Ask a atheist.

[dyresand]

There has been hundreds and possibly thousands of jesus like figures that were noted down in mythology your god boy being one of them.
god boy isn't special you guys made him special using special pleading.

Atheist Tim O'Neill writes:

"[There are] masses of evidence that the first followers of the Jesus sect were devout Jews—a group for whom the idea of adopting anything "pagan" would have been utterly horrific.  These were people who cut their hair short because long hair was associated with pagan, Hellenistic culture or who shunned gymnasia and theaters because of their association with pagan culture.  All the evidence actually shows that the earliest Jesus sect went through a tumultuous period in its first years trying to accommodate non-Jews into their devoutly Jewish group.  To claim that these people would merrily adopt myths of Horus and Attis and Dionysius and then amalgamate them into a story about a pagan/Jewish hybrid Messiah (who didn't exist) and then turn around and forget he didn't exist and claim he did and that he did so just a few decades earlier is clearly a nonsense hypothesis."

For one if jesus had existed a historical one there would have been more evidence

O'Neill disagrees:

"Our sources for anyone in the ancient world are scarce and rarely are they contemporaneous—they are usually written decades or even centuries after the fact.  Worse still, the more obscure and humble in origin the person is, the less likely that there will be any documentation about them or even a fleeting reference to them at all.

"For example, few people in the ancient world were as prominent, influential, significant and famous as the Carthaginian general Hannibal.  He came close to crushing the Roman Republic, was one of the greatest generals of all time and was famed throughout the ancient world for centuries after his death down to today.  Yet how many contemporary mentions of Hannibal do we have?  Zero.  We have none.  So if someone as famous and significant as Hannibal has no surviving contemporary references to him in our sources, does it really make sense to base an argument about the existence or non-existence of a Galilean peasant preacher on the lack of contemporary references to him?  Clearly it does not.

"So while this seems like a good argument, a better knowledge of the ancient world and the nature of our evidence and sources shows that it's actually extremely weak."

and the face being he would have died a heretic.

Um...that IS why the Jews killed him...for blasphemy.

Matthew 26:63-66
63 But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy.[m] 66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.”

The fact being there is no evidence outside of the bible to actually proved that someone name jesus or jeshua to have existed.

O'Neill shows your error:

If we are simply noting the existence of Jesus as a human Jewish preacher, we are not required to produce more mentions of him than we would expect of comparable figures.  And what we find is that we have about as much evidence for his existence (outside any Christian writings) as we have for other Jewish preachers, prophets, and Messianic claimants of the time.  The two non-Christian writers who mention him as a historical person are Josephus and Tacitus.

The other thing mary and a virgin birth could never happen.

An all-powerful God can do anything that is not a logical contradiction. If He can make the universe out of nothing, he can make a male sperm and place it in the womb of a virgin.

The other things being you would have to explain i mean really explain how magic
works because that is basis of the bible magic. You really have to prove that before you can prove a god, jesus, or even events in the bible happened. Also not to 
mention history already disproves the things happening so pretty much you gotta throw those passages away.  

You haven't addressed my question. Here it is again:

Why do you, dyresand, say that Jesus never existed when noted scholars such as Bart Ehrman and historian Tim O'Neill, who are also atheists, have explained how we can know that he did exist?

Thanks.

Tim O'Neill has been debunked already

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/...-show.html

Take it with a grain no a bottle of salt that the bible is just all metaphor and not something to take literal. You believe in god fine you believe in god because
a religion gives you a specific version with not historical evidence no fine.