I'm aware that there are scholars who believe that Jesus did not exist, and I am aware of many of the arguments for this position. However, this is still a fringe view which in my opinion doesn't hold much water. As I understand it, this is also the scholarly consensus. I admit that a great deal of scholars dispute many of the facts about Jesus' life as recorded in the New Testament, but the assertion that there was no historic individual upon which the biblical account is based is tenuous in my opinion.
I only skimmed the article - perhaps I'll give it a more thorough read later. However, I am reluctant to give this writer my audience since he appears to me to be writing from a biased and rather sensationalist point of view. No one gains notoriety by confirming what is currently generally held to be true. Because I am not an expert on first-century history (nor will I ever be), I am inclined cognitively to accept what the majority of experts claim, just as I do with medicine, zoology, astronomy, and all other specialized fields of study where my own expertise is lacking.
As an aside, this is probably not the proper thread for this discussion. You are welcome to create a separate thread to continue the conversation.