A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...

[TheMessiah]

Personally I have not heard a single argument that convinces me that HJ is likely. Everything I've heard, even from historians, is based on assumptions and motivations. If there's any actual argument you have, feel free to use a historians argument, then I'd be happy to hear it. But I don't care about Genghis Khan or the level of evidence for anyone else. I'm only interested in actual arguments and evidence for HJ, if you want to make that point. I didn't see anything I'm that thread you posted that was convincing.

There is not a single historical source by anyone that actually saw Hannibal. So Hannibal didn't exist? Or we raise the bar for the evidence of Jesus' existence higher than we do for other ancient figures, many of whom were much more prominent and important than some Jewish preacher from the back of nowhere?

I don't know what evidence you expect; but Hannibal and Arminius are historical figures whom have less evidence to their name yet are accepted to have existed. The lack of contemporary testimony for Jesus is not a basis for an argument about his existence or non-existence because we don't have contemporary evidence for most ancient figures.

Here's an example; the cruxification of Christ was referenced by once in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus. The negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians heavily suggests that the passage was very unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe.

It seems that what Historians expect as evidence for a Jewish preacher is not what a non-Historian expects as evidence.

I have cited literary sources. Please cite your argument.