AFAIK most historians/scholars agree that Jesus was a real person (even if a lot of the Bible's claims about what he did are not true). But I'm not a historian. What are you basing your opinion on?

There exists documented proof in many bits of literature from around 200 BCE to around 100 CE of numerous different figures in what is called 'Jewish Apocalypticism', basically a small in number but persistent phenomenon of Jews in and around what was for most of that time the Roman province of Palestine, preaching that the end would come, that God or a Messiah would return or arise and basically liberate the region and install a Godly Kingdom, usually after or as part of other fantastical events.

Jesus was one of many of these Jewish Apocalypticists. Much like the rest of the movement's key figures, they were wrong, and their lives were greatly exaggerated in either their writings or writings about them or inspired by them.

This seems to be the (extremely condensed) opinion of most Biblical Scholars.

There are a very small number of modern Biblical Scholars that are 'Mythicists' of some kind, who believe that Jesus was completely fictional and wholly invented by certain people or groups.

This is an unpopular view amongst scholars and historians of that time and region, as most believe it more plausible that Jesus was just another example of a radical Jewish Apocalyptic preacher, which again, was fairly common for roughly 300 years in that region.

Its like how if you go to a big city theres always that one guy with a megaphone preaching imminent doom. 99% of people think this is silly and ignore them, but tons of people know that people like them exist and do have small followings.

There’s just no evidence

I have a pet peeve about this phrase. A) yes there is. B) that's not the standard, e.g. it would be incorrect to say there's no evidence aliens abduct and probe people: there are eyewitness accounts

I agree with you that Jesus wasn't God, who doesn't exist, and that there were no miracles, which are impossible. However, this is not the same thing as saying that there's no evidence for the existence of Jesus, the Jewish apocalyptic preacher.

The earliest documents about Jesus, such as the Pauline Epistles, were written by people who knew people who knew him. In a mostly illiterate society 2,000 years ago, this is about as good as evidence gets. It's also the exact same kind of evidence as a journalist or researcher writing an account based on interviews with people. This was how, e.g, Herodotus wrote his histories. When Herodotus says 'A guy rode a dolphin once' we dismiss that. But we don't say 'The people in the Histories didn't exist, except those for whom there's physical evidence, which is about three of them, not including the author'. We do much the same with Jesus and the miracles.

If the Apostles had wanted, for some reason, to make up a guy, that would have been risky. Other people would have just said, 'That guy didn't exist'. If they had anyway decided to make up a guy, they'd have invented someone who actually fulfilled the Jewish propehcies of the Messiah, instead of inventing Jesus, who obviously didn't. This suggests they didn't invent him, which strengthens the plausibility of the evidence we do have.

A third way of looking at this is to ask if there are any comparable figures, religious founders from the historic era, who we now think were wholly made up in the way you're suggesting. But there aren't. The Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, Zoroaster - they all certainly existed. Indeed, I can't think of any figures form the time period who were actually imaginary.

Its easy to put bones together and say that it existed but there's no way to guarantee "these are certified bones of Jim the stegosaurus, religious figure"

Bones prove you existed.

But the absence of bones does not mean that you didn't.

That's because there weren't multiple people around to write down what they saw. You're confusing paleontology and history. They have very different standards for proof.

There are tons of historical figures for whom we have no physical evidence. But we have tons of written evidence from people who all experienced those people.

History is known by:

• Archæological evidence

• Oral interviews with eyewitnesses

• Texts

• Archæogenetics

• Historical linguistics

• Myth (euhemerism)

• Maybe some others I'm forgetting

Dino-history isn't comparable to tthe literate Roman period.

That's prehistory. Everything we know about history comes from written accounts. Historians study written documents and argue whether or not the available evidence makes it more likely that something (or someone) was real or fiction.

Most historians agree that there was a Jewish man named Jesus (yehoshua), who preached in Judea and the Galilee in the early first century, who gained followers and was crucified by Rome. There are also historians who examine the same evidence and conclude it is more likely that no such person existed, because that's how academia works.

See also for comparison: Genghis Khan

We don't have the bones of gengis khan either

Dinosaurs aren't people.

The point is that you are asking the wrong question sort of. If we only accepted physical remnants of someone or their life to prove they exist, Jesus wouldn't be the only one we would have to throw out.

Not to say I know how to prove stuff historically, it does sort of seem like magic sometimes. If we found out today that carbon dating was off by a magnitude I would not be shocked, so that's all the faith I have in it due to my bad understanding of it.

You won't find fossilized Jesus, he apparently got resurrected and became wine & cookies, so some people started eating him on Sundays. And he doesn't want us to say fuck, or shit, or do it in the butt. But that's not really related to the question.