who wasn’t aware what the consensus of historians was

I absolutely were.

This is a silly denial

Yes because you can read my mind.

No, it was a silly (and ungrammatical) denial, not because I can read your mind, but because it was clear from the evidence of the text of your claims to me today, right here in this thread, that you had no idea that there was independent evidence and that historians largely agree that Jesus was a real historical person.

I might be wrong, but I’m not so sure there are any arguments about existence in it.

Again a claim based on ignorance.

Hehe. Unlike you, I admitted I might be wrong when I hadn't checked (and I have no intention to read the whole Bible just to check if you're wrong).

On the other hand, you didn't even believe there was a wikipedia page about the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus! And you claim I was arguing from ignorance?

The Bible claims the 10 commandments are from god, and that god created the world, essentially making the claim that the existence of the world is evidence for god.

Sounds to me like "essentially" is doing all the work in that sentence. I think this is yet another silly philosophical argument about the existence of God that someone else wrote that's just based on some Biblical text that it's trivial to doubt and is therefore pointless because it can't convince anyone either way who isn't already convinced.

I don't believe you can link me to where the Bible says that because the commandments came from God (for which you already have to believe the story), and because God created the world (for which you also already have to believe the story), the existence of the world proves God exists (which I believe isn't even in the story, unless you can prove me otherwise. Right back atcha with the "link or it didn't happen". Again, there's so much in the Bible that youth might have chosen to criticise and yet you pick something that isn't really there?! There's still much in the Bible that you might have chosen to claim was invented and you pick the simple existence of Jesus the person?!)

And even if that silly argument came from the Bible instead of some silly philosopher trying to prove via silly logic the existence of God, it was such a weak argument with so many logical holes I'm surprised your philosophy teachers gave it the time of day to teach you it.

At least I see where you learned to make circular arguments where you have to believe the consequent before you can accept the antecedent. You argued that Jesus never existed because there's no evidence, and also you argued that there can't be any evidence because he never existed. Surely if you've studied any philosophy at all, you must recognise that this is about as far from a syllogism as it's possible to be.

I'm well aware that some philosophers regularly dismiss Christianity and Marxism in the same sentence as deluded nonsense, but I think that you have adopted that prejudice wholesale, and that prejudice has led you to lack knowledge about the historical evidence and consensus for the bare existence of Jesus the historical person.

Can I advise you in the future to (a) check your facts, (b) argue where you're strongest rather than weakest and (c) be prepared to admit you didn't realise something. It undermines your position otherwise.