Did Jesus exist?

[theVOID]

Of course there is a difference between "I do not believe in a god" - and - "I believe there are no gods". Both are legitimate descriptions and definitions of two different kinds of atheism.

No, two different statements about knowledge and/or reasons for non-belief. Atheism, from the Latin A Atheos (A = Without, Theos = Belief in God(s)) simply means "without belief in God(s)"

Whether one believes "There are no gods" (positive) or "there is no reason to believe in gods" (negative) is a matter of claimed knowledge, not a subset of Atheism it's self, and to be concisely labelled requires Gnostic or Agnostic to be attached to Atheism.

Subsequently, I am an Agnostic Atheist, I am "without belief in gods" but not because of knowledge that "there are no gods".

They may both entail a lack of belief, but one definition of atheism is fundamentally different from the other because it leads to a fundamentally different set of conceptual consequences.

They necessarily entail lack of belief. Other than that I agree.

The idea that all the conceptual consequences of one type of atheism can sweep up and obliterate the conceptual consequences of the other is a little bit dictatorial (for want of a better word). And one of the consequences of the position that there is no god is that the existence or not of Jesus is of little importance to the atheist. I am happy to discuss why.

If one believes "there are no gods" then the existence of Jesus is only important in a historical and sociological sense, but these things alone are significant enough to take interest, especially the latter.

Also, in this regard I really see little difference between Angostic and Gnostic Atheists, even an Agnostic Atheist has little interest in Jesus other than for Historical and sociological issues, the claims made about him will have no weight (rationally) until the existence of God is substantiated AND he is shown to exist. Considering him in any way other than an influential figure/myth is the only relevant criteria in either case.

The claiming of "gnostic" atheism has not yet been made compulsory; it remains, of course, voluntary .

I would argue that it's plainly irrational. Claiming knowledge of the non-existence of gods gains a burden of proof. While it is perfectly true that many concepts of God are self-refuting and/or incoherent to say that you have knowledge of the non-existence of all gods seems to suffer the Ignostic problem.