But you’ve just illustrated one of the key similarities between young-earth creationism and Jesus mythicism. Both think that simply by showing that an alternative scenario is possible, they have refuted mainstream scholarship. But no historian will deny that the existence of Jesus, like everything else in history, cannot be determined with absolute certainty. The question is what is more likely, and when placed in those terms, there can be no serious doubt that some sort of historical figure of Jesus (however obscured by myth) and some form of biological evolution have the weight of evidence and theory in their favor. The biggest challenge for mythicism is that it has yet to find a proponent who offers not only challenges to specific arguments by mainstream historians, but presents a scenario for the creation of a purely mythical Jesus as well as the New Testament Gospels and other writings, a scenario that is not only possible but more persuasive than ones involving an actual Jesus.
You can find more of what is raging on the biblioblogosphere regarding the inability of some to believe that a historical Jesus actually existed. Thanks to Mike Koke for assembling the list:
Who in their right mind would not believe that a historical Jewish rabbi existed in 1st century Palestine, by the name of Yeshua, who was crucified. The faith part comes in at the resurrection, of course, but there is plenty of history which clearly denotes a living person of that name, who was killed for his message.
I believe the question is still being asked –
“But, who do you say that I am?”
When all of this is settled, that question needs to still be answered.