@clevecross

So..... prove he didn't. What do you want me to say here? A statement that attacks the central figure of a religion is an attack on the religion. Myself. I am not about organized religion, but I am religious and believe differently.
For example, you talk about eternity as a fucking bore..... you think of it literally. I imagine eternity as outside of time.... the concept of a day and week wouldn't exist as there is no linear progression. It's perspective... something can't exist that is outside of your acceptable boundaries of reality, and yet science also has stated time is able to be manipulated and is relative to passage in space.
You mockingly refute @stellabella with "unique amalgamation of nuclear waste floating on a dessolate rock in space as a carbon composite." and challenge it to be disputed. I am sure there's a point your trying to make, but you aren't passionate about anything, you are simply mad other people are.
It's pretty easy to attack people who believe in something you can't understand. Scientists who first talked about black holes being real things in the universe were met with the same ridicule.

I can't prove a negative. It is similar to saying "prove that unicorns don't exist". hence they could be real. This is not how the world works. The burden of proof is on you. Not me. In order to make the claim that he existed you need evidence.

As for the eternity part. I like how you like to imagine it - but - if time doesn't exist in eternity, then only stillness can exist - hence death.

I am not mocking @stellabelle . I stated a very factual epistemologically sound statement. I have evidence that I am just that. I can touch that evidence and put them under rigorous investigation. I can't do the same with Jesus. I can only see him on burn toasts from time to time - and i am not sure if its him or a hippy down the street

So help me get your point across. What are you exactly trying to say?