ZeitGeist

One small correction: The origins of Crucifixtion are not that well known. Crucifixion was definitely used by the Greeks, there are reports of Pirates being crucified in Athens. Some people claim the Egyptians used a method of execution similar to crucifixion using trees. The Quran contains references to Pharaoh crucifying people.

We'd look for consistent, plausible accounts. We'd look for multiple records of existence from the time. We'd look for events ascribed to him being corroborated by other sources. There are none of these things. Where do Christians get this crap? The historical evidence for Jesus is scanty at best. You've got four gospels, most of which are partially derived from each other, or a fourth source and all of which were written decades after the event - a timescale plenty long enough to allow mythology to develop. That's it. There's more justification for the existence of King Arthur and Robin Hood. Because the claims made about Jesus are extraordinary, and thus require extraordinary evidence.

King Arthur? Merlin? Hell, any of the Arthurian Knights? Robin Hood? John Frum?The other point is where you decide to draw the line, at which point of there being differences between the idea of Jesus and the facts do you go "actually these people are so different that it isn't worth describing them as the same person"? If it turns out that Jesus didn't say the things that are ascribed to him, wasn't called Jesus and didn't do the things ascribed to him, was there really a Jesus? I consider Christianity evidence for Paul, not Jesus.

I've created a new topic for this here, rather than derail this thread. I'd be interested to know what support you have for this, as I understood he was entirely fictional.