Hib,
First, thank you for engaging this question with responsibility and honor. I acknowledge you for that.
Second, you requested that I keep my posts shorter. I would point out two things in response to that. Not only do you post large blurbs which aren't even your own material, but the questions we are addressing are not simple. You may not agree, but I assert that any simplification of the scholarship issues is a gap which will allow for fear and desire to create a whole world of error. That said, I will make an effort at concision. But I would point out again my point of culture: If I say "Jesus is good," most people won't disagree with me, and I don't need to say anything else at all. If I say "Yesua Bin Joseph, if he even existed, upheld terrible things." then all of a sudden everyone demands a mountain of evidence.
I propose that if you agree to post only in your own words that I will try to alway post fewer words than you as we address this issue.
Finally, again getting at the issue of what I am asking for, I really don't think you see what I am saying. I am not asking for what you believe the evidence is. I am asking for a process. What is the process by which we will evaluate claims?
If you are having trouble with this, then try and address these next claims from the standpoint of "it may be true or false, let's test and see":
1. ___ exists.
2. We should ___.
3. _____ Is perfect and true.
4. _____ happened long ago.
5. Everyone else is wrong about _____.
So, I ask you, how would we test these claims, no matter what was being claimed? If I claimed "Zorberflux exists. We should muzzledorf. Zalbot is perfect and true. Shazbul happened long ago. Everyone else is wrong about the hummahummah." How would we test and see if that's true?