Did Jesus exist?

there are a lot of historical inaccuracies written about him in the Bible considered as holy facts by the faithful, like the slaughter of the first born male babies ordered by Herod, that just ain’t so. Anything that egregious and ordered by a king would have certainly been recorded elsewhere.

Watch this documentary when you get a chance. The theory discussed in it has been around a long time, but has generally been kept to the back of biblical scholarship. It makes plausible sense if we keep in mind people then are little different than people now. 

Which is a Hollywood depiction based in part on the religious visions of an 18th century nun.  

However look at the nature of the event. If indeed Herod was slaughtering Jewish babies, other Jews living at the time would have mentioned it, don’t you think?

I have no idea why you responded to me with this. Again, as I've said several times now "I don't think the "Massacre" thing is historical at all." I don't think it happened. I've simply noted that the argument that "we should find lots of references to it in sources from the time but we don't so it didn't happen" is not a strong argument because we don't have any "sources from the time". We can't find it mentioned in sources we don't have.

You've mentioned other later sources which don't mention it. The fact it's only mentioned in gMatt and no other canonical gospel is actually a much stronger argument, though only to an extent. It's a story from the "infancy narratives" about the birth of Jesus and only one other canonical gospel has one of those - gLuke. This is just one of many elements found in the gMatt infancy narrative but not found in gLuke. That's because the infancy narratives in both gospels have almost no overlap. Both seem to be largely theological constructions designed to highlight who and what Jesus was and critical scholars don't take anything much in them as being likely to be historical as a result. The "Massacre" story, therefore, seems to be saying "Jesus was almost killed as a baby by a wicked ruler, just like Moses" and so is presenting him as a new Moses. It's quite likely even the writer of gMatt didn't expect his readers to take the story as something that actually happened. This is why most critical scholars think the story is just a construction, not a record of an actual event.

As for why the story isn't the Pauline material, you've answered that yourself - Paul was writing letters about issues in various Jesus sect communities, not writing a biography of Jesus. You're also not correct in stating the story isn't found in any of the non-canonical gospels. it actually features prominently in the Gospel of James and in the Gospel of Pseudo Matthew. But like all those later non-canonical gospels, these are not much use regarding anything historical about Jesus.

From Wikipedia: 

Byzantine liturgy estimated 14,000 Holy Innocents, while an early Syrian list of saints put the number at 64,000. Coptic sources raised this to 144,000 and placed the event on 29 December.[13] The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907–12) suggested that probably only between six and twenty children were killed in the town, with a dozen or so more in the surrounding areas. 

So, who knows the number which according to three Christian sources between 6 and 144,000. I stand at zero number of children slaughtered. 

Now prove it this event happened beyond what one unknown person wrote down 2,000 years ago. If you want to have faith this massacre happened, go right ahead, but don’t expect it to be accepted as an historical fact. Or rather demand under pain if death it be declared a fact, because your church has a bad history of murdering people with differing opinions much less differing facts. 

Then also consider this story framed to harken the Passover deaths and the blood of a lamb as the antidote against the angel of death was marketing copy written to sell one particular church over another.

There were two big churches in competition at the time: Paul’s, in the wider Greco-Roman world, and the family of Jesus church in Jerusalem. The fights between them are documented in the NT itself.

Once the Jerusalem church was destroyed, along the rest of the Jews in the city, Paul’s church had the advantage.  

The one thing we should remember is folks in 1st century Rome Empire are little different than people today. They were not above lying to get at what they thought was the greater good just like they aren’t now.  

Translation: "I made a sneering criticism that I can't back up. I thought I'd get away with it when I thought I was sneering behind your back, so now I have to just pretend my criticism was valid in the hope that no-one notices that it was totally baseless. Time to run away."