Why do certain theists deflect questions regarding the historical accuracy of Jesus by questioning the existence of other historical figures?

There is no historical accuracy of Jesus. The alleged consensus comes from Biblical scholars who are theists. That's like believing a tobacco manufacturer who told you smoking cigarettes was good for your health. There is no true historical evidence for the existence of the bibilical Jesus. There is no evidence for the existence of Socrates. That does not invalidate the philosphy ascribed to Socrates. The theists seem to be in fear of admitting that belief in the Christ needs only be that. The seven verified Pauline epistles all talk about a Jesus of revelation. Not once do they make any reference to a real person. It is surprising that the theists need to place all their bets on the character in the fiction of the gospels and do not have a Pauline beleif.

Historical Accuracy Of Jesus

No offense, but I think you are missing the point, then. I might I simply suggest that the fact that you have been told this, but can't come up with an actual example.. is perhaps evidence, that you didn't actually take enough time to read and understand the points they were attempting to make? Perhaps you were too busy seeing it as an "us verses them" partisan type situation and brushed off their answer.

The point they are attempting to make, is to show that we accept certain Historical persons with FAR less evidence. THEREFORE, it would be inconsistent to apply 2 different sets of criteria to decide the Historicity of an individual.

Many non-Theists like to quote Carl Sagan's famous quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - and often times our emotions tell us the same.

HOWEVER, academia doesn't apply different criteria depending upon the claim. - What I mean is that Historians or Scientists don't require EXTRA evidence to accept something, simply because it seem extraordinary. Regular, old, standard evidence is all that is required.

So this idea or emotional response that SIMPLY because Jesus is a religious figure OR that he claimed to be God - somehow requires EXTRA evidence, beyond what is required to establish that normal existence -- is a FALSE idea.

In other words, it is emotional, not rational.

When it comes to Philosophy or "Logic" -- things are EITHER true or not true. The amount of evidence remains the same, regardless of who is making the claim, or what the claim is.

Make sense?

So if you accept that a certain battle took place or a certain person existed -- and we only have 1 account of it. Then you SHOULD accept that Jesus existed, because we have multiple accounts.

So if you accept that a certain event occurred in history, even though the only record is from 100 yrs. later - then you SHOULD accept that Jesus existed, even if some of the accounts were recorded 30 or 60yrs. later.

THAT is their point.

Make sense?

It seems that when considering the testimony of both enemies of Christians and friends of the past, plus the fact that for nearly two thousand years people have rather than denying their faith in Christ chosen death at the hands of those persecuting Christians - that those who deny the person's existence must be lacking normal reasoning powers.

If in a court of law, that many people witnesses to e.g. that the person being prosecuted was so and so, that the court would have to accept it being so and so.

Again, we see how a great many atheists who jump on this bandwagon simply follow the example of the three monkeys.

We have the writings of early Christians; there is even testimony from their most bitter enemies at the time, the Jews, who complained that the Christian writings were hard to destroy because these contained the holy name of God - thus, indirectly bearing witness to the existence of this very early church's activity in Israel at such extremely early times.

And, all that atheists has to assert is that all these witnesses for and against Christians at the time - cannot be believed. Total lunacy.

While you may not accept the powers attributed the man Jesus, your rejection of his very existence - is just not kosher, and it is stupid.

I question the existence of all "historical" figures which don't have proper historical evidence to support them.

That includes Jesus, King Arthur, Robin Hood and Heracles. There might have been historical prototypes but we don't know anything about them, only myths and legends told decades and centuries after their death (if existed).

Theists generally don't question the existence of other historical figures. What they often do is apply the same criteria misotheists try to apply when arguing against the existence of Jesus as a means of demonstrating the criteria is flawed. This is accomplished by showing were the same criteria applied equally to other historical figures of the same era most of those other historical figures would fail to fulfill that criteria.

Well, I don't know about others. All I know is that the evidence of Jesus is so overwhelming that it is no longer up for debate. It was only recently that people have questioned this because they are grasping at straws. There is no doubt, but people long to disbelieve in Jesus so they can live as they wish without guilt. Sadly, though, that will not change their future of standing before God and being judged for their actions.

It's not a deflection. Atheists typically accept the existence of historical figures with far, far less evidence than Jesus. So bringing up that fact is relevant to the question.

And points 2 & 3 are irrelevant. Whether or not Jesus' teachings are true is a completely separate issue from whether or not He existed.

And no matter how much you whine about it, the vast majority of historians accept that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

"There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

You want an "even playing field", but then you refuse to give that to Jesus when talking about His historical existence.

Update 2: Even if that were true, that STILL means Jesus existed. Even if they don't know which one, there was one that still existed.

Update 3: "most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic" Interesting how you conveniently left that phrase off your quote. There you go again, denying that even playing field you claim you want.

Updates 4-6: See, I actually gave the reference for what I said, and that wiki article has all the references for what is said there. Without references, all you're giving is baseless claims. Find me a reliable source that says most historians reject that Jesus actually existed. Until then, all it looks like is you're just whining and desperate because the experts disagree with your position.

Update 7: And now you start lying. The article states the historicity of Jesus is accepted by "HISTORIANS". But you try to change it to just "Biblical scholars". Typical skeptic tactic - can't refute? just lie! Good job.

You're the one who isn't reading. It only specifies "Biblical" scholars as who is debating the actual beliefs and teachings of Jesus, NOT as the ones who accept the historicity of Jesus. When it's about the actual historicity of Jesus, it's always just "scholars" and "historians" with NO "Biblical" qualifier.

Update 11: "classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted" Have a nice day.

More dishonesty. Ehrman is a secular agnostic. You're attempting to paint these people as Christians who are biased to prove Christ. The fact that Ehrman is a secular agnostic proves you are being nonsensical and dishonest. You just CAN'T provide an HONEST position here, can you.

Wow, you're just utterly full of crap. You claimed, "I am absolutely shocked that biblical scholars would reach a consensus that a biblical Jesus existed. Not like they would be biased or anything." - That is a CLEAR accusation that the scholars are all Christians who need to validate their faith. Ehrman is a secular agnostic. Your blatant attempt to lie about who these scholars are makes it clear you have no interest in an honest discussion. Have a nice day.

Deflecting the question is a common tactic to avoid answering. Notice how frequently the good Christians Republican candidates do it. Fiorina and Bush are becoming quite adept at it.

Additionally, there aren't a plethora of myths that Socrates was born out of, but I guess that is irrelevant.

Not a deflection, usually an honest comparison.