Why are we Here?

According to your interpretations. I would say a mass (and journey) of Jesus and his followers would be pretty note worthy of the people who were allegedly there, but nothing.

There were many who were claiming to be the Messiah during that time. And it would have been common for them to have followers. There were also many priests and teachers of different faiths in the Roman Empire. How to read or write was not a common skill. Writers would have been busy with the concerns of Rome, Politicians, and those who can pay them.

What's funny, there isn't any historic accounts of Jesus.

Wikipedia (Historicity of Jesus): There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.

Yet you find that it make sense.

Not really. Accepting a premise in an attempt to validate the work. Take the link you gave me about "what Christians meant about atheism". It had this structure:

  1. Premise:

    • The Christian Contract as structured by Protestant Christians is valid.
  2. Problem:

    • Some Christians claim that they are atheists.
  3. Argument:

    • Use the Christian Contract to invalidate the claim in #2.
  4. Conclusion:

    • Claim #2 is invalid in the framework of the Christian Contract.
  5. Purpose of Argument:

    • To invalidate the framework of the Christian Contract.

By invalidating the premise, the entire argument is therefore null. The argument only stands if #1 is accepted as a truth for the sake of argument.

That's just willful ignorance

Willful ignorance is the inability to consider possibilities due to pride. You have been asking questions so far or simply state derivatives that prevent further thought, i.e., you cannot. But not destroying the argument.

The approach in Leviticus, using our context of modern medical science, is valid is it not?

/r/DebateReligion Thread