It's just not a good a gauge of how true a claim is or not. It doesn't work at all at being one.
But I mean, I agree that historical Jesus existed. I was just responding to you saying stuff about people arguing about "things that might or might not have happened" and using that as an indicator that since so many people are arguing about it and have been arguing about for a while, that we should be using that to mean that it's probably true. And that's just not very logical.
My point is logical in as much as we; even today, get inundated with stories and articles on actual events. We interact and give our own opinions on the matter. If it was something that was just made up, it would die off or perhaps return every now and then. We have thousands of manuscripts from within 100+ years and they multiplied every couple of hundred years after that, and yet will still have a central document that humans attest held true throughout it all. That fact cannot be denied, even if it cannot be explained. It does not seem that the story was embellished and grew over time. The biggest problem in settling on a canon was narrowing down what to put in it and what to leave out. There was no single manuscript that was copied and sent out in various and sometimes corrupted form that was retained for future use. It took decades to compile the cannon that would be considered "Scripture" and what would not, because there were so many different variants to choose from. Each group of converts would have had their own leader and their own version of the details, and probably not the whole, but only parts and bits depending on the availability of sources or the lack of them.
IMO, there was a falling out between Paul who wrote a major part, and Mark who was probably the one who felt the need to have a central accounting of the life of Jesus. Mark was not even considered an eye witness and yet he saw the need to write a book on the topic. Paul was content in conveying the meaning of Jesus' life, and not really the details that would be biographical and historically sound. Most of what was written was done from memory; though, 70 years after the facts, and the ability to refute them, but they were written about. The main point of what the Christ was about was conveyed in writing although tainted with the thousands of opinions as shown in the thousands of manuscripts that vary from each other in the details and not the point of contention. The whole point is that some need an actual selfie taken back then, when taking selfies was an unheard of concept. But there were only people writing down their thoughts and opinions which has always been in vogue. Actually the rulers of the day did take selfies and set themselves up to be worshipped. The message of the Christ was different in that all men were created equal and no one was any different than the rest, except this man Jesus.
Even if we have lost the actual selfies, if they ever existed, we still have the thousands of opinions. And even if those opinions are still wrong they are what was on the minds of those writing them. Up until recently with the advent of capturing video that is all we have had to build history on, and as noted by skeptics, all history may never have happened outside of the minds of those people who put such thoughts and opinions in written form. That is the only reason that some need concrete archeological proof.
There is an internal method on ruling out what is true and what is false, but it goes against the grain of the material method that is based on observable and irrefutable evidence. This internal method can also be "observed" internally between people even with the absence of an agreed upon external physical proof. If humans only get their confirmations in material ways, they may overlook the ability to do so internally. This is one of the differences between the way eastern methodology works and western thought process that developed from philosophical logic and the scientific method. I am sure that there are some who think the western way is the only way. However, they will only see the universe in a materialistic fashion.
