Well what do you mean by Jesus? It's kind of like the debate about whether or not Jesus was real. Lets say there was a person that Jesus was based on. However that person didn't walk on water, didn't rise from the dead, didn't do all the supernatural things that are accredited to Jesus. This is the Jesus that Bart Erhman and many Atheists, Agnostics and other secularists think existed. Is it really fair to even say that person was Jesus? They share so few characteristics with the supernatural God/Man of the bible that even if such person existed it's impossible to call that they were the same person described in the bible. That's why the debate about whether or not Jesus existed is irrelevant.
I think all the same can be said about your hypothetical schizophrenic Jesus (which is a sketchy diagnosis even today, much less to give to someone that we have no primary sources about.) If such a person existed (and I don't think you've sufficiently made the case) then they don't resemble the character represented in the bible enough to be called Jesus.
I think all the same can be said about your hypothetical schizophrenic Jesus (which is a sketchy diagnosis even today, much less to give to someone that we have no primary sources about.) If such a person existed (and I don't think you've sufficiently made the case) then they don't resemble the character represented in the bible enough to be called Jesus.
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)