If you tried to pass these arguments as a solid case in a history course, you'd fail.
We're expected to believe that all these people passed off a figment of their imagination as a historical figure.
Even if we grant that the Gospels are biased and that miracles are attributed to Jesus, so what?
Miracles are attributed to many saints of history. That doesn't argue against their existence,or against every detail in a document.
The supposed anonymity of the Gospels don't argue against them as sources, either. Anonymity doesn't make a document true or false. We know from evidence outside the Gospels that Christians did exist in the first century. These Christians would have naturally record beliefs about their Messiah. They not only name Jesus, they name people associated with Jesus whose historicity is not in doubt. We're supposed to believe they made up Jesus but they didn't make up Peter, Paul, John, James and others?
We're supposed to believe everyone was in on this fraud, for which they suffered torture?
Notice it's a "religious studies" major making the case. Not an actual historian.
