If the evidence supports the historical accuracy of the gospels, where is the need for faith? And if the historical reliability of the gospels is so obvious, why have so many scholars failed to appreciate the incontestable nature of the evidence?

Jesus did not ask us to believe that his death was a blood sacrifice, that he was going to die for our sins.

Jesus did not ask us to believe that he would be raised from the dead.

Jesus did not call upon people to repent, or fast, or observe the sabbath. He did not threaten with hell or promise heaven.

Jesus did not ask us to believe that he was the messiah. He certainly never suggested that he was the second person of the trinity. In fact, he rarely referred to himself at all.

If the evidence supports the historical accuracy of the gospels, where is the need for faith? And if the historical reliability of the gospels is so obvious, why have so many scholars failed to appreciate the incontestable nature of the evidence?