We have a written report that shows that Jesus did in fact exist. Was he really the son of God? Who knows? I am Christian, but science, which is something I am far better at understanding, contradicts his resurrection. Far be it from me to decide whether he exists or not.
The way historians evaluate if actual events occured in history is by reading contemporary manuscripts of the time and look for references. Also, archeologists can look for physical evidence.
There are more than enough historical records that suggest Yeshua bar Yoseph was a real person. The four gospels contain corroborating stories and details of his life. Also, we know for a fact that Mark and John were written down around 70 CE, so the accounts are merely one generation removed from one who would have talked with Yeshua.
The Gospels are even quoted in epistles as early as 124 CE, meaning they were already written and spread across the Mediterranean in a hundred years.
Yeshua is even mentioned in texts outside of the Bible. The Koran, for example, admits his life. The epistles of Paul and Luke (both men are not in debate as to having lived) talk about places and people, like a road map of first-century Israel, don't seem to doubt his existence.
Physical evidence and cultural references abound. For example, we now know that Pilate was the head of the prefecture, for a long time that was in debate, but since proved accurate.
Rationale: Let's take a minute to look at non-canonical texts in the Christian schema. We know that many of the apostles were killed for their activities. Those deaths are generally accepted as historical fact due to the same reasons I'm discussing now, so, why would these men allow themselves to be tormented, tortured, exiled, and ostracized if they knew Jesus had not lived? Let alone, continued to live?
One of the arguments for the life of Christ not being a reality, and this is really about the only one, is that there is no record of Herod issuing a death warrant for baby boys in Bethlehem during Yeshua's infancy.
However, this idea has been rebuffed over and over again because Herod the Great did some pretty crazy atrocities in his day, and some were not written down in histories but noted elsewhere.
Granted, there are plenty of false items out there, there are enough splinters of the "cross" that it is joked we could remake the cross five times over, but this doesn't mean the cross was not real, merely that greed abounds.
It was never much of a question of whether or not he existed. Arguments are about whether or not he was the Son of God, the Savior. Since that is not what the debate it about, though, the clear answer is yes. There is much more evidence to support this than that he didn't exist.
Without a doubt, there was a man by the name of Jesus that existed. Let's see what atheist Bart Ehrman said about Jesus:
"There is so much evidence, this is not even an issue with scholars. There is no scholar in any college, or university in the western world who teaches classics, ancient history, new testament, early Christianity, any related field that doubts Jesus existed, now that is not evidence. Just because someone thinks it doesn't make it evidence.. The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources. That's why."
Though various outside sources claim that a person by that name existed at the time, that he had a following and was said to have done some miraculous things, there is no outside source that says those miraculous things really happened.
If we look at the history of many faiths, we can see evidence that some of the people actually existed. What we don't have, besides the books about their religion, is evidence that they actually performed miraculous feats.
Example 1) We know a man named John Smith once existed, but what we don't have is evidence that his tale of being given a book and golden plates that he translated into the book of Mormon ever happened. Nobody else seen the angel who directed him to them and the things found were conveniently taken back by the alleged angel so there is no evidence the angel or any of the things used in the writings ever existed.
Example 2) We know the a man named Gilgamesh (a king of Uruk, Mesopotamia) actually existed, but what we don't have is evidence that the events of his epic poem actually happened.
Did a man named Jesus exist? More than likely. Was he the son of God who performed miracles? Nope.
The opposing argument so far hasn't given any real proof that Jesus existed.
Just mentions Yeshua and talks about a story in the bible but doesn't state where he got the text from.
There is no real proof that Jesus existed. Yes there is a bible, but the bible is just an old book. It is a fact that back then, books didn't have to be real or factual, if it was in a book or written on pages it must have been true! But that is wrong in this day and age, we should know that in order for things to be real, it has to be backed up with real evidence.
There is no evidence that Jesus walked the earth, besides in the Bible.
But anyone can write that a person once lived and walked the earth on a piece of paper.
The book doesn't proof he ever lived. I would like to note that the bible is under the fiction section on Amazon.
The bible has been translated from many different languages. It has been re-written and re-written and re-written and edited and re-written by many Kings who wanted to control their kingdoms. (King James)
Christianity is a stolen religion.
Same with any other religion that believes in Jesus.
They say Jesus died for EVERYONE'S sins?
If you go to china, or Korea and talk to them about the lord and savior, they will look at you like you are crazy. Different countries believe in their own religion.
America mostly believes in Jesus Christ.