Originally Posted by MrS
By your own admission, it's not 100% clear that he did exist. Hence, stop mentioning religious figures.
There are more first hand, second hand, and third hand accounts of Jesus than any contemporary figure of his time, including Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Alexander the Great, and every other figure in world history. If you're going to argue that Jesus should be disqualified because you're not 100% convinced of his historical existence, then you'd have to apply the same criteria to every other of his contemporaries, and figures for several centuries after. Further, when you begin to come up with arbitrary reasons for disqualifying historical figures, you end up discovering some unsettling facts about history, like how virtually everything we generally accept about Julius Caesar was shaped by Shakespeare over 1000 years later, or that the actual first or second hand accounts of Caesar are limited to a tiny handful of orators whose words were transcribed by anonymous people lost to history.
Consider also that Jesus, from a historical perspective, was a political leader who led a movement in the middle East. He doesn't have to be religious. Historians are in 100% agreement that Jesus -- a leader of Jews from roughly 2000 years ago -- existed. Any person who argues otherwise isn't motivated by something other than historical objectivity.