A. The source you got you're information from is clearly highly biased. Which this is a topic where it's hard to avoid bias, however that source conveniently skipped over plenty of evidence, and even molded plenty more evidence to fit its narrative. The first link I saw provided ample evidence to the contrary of your source. Was not that hard to find at all. So I have to assume you did nothing to get the information from your source. Here's the link Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ? If you want to question the source I posted, be my guest, see what you come up with B. It's not very logical or probable to assume that there was no central figure that started the largest religion in the world. It doesn't really make sense for a bunch of people 40 to 100 years later to make up a person, and all simultaneously write about this person while this religion (small at the time) was growing pretty steady and fast in the region. C. Jesus is the most written about person in the entire world. D. I haven't heard a legit historical scholar try to argue the point that Jesus didn't actually exist. The scholar who wrote that book with half decent proof pointing to the possibility that Jesus didn't exist would be an almost overnight millionaire...it's pretty low hanging fruit that a number of people could snag up, but no one has...because it's just not the case. Jesus existence is more likely than say Viking king who were pretty positive existed. More likely than Hannibal of Carthage, or Sargon of Akkad. E. If you attacking Christianity, there's a lot more successful ways of doing that than trying to go after the existence of Jesus. One of those being the deity of Jesus, that should be first on your list haha.