Because we were explicitly told to be discerning.

"For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. " Mt 24-5

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits." Mt 7-15

But then why not be so discerning in one more context? OP's point still applies here IMO.

Who is to say Christians didn’t use their discernment to conclude that Jesus is who he claimed and did what was said of him?

Anyone paying even casual attention to the epistemology of Christians.

I'll certainly admit lots of Christians have bad epistemology, because frankly lots of people do in general. But there are also lots of people who have thought about this very seriously, contrary to your claim.

I'm sure there are. But if they ended up confirming belief in a magic carpenter born of a virgin, then we're back to bad epistemology.

Not all contexts are equally valid or equally believable. Some of them disqualify themselves pretty quickly.

How do you know the source of these quotes are authentic and true?

I don't think that matters to the observation being commented on, which is of the nature of "if one believes in X, it's surprising to me they won't also believe in Y."

The only way to have trust in such a message is to experience truth in it. The Gospel gives an open invitation for all to read its claims and promises…and to put them to the test. However, be warned that an adventure awaits. Should you read the words and believe them with the smallest faith you can muster, the real-world consequences are stunning and vast and earth-shaking and beautiful. The journey with God is an adventure indeed.

>The only way to have trust in such a message is to experience truth in it.

You've basically just abandoned any kind of logical or grounded epistemology and replaced it with believing in whatever "feels right". Which, you know, you do you, but it just sort of abandons any pursuit of some underlying reality that we share. There's nothing really to discuss there and you could be talking about a belief that the moon is made of cheese, that the earth is flat, or that we should all follow Satan or anything else that "feels right" to whoever.

It's funny that all the early church fathers and theologians made efforts to persuade people that the bible was true through logic and reason and evidence, but that was abandoned by the Church over time, as first people were forced to join the church on pain of death and damnation, and then later as any kind of logical or evidential argument for religion became untenable, people fell back on "well, you just have to choose to believe it if it feels good." Faith in the early church was not an argument for the existence of god, but was _predicated_ on the existence of God, a Christian was supposed to have faith that God, who you already believed in, had the world's best interests in mind. It was never meant to substitute for understanding the world through reason.

Nothing I said excludes logic or evidence, or advocates believing in whatever “feels” right. I clearly said it’s about truth, and truth has to be determined with logic and evidence and first-order experience.

Who is Jesus?

A vague reference in Josephus?

A vague reference in the Talmud?

If I don't believe in the Gospels there's not much Jesus left to believe in, is there?

There is! There are extra-biblical mentions and deductions. But note that the value of the Bible is that it is already a great collection of varying sources on the matter conveniently pre-packaged into a single volume for all who wish to determine those details. Someone did the heavy lift of identifying the highest quality sources and putting them together in one compendium for all to eat and drink from its rich retellings.

an accusation can be a confession

What happened to Jesus' disciples? >> https://i.redd.it/uvkz50fs3tn61.jpg