Poll Results -- Who is Jesus of Nazarath?

The results are in: 4 votes for Myth, 3 votes for God incarnate, no votes for Prophet or Wise Man.

"Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] On the other hand, mythologists[2], and a minority[3][4] of biblical and historical scholars argue that Jesus never existed as an historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure synthesized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes. ... The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by a few scholars and historians, some of the earliest being Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies.[87][88][89][90]
The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were summarized in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, published in 1944. Their rejections were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[91]
More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by George Albert Wells, by Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), and by biblical scholar Robert M. Price. Doherty, for example, maintains that the earliest records of Christian beliefs (the earliest epistles) are best explained if Christianity began as a mythic saviour cult, with no specific historical figure in mind.
Nevertheless, historicity is still regarded as effectively proven by almost all Biblical scholars.[92][93][94][95]" (Taken from the wikipedia.org article on The Historical Jesus, emphasis added).

It's amazing to me the faith that is expressed by those who claim Jesus never existed. In most of my discussions with non-Christians, specifically Atheists, they critique Christians for "having faith" when there is no evidence to support their beliefs. Yet, the Bible teaches that the historicity of Jesus is the crux of our faith ... and it is precisely this point where Christians have the most evidence.

13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. [1 Corinthians 15:13-18]

If Jesus never lived, He could not have been crucified and raised from the dead. If this never happened, Christians have no hope, their faith is false, and they are "to be pitied more than all men." Since our faith lies squarely on the historicity of this Jesus, and since most Atheists (at least in my experience) seem to desire evidence for their beliefs, why is it that on this issue--the historicity of Jesus--that the atheist takes their stance in opposition to the evidence? Could it be that the Atheist does not believe, not for lack of evidence, but for other reasons?

The same author of 1 Corinthians wrote this in Romans: 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. [Romans 1:18-25]

The Bible declares that those who refuse to believe do so, not for lack of evidence, but due to their own unrighteousness. The non-Christian suppresses evidence they don't like and elevates evidence they do like to justify their own lifestyle and desires.

Since we as Christians are able to know that our faith is reasonable and is based, not on wishful thinking, but God's revelation through historical events, Paul admonishes us: Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. [1 Corinthians 15:58]

[1]^ Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A. Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200; Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf, 1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199, 278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben Witherington III, pp. 12-20.
[2]^ Eliade, Mircea "Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism" (trans. Philip Mairet), Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1991, p.170
[3]^ "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.
[4]^ "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34
[87]^ Van Voorst, p. 8
[88]^ Constantin-François Volney, Les ruines, ou Méditations sur les révolutions des empires (Paris: Desenne, 1791); English translation, The Ruins, or a Survey of the Revolutions of Empires (New York: Davis, 1796).
[89]^ C. F. Dupuis, Origine de tous les cultes (Paris: Chasseriau, 1794); English translation, The Origin of All Religious Worship (New York: Garland, 1984).
[90]^ Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972
[91]^ Durant 1944:553-7
[92]^ Bruce, FF (1982). New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? InterVarsity Press, ISBN 087784691X
[93]^ Herzog II, WR (2005). Prophet and Teacher. WJK, ISBN 0664225284
[94]^ Komoszewski, JE; Sawyer, MJ & Wallace, DB (2006). Reinventing Jesus. Kregel Publications, 195f. ISBN 978-0825429828.
[95]^ Walter P. Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950, (Continuum International, 1999), page 71.