Some folks have a skewed view of how proof works. It goes like this:

When you make the claim, you have the burden of proof.

Hence, the claim that Jesus Christ was historical must be proven. You don't ask the con side to prove it because one does not prove the negative. This prevents the pro side from invalidly trying to turn the tables to "prove he didn't." That is not where the burden of proof lies so no one has to prove he didn't.

Nor can you try to prove your claim by saying, "You can't prove anyone existed. Prove Lincoln existed." Okay, I will. We have his photos, we have his words, his handwriting, many accounts by those who knew him. His eldest son, Robert, lived well into the 20th century. If we had any such proof as this with Jesus Christ, we'd have no reason to question his historicity. The burden of proof really doesn't lie on the person claiming Lincoln existed but on the one who claims he didn't. We won't find any photos of Christ, of course, but we should at least have a plethora of accounts contemporary with Jesus Christ had he actually existed. We have nothing. Even the spurious Josephus quote and the misinterpreted Tacitus quote were not contemporary to Jesus Christ.

Even so, compelling evidence has been brought forth that presents a very strong case that Jesus Christ was not historical and even this has yet to be satifactorily rebutted.

You have to prove Jesus Christ was historical and if you fail, then your case is considered wrong or false until you can prove it. None of this "he's real to those that believe." That's as silly as saying the tooth fairy is real to those who believe. So what? Doesn't make them right. It does make them gullible though.