If allsmiles acknowledges someone he believes existed around the first century, we'll be able to see if he's consistent in his demand for evidence, or if his demands are much higher when it comes to Jesus. If he provides a name, next he will be asked why he believes that person existed. And whatever evidence he provides, we will be able to provide similar evidence regarding Jesus.
For instance, it sounded like allsmiles was tentatively pointing to Wikipedia to confirm the existence of someone:
Now, who is he talking about? I don't know. I thought he might be referring to
Caesar Augustus, but Wikipedia says his birthday was September 23, 63 BC. (There is a 23 in there; could allsmiles have misread it?)
Anyway, lets assume that allsmiles was talking about Augustus (or anyone for that matter) and cited a Wikipedia article as evidence that this person existed. At that point we simply look up
Wikipedia's article on Jesus and find:
Jesus (8–2 BC/BCE — 29–36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity. He is commonly referred to as Jesus Christ, where "Christ" is a Greek-derived title meaning "Anointed One" which corresponds to the Hebrew-derived "Messiah".
The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee (then part of Iudaea) who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion. As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.
To sum up, allsmiles doesn't want to affirm belief in the existence of anyone from 2000 years ago because if he knows that if he does, he'll be asked to substantiate that belief. And if he does that, we'll apply whatever standard for evidence he establishes to Jesus. At that point if he will be left with three options:
1) Accept that Jesus existed and renounce his belief that Jesus didn't exist.
2) Decide after-the-fact that the evidence he had cited for (historical figure X) was insufficient. (At that point he'll be right back where he is now, unable to affirm his belief in the existence of anyone who lived ~2000 years ago.)
3) Openly admit his double standard and stand by it.
4) Curl up in a fetal position and suck his thumb while whimpering for "mommy."
His pride won't likely allow for option 1. Plus he would then have a harder time dismissing the evidence that Jesus is God which is inseparable from the historical details about Christ's life, which is why the Jesus-as-myth concept is so appealing to him to begin with.
Options 2 through 3 would expose his bias beyond any doubt.
Option 4 would just make everyone uncomfortable. :granite:
