Nobody is taking any trees down. I do not understand where you get that idea. It is different to correct bad information, then take trees down.
Also hardly any serious researcher can claim Jesus as a fictional figure. From historical sources it seems clear that about 2000 years ago there was a man named Jesus. There are several texts that support this notion. Their authors are known, and not all writings are related to the Bible.
The denial of Jesus' history is often justified by the contradiction of the canonical gospels. However, the inconsistency and incompleteness of historical evidence does not necessarily mean that the underlying event is not true. For example, Alexander the Great's two complete biographies, written by Arrianos and Plutarch, were written more than four hundred years after Alexander's death, and yet these writings are considered reliable. On the other hand, no one has questioned Alexander's existence as he was left with physical evidence such as coins.
It is probable that Alexander the Great is dead. Causes of death include malaria, poisoning, pancreatitis, or brain fever. Behind the poisoning theory is, for example, Curtius' claim that Cassandros, the son of Antipatros, had brought poison from Europe, and that the king was poisoned by Alexander's drink-dispenser. However, other historians like Arrianos claim that Alexander was not poisoned. Although the information about Alexander the Great's death is different, he may still be dead. Similarly, there are two completely different versions of Hannibal's Alpine Crossing, but still no one has questioned the historical nature of the event itself.
Although the reliability of canonical gospels is questionable to some degree, it is difficult to explain the birth of the Jesus tradition they contain without assuming the true person behind the tradition.
I recommend that you read those other discussions so you get the idea, what is going on with "cleaning up" these old lines. Cleaning up errors, not tearing trees down.
