“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.

You see, the real problem with religion is that it SCREWS people's minds. And makes them believe out of necessity, not reality. It can be pretty mind-distorting, and even make people believe that Noah, or even Jesus Christ, actually existed.  

Sprint,

No doubt there was some kind of figure which later historians referred to. I don't dispute that. Jesus was some kind of messianic figure, a radical who sought to refine Judaism. The existence of this "figure" is not what is so much in doubt, but whether he actually did what his enthusiastic followers reported - like walking on water, and rising from the dead. Maybe their accounts are true, but they are unverifiable from contemporary sources, which is no surprise. Even if they were reported, they would not have been believed by skeptics, and most historians are skeptics. There is little question, by the way, that Josephus' account was manipulated by later "apologists" for Christianity. This interpolation does not read consistent with his (Josephus) writing. But interpolation aside, this doesn't make Jesus a fraud.  What I want to understand, and my quest is on-going, is how we separate embellishment from fact. From the historian's perspective, this is not easy. From the believer's perspective, it's quite easy.

The gist of my argument is that proof is shortcoming. But a lack of proof does not substantiate any dogma, including the dogma that "Jesus never existed". History isn't an exact science, and is full of speculation at times, and in the time of Jesus, there were no historians, so to speak, who graduated from Oxford University. The methodical study of history is only fairly recent, and over time this profession, like most, has resorted to "Occam's Razor" definitions of "truth". That is, if it doesn't fit - reject it. I don't think for one minute this method is foolproof. In the end, I think faith is a personal thing.  

As you so wisely say :- "In the end, I think faith is a personal thing."

"But the others, those who tried to bring Jesus to life at the call of love, found it a cruel task to be honest. The critical study of the life of Jesus has been for theology a school of honesty. The world had never seen before, and will never see again, a struggle for truth so full of pain and renunciation as that of which the Lives of Jesus of the last hundred years contain the cryptic record."

"When we have once made up our minds that we have not the materials for a complete Life of Jesus, but only for a picture of His public ministry, it must be admitted that there are few characters of antiquity about whom we possess so much indubitably historical information, of whom we have so many authentic discourses."

"The study of the Life of Jesus has had a curious history. It set out in quest of the historical Jesus, believing that when it had found Him it could bring Him straight into our time as a Teacher and Saviour. ... But He does not stay; He passes by our time and returns to His own. ... He returned to His own time, not owing to the application of any historical ingenuity, but by the same inevitable necessity by which the liberated pendulum returns to its original position. ... Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity."