As belter mentions, all those scholars are biased by their own christian beliefs. There's no archaeological evidence and no Roman or Jewish historian mentions h

As belter mentions, all those scholars are biased by their own christian beliefs. There's no archaeological evidence and no Roman or Jewish historian mentions him, at least no mention that hasn't proven to be a medieval addition. The only sources are the gospels, which are not only biased, but they're not contemporary since the author's of the gospels were born between 50 and more than 100 years after the alleged death of Jesus. Let that sink in, the authors of the gospels didn't know Jesus, didn't even know someone who had met Jesus. In addition to that, the gospels were handpicked amongst lots of contradictory versions in the Council of Nicaea to fit the official narrative for political reasons and that council happened more than 300 years after the alleged story of Jesus.