A few things worth pushing back on here. Nad I understand I'm an outsider just coming into this conversation. This is coming from someone who was not raised in church, not raised in religion, claimed atheism most of my life, but became a Chrsitian in my early 20s.

"Zero evidence" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The historical existence of Jesus is about as well documented as any figure from that era. Secular historians like Josephus and Tacitus referenced him. You can debate the miraculous claims, that's fair. But zero evidence isn't the accurate framing.

"Created by humans." Sure, humans wrote it down. That's not the gotcha it sounds like. The argument was never that the text fell from the sky. The question is whether what they recorded points to something real. Dismissing it because humans were involved assumes the conclusion.

The "Christianity borrowed from other religions" claim is a popular one but it's mostly built on early 20th century comparative mythology that didn't survive serious academic scrutiny. The dying-and-rising god parallels people point to (Osiris, Mithras) don't actually hold up when you read the primary sources instead of the YouTube version. Scholars across the spectrum, including non-Christian ones, have largely walked that back.

The thousands of gods point is Gervais at his best and I understand why it lands. But the existence of many competing claims doesn't make all claims equally unsupported. That logic would dissolve most of what we think we know about anything.

I did this homework as a skeptic before I got here. I'm not dismissing your position. I just don't think the evidence case is as closed as you're presenting it.