I could call myself a physicist, but if I reject many of the established laws of physics and substitute my own theories, am I really a physicist? To wit: how do you know that Christ even existed? Because the Bible tells you so, perhaps? What if it is wrong on that point? And even if Christ did exist, most of His bona fides run counter to reason. Being born of a virgin is impossible, of course. So is returning from the dead. A quick analysis of Jesus' claims also proves that he was quite insane. A rational man does not claim to be God.
From a purely logical standpoint, this Jesus guy is pretty unlikely.
but one apparently very unlike yourself in that I am not a judgemental one.
Where have I been judgemental? I told you the truth: speaking for myself, if I didn't believe that the revelations of God (the scripture and the church) were trustworthy, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to call myself a Christian, because they are the only tangible sources of information about Christ.
Not for me...because of the many different inconsistent references in the Bible about his works; and the inconsistent parts are really what intrigues me and makes my belief as I have found that that is exactly how people react when witnessing events...there are other references to Jesus. For instance Josephus, the Jewish historian with no ties to Christianity, recorded that a man named Jesus was crucified...there are also references to Jesus in the Gnostic Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls. I realize the point of your argument about literal belief and appreciate its stark apparency through logic. I just don't believe you can take a black or white approach to Scripture and I don't believe that Christ did either.