If you conclude that Jesus did not exist, how do you account for people writing gospels about him and Paul writing letters talking about his teaching?
There are Hindu writings about their gods. Jewish writing about their specific version of your god. Writings all over the world about other gods.
Apparently people write. That would pretty much explain everything.
Yes but why, did they write about a man called Jesus. And why did an alleged historian, Josephus, who's works were published in the same era, bother to write about someone that didn't exist when his Empire sponsored work made so open a claim as to the integrity of His record. But more importantly why did Rome allow the story to persist. Now , while you have wishful thinking, I have a theory. Take it or leave it :-)
Josephus was not an alleged historian, he was an actual one. He wrote and wrote and wrote about the history of the jews, and made it extraordinarily clear that the earth was just under 3,000 years old when Moses showed up. As per Genesis. And he mentioned JC being hung out to dry, in writings that many scholars, including religious ones, think is fake. Many feel that it was added later by people copying/transcribing his works. I understand that that position is debatable and not proven either way. But I don't care, because there was no son of god stapled to a cross anyway.
By the way, scholars also disagree about whether the mention of James was also added later, but people who shouldn't have been doing things like that.
On the bright side, he didn't tell any wolf stories.
He talks of Jesus and he talks of a 3,000 year old universe. Why am I not impressed (I am impressed with his scholarship in general. He did tell the story of the Jews, among other things. But the story he told was the one he was taught.)
And if JC was so important, why didn't the guy write a bit more about him?
Why didn't the Romans stop him? Lets see. He'd been a Jew. He got caught and enslaved. Then he seemed to become a good guy in the eyes of the Romans, his master let him go, and later they let him publish an official version of the Jewish War, given that he was a Jewish traitor and a known historian and on their side by then. They liked seeing their names in etched in stone, I guess.
But how could history be distorted? Gee. Let me think. Well, what about Paul Revere? You know the story. A wolf ate him. Oops, you keep making me confused. No, he was a big hero riding around the countryside yelling "The British are coming?" Well, in fact he was only one of three men who rode that night. He didn't get very far. He got caught. Only one of them actually rode far enough to spread the word, and that guy wasn't named Revere. The trouble was, it was hard to fit the name Samuel Prescott into the poem Longfellow wanted to write ("Listen my friends, you lazy old sots, while I tell you the story of Samuel Prescott." Doesn't have the same ring.). So Longfellow took liberties with the truth. Which got transferred into textbooks by people who assumed it to be true. And now little kids are only taught about Paul Revere, and not Samuel Prescott or William Dawes.
Longfellow wrote a poem, and the history of the United States, as taught in public schools, was changed by the misinformation and literary license he used. Even though he never claimed it to be absolutely accurate. What are the chances that such things could be have been avoided in an earlier culture?
By the way, running around yelling "The British are coming" wouldn't have made any sense to the colonists at the time, given that everyone in the country considered themselves British. The term "Americans" hadn't come into use yet. But hey, at least Longfellow didn't try to work Jesus into the story, so he was more accurate than Josephus.
You are of course entitled to your own opinion. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with it. Some of us feed our wise wolves instead.