Betty-Boop - I don't think may people say that nowadays. And back in the day when such things were said, no one knew Christ, or of Him.
Pecisely Betty, because Christ didn't exist back then.
Which is why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When the evidence is not produced with the PRESUMPTION that such evidence will be rejected before it is allowed to be examined, the entire train of logic is derailed.
They are caught in the web of superstition, and trapped by circular reasoning to justify the lies they’ve swallowed whole.
They all set the facade up so that they can have their fake cake, and eat it too.
Seems to me that is an unwarranted conclusion.
Historically, Christ wasn't "there yet." That is, as an historical personality Who people of the time could recognize as such and relate to, in human terms. But that doesn't "prove" anything about whether or not Christ — fully God and fully Man — "existed" from the Beginning. Nor does anything you know disprove this either.
But I can be persuaded otherwise, provided you can adduce persuasive — note I do not say "certain" — evidence. That means you can't get away with providing a laundry list of ill-sorted, ill-qualified evidence. You have to do the work to conjure "sense" out of the evidence. And then find the language to express it, in a manner intelligible to others.
Contra your view, my understanding is that Christ is the Word of the Beginning, and Final Judge of the End. He is Son of God, Alpha and Omega. He is the foundation of Truth, from first to last — and all the "in-between." He is First and Final Cause — and Implicit Cause of all that evolves in between them.
I have to get off now: Hubby needs to communicate.
I'll be back soon.