Objective evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ?

[Minimalist]

I should have mentioned that I think that Nestor is absolutely correct, that one should view the existence of Jesus exactly as one views the existence of other ancient people.

Then you need to delete the standard of "objective" from the OP and admit that you are willing to accept the subjective bullshit of believers in its place.

I am not.

[Cephus]

The Argument from Authority is a fallacy for a reason.

Eh, not quite. It's not a fallacy to say, "I am justified in believing X about Jesus because 99% of experts  in the relevant field also believe X about Jesus." You're probably thinking about the fallacy known as Appeal to Unqualified Authority, which would be more like, "I am justified in believing X about Jesus because 70% of marine biologists also believe X about Jesus," a fallacy I have not committed.

You are simply declaring them experts, but intellectual expertise is not gained by having some letters after your name, but because you actually follow credible methods and acknowledge the evidence that actually exists.  Scientists don't make science.  It's science that makes scientists.  Scientists are only scientists so long as they are doing science.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

The Argument from Authority is a fallacy for a reason.

Eh, not quite. It's not a fallacy to say, "I am justified in believing X about Jesus because 99% of experts  in the relevant field also believe X about Jesus." You're probably thinking about the fallacy known as Appeal to Unqualified Authority, which would be more like, "I am justified in believing X about Jesus because 70% of marine biologists also believe X about Jesus," a fallacy I have not committed.

Actually, it really is a fallacy to say, "X is true because I'm the expert and I say so; now shut up and stop asking questions." It's also a fallacy to say, "X is true because smart guy says so." even if said "smart guy" is an expert in the appropriate field.

What's not a fallacy is "X is true and here's the evidence to prove it." 

Even experts are required to provide evidence. 

I don't believe in evolution because Richard Dawkins says so, even though Richard Dawkins is an expert in the field of biology. I accept evolution because of the evidence support it. If you challenged Richard Dawkins to prove evolution, his argument wouldn't rely simply on "scholarly consensus". He would use the knowledge he has to produce enough evidence to crush any doubts. 

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to stay in character. It's been a very long day at work.

[Pyrrho]

I should have mentioned that I think that Nestor is absolutely correct, that one should view the existence of Jesus exactly as one views the existence of other ancient people.

Then you need to delete the standard of "objective" from the OP and admit that you are willing to accept the subjective bullshit of believers in its place.

I am not.

I am saying that the exact same standards of evidence apply, whether we are discussing Jesus, Homer, or any other ancient person.  Typically, all one has in these sorts of cases is testimony of other people.  If you dismiss all testimony as irrelevant, you will have trouble establishing the existence of anyone from 2000 years ago or earlier.  Somehow, though, I think you will agree that some people existed at that time...

My guess is that you have not been paying attention to my posts in this thread, or you would have observed me saying that I do not believe Jesus ever existed.

[Mudhammam]

You are simply declaring them experts, but intellectual expertise is not gained by having some letters after your name, but because you actually follow credible methods and acknowledge the evidence that actually exists.  Scientists don't make science.  It's science that makes scientists.  Scientists are only scientists so long as they are doing science.

Oh the irony. No, I'm not "simply declaring them experts." I'm saying there is a credible method and evidence that actually exists, and you're failing to follow it by alleging some form of conspiracy that literally only about six people out of thousands who have devoted hundreds of hours applying their methods and scouring the evidence take seriously. I wouldn't be if surprised Intelligent Design is more represented in the scientific community. Make of that what you will, it doesn't really bother me. It gives me pause though it's not entirely surprising given that, as a non-expert, the mythicist theories I've looked at seem incredibly far-fetched and unsupported.

[watchamadoodle]

What would be a useful definition of a historical Jesus Christ?

How about these two qualifications?
(1) Early leader of the proto-Christians that were later based in Jerusalem (Ebionites/Nazarenes)
(2) Crucified under Pontius Pilate

[Mudhammam]

Eh, not quite. It's not a fallacy to say, "I am justified in believing X about Jesus because 99% of experts  in the relevant field also believe X about Jesus." You're probably thinking about the fallacy known as Appeal to Unqualified Authority, which would be more like, "I am justified in believing X about Jesus because 70% of marine biologists also believe X about Jesus," a fallacy I have not committed.

Actually, it really is a fallacy to say, "X is true because I'm the expert and I say so; now shut up and stop asking questions." It's also a fallacy to say, "X is true because smart guy says so." even if said "smart guy" is an expert in the appropriate field.

What's not a fallacy is "X is true and here's the evidence to prove it." 

Even experts are required to provide evidence. 

I don't believe in evolution because Richard Dawkins says so, even though Richard Dawkins is an expert in the field of biology. I accept evolution because of the evidence support it. If you challenged Richard Dawkins to prove evolution, his argument wouldn't rely simply on "scholarly consensus". He would use the knowledge he has to produce enough evidence to crush any doubts. 

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to stay in character. It's been a very long day at work.

It is fallacious to dismiss evidence presented on the basis of appeal to authority. To accept the evidence under discussion as credible on the basis of analysis done by experts is not.

[Cephus]

Then you need to delete the standard of "objective" from the OP and admit that you are willing to accept the subjective bullshit of believers in its place.

I am not.

I am saying that the exact same standards of evidence apply, whether we are discussing Jesus, Homer, or any other ancient person.  Typically, all one has in these sorts of cases is testimony of other people.  If you dismiss all testimony as irrelevant, you will have trouble establishing the existence of anyone from 2000 years ago or earlier.  Somehow, though, I think you will agree that some people existed at that time...

My guess is that you have not been paying attention to my posts in this thread, or you would have observed me saying that I do not believe Jesus ever existed.

That's really one of the points I've been trying to make.  The word of someone who actually witnessed an event is going to be much more valid and valuable than claims made by someone who wasn't there and has no means of actually knowing what happened.  In the case of Jesus, we have no contemporary eyewitnesses, absolutely nobody actually saw Jesus or heard what he had to supposedly say.  At best, these are second or third hand sources.  Why should we accept that they actually knew anything about what they were saying, just because there are so many people with a vested emotional interest in believing Jesus was real?

[DeistPaladin]

I think we may not be understanding one another.

It is a fallacy to accept something is true purely because an expert says so. Even experts are required to produce evidence. I'm not talking about dismissing evidence presented by experts. It's only a fallacy if we must accept their opinion simply on their say-so. 

Here's why The Historical Jesus discussions invokes the fallacy:
"What was the real story behind Jesus?"
"You know, all the scholars say Jesus existed."
"Really, what evidence convinces the scholars that Jesus existed?"
"Are you saying all the scholars are wrong?"
"No, I'm just asking what evidence convinces them that Jesus existed."
"Well, all the scholars say Jesus existed."
"So I've heard but what evidence convinces them."
"Look, if all the scholars say Jesus existed, that should be good enough for you."
"Um, well call me curious. Just show me the evidence."
"Did I mention all the scholars say Jesus existed?"
"Yeah, a couple times now. Can I please see the evidence?"
***A dozen exchanges later***
"OK, here's the evidence." (Josephus, Tacitus, The Bible)
"That's it?"
"It's enough for all the scholars."
"That's hardly convincing."
"You know, all the scholars don't agree with you."

I call it the "Scholars Say Shuffle".

[Mudhammam]

When you look at what constitutes our historical understanding of other figures based on written testimony, Josephus, Tacitus and dozens of various Christian works, all within 100 years of the supposed events, some within 20 years, it doesn't look that bad to me.