I had a couple of questions I woke up with this morning, and this post kind of inspired me to go ahead and pose them: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19335
For some time now, I've been in serious doubt whether or not Jesus was even a real person, and I certainly believe only a very precious little said about him in the bible is true, if anything at all. However...
A couple of presuppositions to my questions for the sake of argument: let's say the four gospels were in fact written by the authors they're alleged to have been, that is, four men living around the same time as one another, and during or shortly after Jesus' lifetime.
So firstly, I'm tempted to wonder how likely it is that four different men would have written in such a short span of time essentially the exact same story about the exact same person (I feel the discrepancies between their accounts are in relatively minor details, regardless of how important they may have become doctrinally). I think a fairly reasonable explanation for this is that there was actually a real person--who I imagine to have been no more than a philosopher, grass-roots politician, and a maybe a slight-of-hand style magician--on whom they based their stories. Otherwise, I can't see how they could have come to such a coherent consensus in their new interpretation of the various existing myths.
Secondly, it's often said that there is no independent historical account of there being a real live person named Jesus, except for one: the bible. But this isn't exactly true. In fact, there are four independent accounts: the gospels. Now, I'll be happy to concede that these authors were not historians who wrote about events other than Jesus, which would certainly give them more credibility. But the argument I'm making is that if one were to take every personal account of George Washington ever written, and compile them all together into one anthology, the "Washington Bible" if you like, I fail to see how that's a valid reason to believe George Washington never existed.