There are good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence: "There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus," says Raphael Lataster, lecturer in religious studies. "All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased."
Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
If Christ did exist, no accounts of his life were written while he was still alive. The earliest Gospels date from maybe 70 A.D., 40 years after Christ's demise. Imagine someone trying to write a book about your life four decades after your death (with no Internet). While some scholars think the four canonical Gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability, others say that little in the Gospels can be considered historically reliable.
Whether or not you believe he was divine, the majority of historians concur that Jesus was a real person who walked the earth. There are dissenters, but they are in the minority.
@kingofgeese@VICE most historians and scholars agree Jesus existed, u dont have to follow him but u should respect historians at least.