Alright, so literally two thousand years of extensive documentation and studies from a historical standpoint are absolutely worthless because we don't have DNA evidence of Jesus' existence.

The guy was real. He wasn't a prophet, he wasn't divine, he was a cult leader in Rome who had a major influence on people in a specific time frame within less than a hundred years of his suspected birth. Just because the bible over-exaggerates it doesn't mean you have to leap to the opposite side of the spectrum and discount something that hundreds of people have spent their lives studying and are FAR more knowledgeable about than either you or I. By dismissing such a large body of work, you're betraying your own confirmation bias. There is a massive amount of evidence out there, but because it doesn't match your specific criteria of being "scientific," it's worthless. What the fuck do you mean by that anyways? Most scientists who have any interest in the subject, including multiple noted atheists, would probably tell you that you're being a jackass by completely discounting the works of historians as being mere speculation.

Rational minds can extrapolate from the historical evidence we already have and make an educated assumption that Jesus was a real person. Is it 100% accurate? No, but it's the best thing we have.

Being a belligerent skeptic in this instance doesn't make you seem intelligent, it just makes you look like a drooling contrarian who opposes popular viewpoints just to seem smart or edgy. I have read extensively on this subject and taken multiple courses taught by professionals in this field.

A man named Jesus was born somewhere in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans around 30 years later. You aren't being clever by debating that, you're just betraying your ignorance.

Stay in school and take some antiquities classes. Listen to your professors. They are smarter than you.