainted from the medieval patching work done on the shroud) or the paint vs blood debate. A Jesus who looked anything like the image on the Shroud would be comfortable playing Frankenstein’s Monster.

I know you’re joking, but since this is an arc about historical Jesus I thought it was necessary to come in and crush any peripheral dreams as well. <3