It isn't unusual for the existence of ancient historical figures to be in dispute. Not only was record -keeping unreliable in the first century, but graves disappeared, artifacts were weathered to the point of non-existence, and, nobody had cameras. The internet was ALWAYS down.

There was no real portraiture, either. That's one reason Jesus is always white. He wasn't in real life if his lineage is reported accurately in the Bible. Couldn't have been. But Europeans made him so.

All we have to go on is what is reported by scribes, usually men, which is one reason it can be hard for women to relate to a lot of Christianity. It was all written down from men's perspective, despite the fact that women played a crucial role in the early church (they were essentially booted out of the hierarchy very quickly).

Using John as an example, it is unlikely he could write, but as soon as the church became well established, which didn't take long, he would have had access to Greek-speaking scribes who could write down his thoughts.

Anyway, it's silly to argue about a historical Jesus. I could make arguments against the existence of hundreds of historical figures because there is no proof of their existence, either.

Regarding whether he was the son of God: Since he said he was the son of God, he was either crazy, or the son of God. He could not have been a legitimate prophet if he claimed to be, but wasn't.

People like to say, "cool dude, but he couldn't have been a son of God."

Sorry, but a dude who says he is the son of God isn't a cool dude unless he really is. What would you do if you saw a guy standing on a box claiming to be the son of God? Those guys normally just get locked up. Of course, Jesus did get locked up, but it doesn't sound like it was because the Romans thought he was crazy.

Besides, he didn't prophesize, not really -- he contemplated.

It really comes down to a matter of faith.

Those who are against the notion of a Christ can be pretty virulent, which is another form of prejudice that should not be welcomed.

It's okay to not believe, but it isn't appropriate to attack others for believing.

I'm not saying you did that here. But some of the commenters are clearly quite disdainful of not just the religion, but its adherents. Which is just another 'ism'.

All religions have their fundamentalist nutcases and tendencies towards violence. But that's because most large religions are patriarchal in nature - run by men, who have much more violence in their souls than do women. It has little to do with the actual teachings of the various religions.

Most religious violence is just another excuse by men to wage war. That doesn't mean religion itself is evil. It means that men love to fight.

They love to fight over whether Jesus existed, or whether Christianity is better than Islam and/or Judaism.

They love to fight and ruin the good stuff that can come out of faith and religion. That's one thing we don't need to dispute.