> You deny the history because you don't like the miracles?
As I said before: a description of the mundane is easier and more rational to believe than a description of the supernatural. That holds in all cases. And since what little source documentation there is on Jesus comes from well after he was gone (not just earliest extant documents, but earliest *written* documents) and is internally inconsistent, a whole lot of skepticism is called for.
No. Once again, you reveal your ignorance. The documents were not written "well after he was gone."
The documents were written within a century of Jesus life (with Papyrus documents available), and there are more than 4,000 Greek manuscripts available. And there are multiple COMPLETE New Testaments from within 300 years (which, since you obviously know nothing about documentation of early texts, is close). The nearest Gallic Wars document is nearly a millenium after he wrote them, yet you accept his authorship without question.
The 'internal inconsistency' you made up in your head.
You see the truth in front of your very eyes, and yet deny it's existence.
The first disputation of the historical existence of Jesus came nearly two millenia after he walked this earth.
You have been swept in by a phony, inconsistent philosophy, and yet you are like a little yapping dog who won't let go of a pantleg in defending it.
As I said, you don't have to believe Jesus was God, or even that He did miracles, but to deny his earthly existence, just makes you look like a fool.