Evidence of belief in “Christus” (literally an unnamed anointed one) is not evidence of Jesus (a named, historical person). The Axial Middle East was crawling with prophets performing conjuring tricks like turning oil into wine, raising the dead and so forth, so an itinerant preacher who got himself executed is perfectly possible, and one of them may even have been behind the Christ cult. However, none of this is evidence for that person’s physical existence. The belief in Jesus is based (apart from faith) upon authors recounting alleged eye-witness accounts of his words and deeds, none of which were remarkable for the period given the popularity of prophethood, and which are comparable to the accounts of Socrates and his trial.

Might I point out, therefore, that the existence of Socrates is very far from historically demonstrated. Most people never stop to question it simply because he is always spoken of as a real person, but his existence could very easily be allegorical. Indeed, some branches of Christianity such as the Cathars have held Christ’s life to be allegorical. Unlike those who doubt Socrates, such branches have mostly been exterminated by now, and it is striking that such remnants as exist are to be found in the Middle East and not in Christian countries.

By the way, the appalling grammar and spelling in the article does not enhance its sense of solidity.