There is, however, a big problem.
There is no "direct" historical evidence for the existence of a "Jesus."
All of the earliest historians who mention a "Jesus" or "Christians," lived at least 50 or 60 years
after the supposed/alleged death of Jesus and refer to him indirectly (they have heard stories about
him but do not have real or hard proof or evidence about his life).
For instance, there was a historian named Josephus, and he writes briefly about the
existence of a group called Christians. He wrote about Christians well after Jesus supposedly
died. Indeed, Josephus was born around 40AD - he was born after Jesus supposedly died.
So he mentions that he has heard of a group that called itself "Christians."
There was also, however, a religious group called the Mithraists - they worshipped Mithras.
Mithras never existed. He was a myth. That religion was based on a mythological figure.
Just because a group exists doesn't necessarily mean a guy existed.
Even the "Gospels" - the stories about Jesus - were written about 100 years after he supposedly died.
So there is no direct evidence that a "Jesus" existed. There is only "hearsay" evidence (i.e. "Well I heard a guy existed who rose from the dead...someone once told me that...)
But. who knows. Maybe the hearsay is based on something that really happened.
Here's a good little web page that provides most of the arguments against a historical
Happy Easter -