It is because of the lack of documentation independent of the Bible/Christian writings. Flavis Josephus is the only relatively contemporary historian who mentions Jesus, and an examination of his writings begs the question of whether his writings originally contained the text relating to Jesus, or if it was added later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus History and Theology are vastly different disciplines. Tales of Spartacus are sometimes confusing and contradictory, but they do not come only from his followers. One has to take into consideration the bias of the person writing the account. Certainly, Greek texts exist telling all about Hercules, but that doesn't mean we take him to be a literal, historical character (for example). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus I personally believe both were historical figures, although I do not believe that Jesus was anything other than a very bright and compassionate (especially for his society) man.

There is only one written record of Jesus, written by people who obviously wanted to believe in him, and hoped his store was real. There are many written records of Spartacus, many written by people who feared and hated him, and wished he wasn't real. The written evidence for Jesus, right or wrong, is biased towards him. The written evidence for Spartacus is biased against him.

Most atheists believe Jesus existed but do not believe that he is the son of God, since obviously they don't believe in God. Your question clouds the issue.

Go to this website. You might find some answers there. http://www.ibs.org/bibles/about/16.php

jesus and god arre fragments of imagination and so are all those mythical peeps

I liked Spartacus the movie, but that doesn't mean I believe he actually existed, since this is a matter of debate.

In the words of Wikipedia: Little is known about Spartacus beyond the events of the Third Servile War, and the historical accounts that survive of the war are sketchy and often contradictory. The only records that speak of Spartacus (c 120BC to 70BC) are Plutarch (c. 46 - 127), Appian (c.95-c.165)Florus who lived somewhere between AD 53-138, and who used Livy as a source. As you can see, all of these were composing long after the Servile Wars, and none of them knew him personally. Now, I do not doubt that what they say of him is probably basically accurate, as there may have been people alive who could have remembered the events, though they would have been very old, or the events may have been written down in sources we do not have. However, as Wikipedia says, the information is sketchy and sometimes contradictory. Yet it is accepted. The biblical documents are often dismissed as biased. Biased Documents, however, need not be inaccurate. If I write down the story of my father, just because he is my father, does not mean that the information would be less reputable than a biography written by a "impartial" historian. In fact, I have access to much more material that any historian could ever have, because I lived with my father all my life. Just because I love him, does not mean inevitably that anything I would write about him would be rosy and embellished. I have a sister and a brother, an aunt and an uncle and many other of his relatives still alive who would be very angry were I to write anything untrue about him. They would straightaway speak out if they thought I had said things that were false. The apostles were in the same position. There were over 500 people at one resurrection experience, and readers were challenged to interview those still alive at time of writing (1 Corinthians 15). There were also many detractors still alive who could have contradicted the apostles- the Romans, the Pharisees, The Saduccees being three groups who had no love for Jesus. Yet, no contradictory evidence came out. In fact, a Roman sympathiser, Josephus, Jewish by birth, speaks of Jesus, giving the same basic story as recounted in the gospels. (There have been later additions to the Jospehus text, but these are easy to correct, and still give the basics) And Josephus is not the only near contemporary writing of Jesus: Mara Bar-Serapion, a pagan, who did not believe in the resurrection, and whose surviving work could have been written as early as 73 AD and at the latest,the third century AD, most certainly refers to Jesus in this passage: "What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given." Graffiti from first century Rome, with the mocking inscription "Alaxamenos worships his god" shows a crucifixion, the head of Christ replaced by a donkey. Similarly, in Pompeii were found several Christian inscriptions. One, a word game, comes out as a cross and indicates the belief in Christ as "alpha and omega", the beginning and the end (as described throughout Revelation). Pompeii, of course, was destroyed in 79 AD, indicating that Christianity was already spead to the italian peninsula by then. There is a mention in Tacitus of a personage named "Chrestus" who was held to be responsible for religious trouble in Rome under Nero (64AD). This is possibly a garbled reference to "Christus". Look at the text on http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html Pliny the Younger (62?-c.113, was Governor of Bithynia:His correspondence in 106 AD with the emperor Trajan included a report on proceedings against Christians. In an extended explanation to his supervisor, Pliny explained that he forced Christians to "curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." He also described their actions and practices thusly: They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/pliny.html Other early non-christian sources for Christ are: Lucian: satirist and playwright of the second century, two quotes from a play entitled "The Passing of Peregrinus" :The first quotes tells of Peregrinus, who learned "the wondrous lore of the Christians," became one of their leaders and was revered as a god, lawgiver, and protector, "next after that other, to be sure, whom they (the Christians) still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult to the world." [Harm.Luc, 13] The second quote, regarding these same Christians: "Then, too, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers...after they have thrown over and denied the gods of Greece and have done reverence to that crucifed sophist himself and live according to his laws."http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/lucian.html Then there are the early church leaders: Clement of Rome (writing c 96AD, just after the Book of Reveleation was written...and he quotes it!), who was a convert of Peter, and knew most of the other apostles, Polycarp of Smyrna (69AD-155AD...yes, he was martyred at a very old age) was a pupil of John, and knew the apostles personally. Ignatius of Antioch (Ad35-107) was another pupil of John and a friend of Polycarp, although they rarely saw each other in later years, just wrote to each other. Irenaeus of Lyon (France)c 125-202, was the youngest of the church fathers whose writings survive, but he knew Polycarp. Between these four men, whose works have all survived, and are unequivocably declared authentic and unchanged, the entire text of the New Testament can be reconstructed with the exception of a few verses. All in all, between the first and 4th centuries, there are 25 000 copies of Christian texts, all in agreement in teaching and content. Recently, the remains of the oldest Christian building was discovered at Megiddo, dating from way before the time of tolerance. It almost certainly dates from the 3rd century.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/07/wchur07.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/07/ixportal.html One of the inscriptions on the mosaic floor reads, "The God-loving Aketous has offered this table to the God Jesus Christ, as a memorial," according to a preliminary translation by the Antiquities Authority. The reason that many people do not want to believe in Jesus, but are prepared to believe in Spartacus is that belief in Spartacus demands nothing. Belief in Jesus demands a response.

The events in the story of Jesus were plagiarized directly from god stories that preceded the "existence" of Jesus. This story is so common and found throughout history so often because it is based on solar mythology (allegories built around the seasons, and the solar system). If you spent 5 minutes looking into this allegation you'd find the following gods had almost the EXACT same story as Jesus: Chrishna, Horus, Orpheus, Bacchus, Osiris, Dionysus, Buddha, Apollo, Hercules, Adonis, Ormuzd, Mithras, Indra, Edipus, Quetzalcoatle, etc. To this day we cannot find one mention of Jesus in ANY historical writings...but a real historian did mention the existence of Spartacus. A more important question to you would be, why do Christians believe that Jesus was a real man that performed miracles but don't believe that Hercules was a real man that performed miracles? Aren't the writers of Greek mythology just as credible as the writers of Biblical mythology?

Because if they allowed themselves to believe Jesus really existed, they might have to act on that belief.

because it hold many similarities to other stories written hundreds of years prior

That's a pretty good reason. If I read somewhere that, 2000 years ago, there was a farmer named Tom I'd see no particular reason not to believe that. On the other hand if the story said that Tom planted seeds which grew into trees made of solid gold, I'd treat it as a fictional story.

Sparticus didn't claim to be anything supernatural. Just a man. Not so with the fable of jesus.

Spartacus might have existed. It makes sense so I will accept his story as true. The bible, however, does not present any part of itself as plausible. If it were true then Christianity would not have to morph itself to fit new truths that science discovers. The earth is the center of the universe...no wait ok it's not but, that just shows even more how powerful God is. Sorry it doesn't work like that. 2+2 is four. Any way you slice it. If religion were really legit it would never, never, never change a thing about itself. Use your brain and the truth will set you free.

There's not an iota of contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever lived.

History is one thing, usually well documented. Religion is another, usually not documented at all. That's the reason why.

Mohammed supposedly performed miracles. Why won't you believe in HIM?

Nobody ever claimed that Spartacus was born to a virgin and an invisible guy, died, came back from the dead and has been roaming the Earth ever since. See, my friend, that's the difference. One is history, the other one a fantastic fairy tale.

Because obviously Spartacus seems more plausible to them. Problem with a question like this is that it misses the fact that many people that don't 'believe' in Jesus don't necessarily doubt that he may have actually existed. They simply don't 'believe' that he is a miracle maker. Plus Spartacus is just a story he is not asking anybody to follow him.

Spartacus Origins : ( From Wikipedia ) The ancient sources agree on Spartacus's origins. Plutarch describes him as "a Thracian of Nomadic stock" and "more Hellenic than Thracian" when refering to his character.[1] Appian says he was "a Thracian by birth, who had once served as a soldier with the Romans, but had since been a prisoner and sold for a Gladiator".[2] Florus (2.8.8) described him as one "who from Thracian mercenary, had become a Roman soldier, of a soldier a deserter and robber, and afterwards, from consideration of his strength, a gladiator".[3] Some authors refer to the Thracian tribe of the Maedi,[4] which in historic times occupied the area on the southwestern fringes of Thrace (present-day south-western Bulgaria).[5] There is a hypothesis, he was born in the Thracian settlement Desudava,[6] in the area of present-day Sandanski,[7] where his monument is built.[8] Plutarch also writes that Spartacus's wife, a prophetess of the same tribe, was enslaved with him. The name Spartacus is otherwise attested in the Black Sea region: kings of the Thracian dynasty of the Cimmerian Bosporus[9] and Pontus[10] are known to have borne it, and a Thracian "Spardacus"[11] or "Sparadokos",[12] father of Seuthes I of the Odrysae, is also known.... Plutarch, Appian, Florus, these were real people who existed on earth and left a trail of evidence lasting 2,000 years....we can track them through many sources. They were writing from what they knew first hand or from documents written when the actual events happened. What do we have for Jesus - outside of what the bible says, where is the evidence for their being a actual Jesus? What contemporary record do we have of him outside of one often translated book? That Spartacus was a man and claimed to be so lends creditability to the historical account. Jesus however claimed, ( and had claims made for him ), that he was more than a man - indeed some say he was the son of God in the flesh and not just in spirit and could perform miracles. Spartacus was never so bold as to claim such powers. And there is much archeological evidence of the Slave rebellion too - while little if any supports the claims made for Jesus. In Conclusion: Multiple sources lend validity to Spartacus being a real man who lead a slave uprising against the Roman Republic, while only one source offers that Jesus was a real person who had abilities in excess of those commonly found in your average human. On a believability scale - Spartacus looks and sounds quite plausible and real - while Jesus seems like a mere literary device found in an old - often contradictory and badly translated single book.

????what????

I don't doubt Jesus' existence just the "son of God" bit of his story. He's kind of like the original Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard, if he even ever actually spoke to any of the writers that reference him in the bible. If the authors of the bible were just writing down stories that had made the rounds, in which case he is more like Santa Claus, a real person who did something interesting and the stories were exaggerated until you have the miracle working son of god.

If you,ll look in your bible you might find out that spartacus is not mentioned in it. But if you study Roman history you will find spartacus discussed greatly in a revolt against the Roman Empire........No one has found his body ,so he could have been crucified along the Via Appia where some 6000 of his troops died.