Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[SYZ]

...I agree with the overwhelming majority of professional historians that the available evidence is good enough to warrant the probability that the fictional man depicted in the bible as Jesus Christ is based off a historical personage of the same name who was crucified by Pilate circa CE 33.

And ... there is no good argument against that.

None.

Maybe you should have a quick read of this:   Weighing up the evidence for the ‘Historical Jesus’.

There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions
of Jesus's life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from
the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus
having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse
accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed
by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were
born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the
oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.