So you would be OK with being convicted of murder on heresay?
That's good enough evidence for you?
The Jesus Seminar is totally falacious IMO, as they start with the assumption that Jesus existed. As well as this, the 'Jesus' they say existed, is totally contradictory to the one people tend to believe in as the 'Son Of God'.
From Wikipedia:
"The seminar's reconstruction of Jesus portrays him as a wandering sage who did not found a religion or rise from the dead, but preached in startling parables and aphorisms, often turning common ideas upside down and confounding the expectations of his audience."
I would argue that "The Jesus Seminar" aren't even discussing Jesus as we know it.
This is a lot like the way theists often change their definition of their chosen deity during the course of an argument.
Basically - unless you can provide me with physical evidence, or written testomony of actual witnesses (Gospels do not count - as can be easily shown from the evidence in
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm), I see no good reason to believe the man existed, let alone base my entire life around his supposed teachings (actually decided upon by by various catholic councils, such as The First Council of Constantinople).
Lets not have a theological argument on a guitar forum though.
If you want to argue with scholars about this - there are actually many eminent people hanging out at
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/
As such I shan't be replying to any more posts on this forum concerning this...
My handle on the Richard Dawkins forum is the same as here, and you would be more than welcome to start, or join in an existing debate, about the authenticity of cited 'evidence' of Jesus' existance there.