You are doing what most sceptics on this site have warned against hundreds of times in these threads – you are again producing the well known fallacy of “an appeal to authority”. And iirc, you are constantly doing that in almost every post you make here.
It's fine appealing to people who are supposed to be authorities, but you have to quote the evidence which those authoritaties are claiming as their means of reaching their conclusion … you are quoting Michael Grant, but you say not one word of what he is claiming as evidence in order to conclude Jesus existed …
… what is the evidence that you have from Michael Grant that convinces you that Jesus existed?
And by the way, in case people do not know who Michael Grant is, here is a Wiki link to his details -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grant_(classicist)
Michael Grant*CBE*(21 November 1914 – 4 October 2004) was an English*classicist,*numismatist, and author of numerous books on ancient history.[1]*His 1956 translation of*Tacitus's*Annals of Imperial Rome*remains a standard of the work. Having studied and held a number of academic posts in the United Kingdom and the Middle East, he retired early to devote himself fully to writing.
Grant was born in London, the son of Col. Maurice Grant who served in the*Boer War*and later wrote part of its official history. Young Grant attended*Harrow*and read classics (1933–37) at*Trinity College, Cambridge. His speciality was academic*numismatics. His research fellowship thesis later became his first published book –*From Imperium to Auctoritas*(1946), on Roman bronze coins. Over the next decade he wrote four books on Roman coinage; his view was that the tension between the eccentricity of the Roman emperors and the traditionalism of the Roman mint made coins (used as both propaganda and currency) a unique social record.
As early as the 1950s, Grant's publishing success was somewhat controversial within the classicist community. According to*The Times: Grant's approach to classical history was beginning to divide critics. Numismatists felt that his academic work was beyond reproach, but some academics balked at his attempt to condense a survey of Roman literature into 300 pages, and felt (in the words of one reviewer) that "even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit". The academics would keep cavilling, but the public kept buying.[4]
I'm not saying that Grant is unqualified or a sensation seeker or a charlatan. But what you can see from the above is that his main field of expertise was Roman coins, and on other historical subjects he was regarded as a rather sensationalist writer who perhaps appealed more to popular opinion/readership and was criticised on that basis by his fellow classicists.
But if you think Michael Grant grant is someone who's opinion we should all heed, then what was he offering as the evidence that makes him (and you) think Jesus existed?
