Well, Grandizer, you think how in early 20th century "everybody" thought that Moses as a myth is preposterous. Even J. Ratzinger fired a historian on theological university for claiming Moses and other OT characters didn't exist.

I don't think it's right to compare Jesus to Robin Hood and such (but admittedly, I don't know much about the history surrounding Robin Hood's origins), but if as I suspect the the character Robin Hood was influenced by some vague remote "amalgamation" of characters or something like that, then it's not the right comparison to make

And Boru, Christians do care about the person of Jesus, as much as (if not more than) the "message". Christianity itself is generally revolved around the person (or rather their perception of him)

They think that those sciences have a long history of being riddled with inconsistencies and errors and major changes and hoaxes as well, and therefore should not be taken seriously.

FM, interesting how creationists have a similar attitude regarding the science of evolution and modern cosmology.

Doesn't matter if Christians have an inflated view of Jesus. If Jesus did nevertheless exist, and there are pieces of evidence and/or good reasons to suggest that, then that's a position to consider at least.

Of course it matters. Maybe not for you, Boru (or for Bel or Socrates), but some people do care about this stuff, whether for academic reasons or for the sake of having a precise historical viewpoint of some subject matter.

Most Christians base the majority of their beliefs and actions on what they think of as the 'message' of Jesus. While they may think he was a real person, that isn't really a significant factor in how they behave.

Imma side with Bel on this one. Does it really matter if Jesus was an historical figure? Does it matter if Robin Hood, King Arthur, or Cuchulainn were?

"Modern scholars have routinely reinvented Jesus or have routinely rediscovered in Jesus that which they want to find, be it rationalist, liberal Christianity of the 19th century, be it apocalyptic miracle workers in the 20th, be it revolutionaries, or be it whatever it is that they're looking for, scholars have been able to find in Jesus almost anything that they want to find.Even in our own age scholars are still doing this. People are still trying to figure out the authentic sayings of Jesus." Shaye Cohen, scholar of religion

Grandizer, better access to what works? There are many experts who study NT who concluded Jesus was just a myth.

In the Phaedrus, Socrates considers euhemerist explanations like these, and wisely decides to ignore them. He asks, not to what extent such ancient heroes were real, but to what extent we can be like them.

And this is why, with a couple exceptions, Jesus mythicism (in all its currently known forms) is seen as a joke within the relevant scholarly circles.

FM, it does not mean that Robin Hood really existed, but this also doesn't do well as an argument against the historical Jesus. Like I've said multiple times in threads, people who study the NT and the various other writings around that time not only have better access to these works than we do but also have a "second-nature" sort of awareness of the context in the back of their minds as they analyse these works, so they will generally be better equipped at answering the questions surrounding someone like Jesus than us layfolks here.

Robin of Loxley may have been a real person. But the stories may at best be legend material

Speculation is another word for Imagination.

But that’s all it is - speculation.

There’s a speculation that Thor was based on an unusually large, strong, red-haired Norwegian blacksmith.

No. It means Robin had an historical basis. It doesn’t necessarily mean we can know anything remotely factual about him.

If Robin Hood is based on some real historical people does that mean that Robin Hood really existed?