>>There is no proof in either camp. Proof as in evidence that would stand up in court. Using the court analogy there is plenty of 'expert witness' testimony but that asks for a supposition. Whether that type of evidence would be enough to convict or aquit the defendants of existing is another matter!<<

But in a court of law only one side is required to prove something. One side must prove guilt, for example. The other side does not have to prove innocence. If guilt is not proven, innocence is presumed.

Likewise, the historicity of Jesus Christ must be proven. Those who question it are not required to prove non-historicity. If the side that favors historicity fails to prove their case, non-historicity is likewise presumed.

And like the defense, the non-historists have a right to defend against statements made by the prosecution or the historists, in this case. You may offer evidence but they have the right to rebut it. If they fail to do so, you win. So far, two primary pieces have been offered and both rebutted convincingly.

That's pretty much where it stands as of now and has stood for some time.