If we have to throw in every notable from antiquity, don't forget, they are not supposed Christs, performing miracles. They are not charged with saving humanity's soul, mostly.
Wasn't Alexander divinised at some point? If not him, all the pharaohs, and a great deal of Roman emperors were considered gods and made miracles. Does that "divinisation" mean they never existed, as human beings?
Alexander, or somebody like him, existed. I am sure evidence of his campaigns and the land he ruled has been verified in both the field and documents.
Many documents speak of Jesus too, but since they are written by Christians, they can't be trusted, right? So to prove the historicity of Alexander, by the same standard, you'd have to find a mention of him DURING HIS OWN LIFE and written by an Indian or Persian source.
And if and when you find that, I will then retort, like Thomas retorted to me upthread: "While you can technically count this as Alexander being mentioned by a non-Greek, it does nothing to support the conjecture that Alexander did, in fact, exist..."
In other words, you guys are applying a totally unfair standard to the person of Jesus. If we had to apply the same standard of historical existence --or lack of standard, since you haven't yet dared
to answer my question about what standard to use-- to other antiquity dudes, not many of them would be considered historical.
Doubting the existence of Jesus is funnier than Alexander's... I grant you that. It gets the Bible thumpers all angry and that's probably why it's done so often. But historically, it has the same merit than doubting Alexander's existence.