This is typical charge anyway.
So, how about it? Was there ever a man named Jesus of Nazareth?
The very simple answer is, yes. I’m not saying this on faith or on some religious book’s say-so. I’m stating what historians agree is an indisputable fact. You see, history is done a specific way. Historians have rules for what is acceptable evidence. If there is any doubt about Jesus’ existence, then the same doubt is cast on all historical figures. Simply put, if we cannot be certain the Jesus was a real man from Galilee, we cannot be certain of anything.
Virtually all historians – regardless their religion or philosophy – are agreed that Jesus’ existence is a historical fact. Are there those who disbelieve? Perhaps there are a handful, but there are holocaust deniers too. The real challenge is not whether Jesus existed.
Here’s the real challenge: ask a skeptic to produce a reputable historian (someone with a degree and a job, not just a guy with a blog) who believes that Jesus did not exist.
The best examples come from the lips of skeptics:
Einstein was then asked to what extent he was influenced by Christianity. “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.” Einstein was then asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, to which he replied, “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
“I am a historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.” (…) “Christ is the most unique person of history. No man can write a history of the human race without giving first and foremost place to the penniless teacher of Nazareth.”
And finally, there is this interview with atheist historian Bart Ehrman that backfired horribly: