People in bible never existed according to head of Theology at a university in UK!

[The Grand Nudger]

Did you know there are no primary sources on Ghenghis Khan? Lots of established ancient figures have no primary sources and no more documentation then Jesus. The ancient world, everyone was illiterate and the oral tradition was king.

If only "jesus" left a trail of broken potentates and empires behind him bemoaning his victories, eh?  

I don't really have a bone in the fight, except as a historian. I think if you looked at the evidence for a lot of ancient people, you'd find it relies on I'm not much and is riddled with supernatural stuff.

Much of history is riddled with the supernatural stuff, sure, but so what?  That's the mythical shit, and we're discussing whatever historical nugget can be derived from a hypothetically legendary account from some given story.  So, about that..do I believe that alexander-the-man actually cut some gordian knot?  Nope.  No more than I believe a child was born on a particularly starry night in bethlehem then raised in nazereth.  

I know people like to bring up the dna when I mention this about ghenghis khan, but does that mean it was rational to disbelieve in him before the 1990s? I'd say he's no more well established then Jesus really and he had way way WAY more impact on the world at the time.

Pick some other historical figures from the 1st century A.D. and look into what their documentation is.

Also, by your standard,  none of those people existed, you just get the none miracle version of them presented to you by historians who have done a lot of work to try to sort out the truth.

What is my standard supposed to be, for clarity?  By what standard do -you- believe that jesus is better or as well established as any of the three personages you mentioned?  This is a common claim from apologists, but not from historians..who demolish these with regularity.  You can find the first two examples directly addressed at length by a mound of reputable sources with a simple google search.  The third..I think, of Geronimo..is beyond the pale even for apologist asshats. The apache wars aren't exactly an issue of contention regarding historicity.....even in the slightest. I don't think it's ever occurred to them to challenge geronimo specifically, but who knows..maybe some day that'll be the new it thing.

Because Jesus is a religious figure, you get a miracle version presented to you commonly. But since I assume you don't believe in miracles, like me, who care. I automatically filter that part out.

Christ is a religious figure.  Jesus is just a hypothetical historical man.  The religious have no actual use for any jesus(and never did). OFC we get the no miracles version... were' comparing jesus the man with alexander/ghenghis/geronimo-the-men here.  We're not done whittling just because we've filtered out the miracles.  The legend then needs to be addressed.  Things taken to be or considered to be historical by some people at some time (even now) - but often exaggerated or fabricated for effect.  You can remove not just the miracles..but the legends of each of those men and still be left with an identiafiable man.  Not so in the case of jesus...as we can't assume a single portion of the now legendary redaction (whatever you have in mind) of the gospels any more than we could assume the particulars of the potentially legendary accounts of the exploits of any of those three men. None of them did everything attributed to them..but did -anyone- do the things you would attribute to jesus, and how do you know this to be the case?

As you breifly mentioned above...the impact of some of these men explain legendary stories about them. You would not need to have heard the stories to know who you were looking for. Conquerors, even ancient ones...leave physical evidence. There are pictures of Geronimo, and and entire campaign against him. It's an unfair comparison for jesus, I think, but it's impossible not to make it when the scorched earth assertion of history gets brought up.