Jealous?

That is complete nonsense. We have copies of those same Gospels that predate Constantine by a century or more. it would be difficult for Constantine to time travel back to 200 AD to create P75. This whole "Da Vinci Code" idiocy was created by the fertile imagination of conspiracy theorists who have absolutely no understanding of the manuscript evidence. Just to make it clear, the Council of Nicea never discussed what books would get into the New Testament. That was generally agreed upon over a century earlier. This sort of nuttiness is conspiracy theorist claptrap - not history.

they intended to communicate what they believed to be true.

So did Victor Hugo when he wrote Les Miserables.

This argument presupposes that if the gospel narratives were invented, they were invented for deceitful purposes.

I don't want to go back and read everything I wrote in this thread, but let me just say it is not my personal belief that the Gospel authors/editors intended to deceive anyone. Just the opposite: they intended to communicate what they believed to be true.

In regards to these accounts being independent of the Christian tradition I will simply say that Tacitus’ disdain for Christians and his reputation as a careful historian, as well as Josephus’ intimate knowledge of Galilee after Jesus’ death, both bode well for their ability to vouch for the events they describe.

Other than whatever they witnessed themselves, no historian, no matter how exalted his reputation, can vouch for anything more than that their sources said such-and-such, and on this point neither Tacitus nor Josephus says a word about who their sources were.

If Tacitus was hostile to Christians, he would have been delighted to report that their
founder had been shamefully executed, and if Christians themselves were saying so, he would hardly have felt compelled to undertake a laborious search for official confirmation.

Josephus's knowledge of Galilee does not tell us a thing about who his sources about Jesus probably were.

I think what for me is more convincing is that the story of Jesus simply seems like something that happened which the New Testament authors are putting their own "spin" on than something that was invented.

This argument presupposes that if the gospel narratives were invented, they were invented for deceitful purposes. They could have been invented for other purposes, and I think they were.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

A claim that the consensus is mistaken is hardly extraordinary. Historically speaking, it has been correct with disturbing regularity.

I do agree that anyone challenging a scholarly consensus has a heavy burden of proof. As one who has been tracking Carrier's work for many years, I think he has borne it well.

4. It is the mainstream position in academia: Argument from Authority fallacy

Continental drift - proposed by Abraham Ortelius in 1596; accepted in 1958. Time of acceptance of incorrect theory: 362 years.

Heliocentrism - proposed by Philolaus (d. 390 BCE); accepted as a "mathematical convenience" by the Catholic Church during the Council of Trent (1545–1563) but when Galileo Galilei proved it in 1600 the Catholic Church couldn't suppress the information fast enough. Time of acceptance of incorrect theory: 1934 years if one is generous; 2224 years is one is not.

The Norse colonization of the Americas - known nearly from the beginning through the "Eirik the Red's Saga" and the "Saga of the Greenlanders" both written about three centuries after the events happened. Dismissed largely because the experts saw it as harkening to the Imperial Synthesis Era of the 19th century. Finally accepted in the 1970s. Total denial time: about 900 years.

Big Bang theory; suggested or implied by John Philoponus (6th century), Abu Yūsuf Yaʻqūb ibn ʼIsḥāq aṣ-Ṣabbāḥ al-Kindī (9th century); Saʻadiah ben Yosef Gaon (9th to 10th century) Abū Ḥāmed Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (11th to 12th century) and Immanuel Kant (19th century); dismissed as crackpot as late as 1963! Total denial time: about 1300 years.

3. Jesus’ existence is confirmed by extra-biblical sources--uh no it isn't. The first thing one notices about the Testimonium Flavianum is how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (c100 - c165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (c120 - c203), Clement of Alexandria (c150-c215), Origen (c185-c254), Hippolytus (c170 - c235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230-280), Chrysostom (c347-407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (c820-891) make no mention of the Testimonium Flavianum even when it would have been in their best interests to do so. In fact, it is documents as late as 1600 there was a copy of Josephus with NO Testimonium Flavianum.

2. The Early Church Fathers don’t describe the mythicist heresy--mainly because Ehhermerism (deities were originally living men and women who were elevated to divine status because of heroic feats when alive) was the mind set of the day. If you believe as they did that Zeus, Heracles, and every other deity and demigod had one been living breathing people the idea that they might be total fictions would never enter into their minds. "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." was the mentality of the day.

1. St. Paul knew the disciples of Jesus is on really shaky ground. The followers of John Frum have been saying since 1957 that he is the brother of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh who has only sisters. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is true.

When you look at the non supernatural elements like the trials, behavior of Pontius Pilate, behavior of the Romans, and other factors we can check the Gospel accounts fall to pieces as history.