Love to see you prove, with evidence, that Jesus was real.
Go... there's a good reason those folks who wrote the papers our country founded ignored the story of christ and paid it no homage in creating this country. They didn't believe he was real either. Jefferson created his version of the bible, all 26 pages, by stripping the bible of all of the god-like acts he performed because they didn't think he was real. A noble life depicted, thus Jefferson's bible that is only the story of christ life, no extraordinary acts. If he existed, he was just a ordinary guy who put his pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.
Did Historical Jesus Exist, Traditional Evidence Does Not Holdup. | Washington Post 2014.
Not why I think as I do, but it hits a few relevant points.
I've already covered this on here before, but I don't think you were around. Let me first point out that you are still confusing the question "Was Jesus real?" with the question "Was the Christ real?" They are different questions. Jefferson edited his Bible, not because he thought Jesus wasn't real, but because he thought the Christ was mythical. He thought the real Jesus was simply a good teacher of morals, and the miracles had all been added later.
There are reasons why almost every scholar of religious history agrees that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man. The evidence is very strong. From atheists like Bart Ehrman to Muslims like Reza Aslan, this is clearly not an issue of faith for such scholars. Instead, a study of the historical record makes it clear to them that there are a handful of things we can say with certainty about Jesus the historical man. The Big Two are these:
1. He was baptized by John the Baptist.
2. He was crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate.
We know these two things are true because they pass two important historical tests: first, they are attested in virtually all of the earliest surviving traditions about Jesus and, second, they are unlikely to have been made up by Jesus' followers, because, taken out of context, they are very embarrassing. Jesus' followers had to explain away these two facts.
There are a few other things that are not quite as certain as these Big Two, but still the vast, vast majority of scholars also agree that:
3. Jesus was from Nazareth.
4. He was some kind of itinerant preacher with a small group of followers.
5. He was involved in some sort of disturbance at the Temple that directly led to his execution.
These are facts which are consistent with all the earliest surviving traditions.
After these five basic facts, we get to the point where scholars disagree about who Jesus was and what he preached. Ehrman, for example, sees Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, preaching the end of the world was near. Aslan sees him as more of a political revolutionary, arguing that the fact of his crucifixion proves he was an enemy of the state, since it was a punishment reserved for treason. Various arguments are stronger or weaker, depending, but we're firmly in the realm of scholarly opinion, and nothing can be proved for sure.
Anyway, the idea that Jesus simply didn't exist at all is an extremely fringe opinion. And that's not because scholars of religion are all Evangelical Protestants. By and large, they are not. It's because scholars of religious history have a much better understanding of how to study and learn from historical sources than your WP writer, who, for example, doesn't grasp the concept that ancient texts are almost always propaganda, and can still be combed through for historical seeds, just as some elements of the historical Jesus can be found in the texts about the Christ. Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Paul (to use their traditional names for simplicity) and others who left writings about Jesus all wrote about different Christs. The many views of Jesus are often very different. The overlap is where we are most likely to find the historical seeds that go back to Jesus the man.
