Did Jesus Exist -- The Probing Mind

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by tylersch
I keep searching for stories of Oedipus, Oedipus Rex. All I keep getting is a story about a son having sex with his mom and then his mom killed herself when she found out that she had sex with her son.

Show me otherwise. PLEASE

All the Sophocles oedipus-based plays are outlined here with links to texts.

There's three of them ('Oedipus Rex', 'Oedipus at Colunus', 'Antigone'), a bit like a greek star wars trilogy...

[edit on 30-1-2007 by melatonin]

I read through it as much as I could, there are very few similarities I still see. If you see them could you please point them out?

Thanks

you could just look at my earlier post
i summarized a few key similarities between jesus and oedipus
i'm not going to cite the stories for each item
why?
lord raglan is a credible source
if he says that there is something in the story of oedipus, it means that he read over the stories and pointed them out
i drew a corollation to jesus

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
lord raglan is a credible source

According to who? I looked him up, and I couldn't find that much information about him at all.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if he says that there is something in the story of oedipus, it means that he read over the stories and pointed them out

What makes you say that, because he "said he did" in that case you should everything believe the Bible since it says its infallible.

Don't believe everything you read.

Originally posted by tylersch
According to who? I looked him up, and I couldn't find that much information about him at all.

well, just because you can't find any information on the man via the internet (which is what i assume you did) doesn't mean that it's the only way to find it

What makes you say that, because he "said he did" in that case you should everything believe the Bible since it says its infallible.

no, by my logic, if someone read the bible and then recited a line to me with the book open up to that page
i should believe it is in the book...

Don't believe everything you read.

obviously

So how do you know Lord Raglan is a credible source?
Sure, you could believe him. If that's what you want to do. I'd rather go to the source find out for myself.

Besides all that. There is about 10 other questions that you missed.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by tylersch]

Originally posted by tylersch
So how do you know Lord Raglan is a credible source?

because you can compare his stuff to direct citation from the stories of oedipus
i'm not going to do it because you go to secondary sources to summarize source material

Sure, you could believe him. If that's what you want to do. I'd rather go to the source find out for myself.

well, go do it
you'll see that oedipus has all of the traits i listed

Besides all that. There is about 10 other questions that you missed.

could you be a little bit less ambiguous?
listing off all of these 10 questions would help

Besides all that. There is about 10 other questions that you missed.

could you be a little bit less ambiguous?
listing off all of these 10 questions would help

You've got to be kidding me right?

You basically just asked me to re-post something I already RE-POSTED.

Go back like a page or two, you'll see them.

Here's some info about messiah claimants, some are justified, some not so. Supported by references.

www.livius.org...

Make of it what you will.

BUT, I will point out that I am NOT aiming to support any argument (before the humbledude starts ranting about how I failed in my task to answer a point I don't really care about), I just want a less cranky discussion, I refuse to do all the bloody work for you both (can you tell I've been teaching UGs today?). However, I see a few relevantish messiah claimants in that list.

So where are we on Tyler's questions...


1. Dionysus evidence - I provided a resource.

2. Dating gospels - I provided a resource.

3. Historical evidence for Jesus - I provided some evidence that TF is fairly questionable, AJ less so. AJ is widely accepted as a good source of info. I can even upload an academic journal article about the arguments surrounding Jospehus and Xianity. Tactitus is not considered independent etc etc.

4. Claims of lacking references to gospel authors by early church dudes - still outstanding.

Papias

Papias attests the role that oral tradition continued to play in the first half of the second century. Papias himself preferred "the living voice" to what could be found in books. Nevertheless, Papias seems to have known the Gospels, and he provides the earliest tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. The testimony of Papias concerning Matthew is more problematic. Eusebius says that Papias also "made use of testimonies from the first letter of John and likewise from that of Peter" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.17).

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Justin Martyr

All his works translated and available via here - www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Irenaeus of Lyon

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote his Against Heresies c. 175-185 CE. His work is invaluable to modern scholarship in the attempt to recover the content of Gnostic teachings in the second century. Irenaeus also provides the first explicit witness to a four-fold gospel canon.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...


5. Messiah cliams - I provided resource.

6. Where did people get their evidence for myth claims web page - still outstanding. Probably a book, doesn't say. I think some people in the late 19th and early 20th wrote a lot about this stuff.

7. Oedipus and similarities - I provided resource.

8. One person who was suggested should have mentioned Jesus was a geographer - still outstanding. Not a real issue as Tylersch missed a few historians from his list - one geographer, well not the biggest issue.

9. Context of the historians and their references to Jesus - Still outstanding.

I think that is all.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by tylersch
You've got to be kidding me right?

You basically just asked me to re-post something I already RE-POSTED.

Go back like a page or two, you'll see them.

you could have at least posted a link to the original postings...
it isn't uncommon for people on ATS to skip over questions accidentally
especially when someone asks many at once (which is why i tend to group my questions in groups no bigger than 5)

i looked back and i can't find them

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by tylersch
You've got to be kidding me right?

You basically just asked me to re-post something I already RE-POSTED.

Go back like a page or two, you'll see them.

you could have at least posted a link to the original postings...
it isn't uncommon for people on ATS to skip over questions accidentally
especially when someone asks many at once (which is why i tend to group my questions in groups no bigger than 5)

i looked back and i can't find them

But thats not the point, you asked a few pages ago for me to repost all my questions since you said you missed them. So gladly went through the whole thread again to find all the ones that were missed. Re-posted them all, got a few answers but then got off subject again.

I don't know why its so hard for you to find them.
Mel did a pretty good job of finding it, AND summarizing it.

Thanks Mel

Originally posted by tylersch
I don't know why its so hard for you to find them.
Mel did a pretty good job of finding it, AND summarizing it.

well, i guess i simply overlooked it
and mel did do a good job

however, the question still stands:

where is the evidence from sources contemporary to the supposed "jesus" to prove the he existed as a historical figure?

well judging from the research i've done, as soon as someone says they have contemporary evidence, someone looks at it and says, NOPE! FAKE!

There was a link earlier that showed some evidence. I think one thing was like the letter to/from? Pontius Pilate. Maybe we will make a great archaeological discovery one day and find some evidence that Jesus existed without anti-jesus' stepping all over it.

It's easy for people not to believe Jesus existed.

All they have to do is ask for genuine "contemporary" evidence that he existed. IMO even if someone found some genuine "contemporary" evidence that Jesus existed, people would still deny it and believe what they want to believe.

Same goes....

It's easy for people believe Jesus existed.

All they have to do is have faith. No need for evidence, no need for proof. Faith is a central part of most religion. If you don't have that faith, well then, that is your choice. God gave us free will/ We have free will... (depending on beliefs.)

I learned a lot throughout this thread, and I thank everyone for their input.


[edit on 6-2-2007 by tylersch]

[edit on 6-2-2007 by tylersch]

Originally posted by tylersch
well judging from the research i've done, as soon as someone says they have contemporary evidence, someone looks at it and says, NOPE! FAKE!

well, that is the fuction of historical inquiry
it squashes fake and intentionally fraudulent information

There was a link earlier that showed some evidence. I think one thing was like the letter to/from? Pontius Pilate.

those are highly fishy
i've tried lookig up more on it, but all i get is the same stuff
really all i'd want is maybe an image of the texts in latin

Maybe we will make a great archaeological discovery one day and find some evidence that Jesus existed without anti-jesus' stepping all over it.

yes, because there is some sort of huge conspiracy from the non-christian community to destroy any evidence that "jesus" existed...
however, when you look into it, most archaeologists are christians
and the proportion of christian archaeologists gets larger when you get into research involving the region of palestine

All they have to do is ask for genuine "contemporary" evidence that he existed. IMO even if someone found some genuine "contemporary" evidence that Jesus existed, people would still deny it and believe what they want to believe.

and look at how possibly fraudulent some the the secondary and tertiary sources are
or compare "jesus" to other messianic figures...

All they have to do is have faith. No need for evidence, no need for proof. Faith is a central part of most religion. If you don't have that faith, well then, that is your choice. God gave us free will/ We have free will... (depending on beliefs.)

so, you deity tells me to check my brain at the door or i won't be able to follow
that's quite cruel

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so, you deity tells me to check my brain at the door or i won't be able to follow
that's quite cruel

It has nothing to do with "leaving your brain at the door" or lack of logic. It gives hope to people that hope one day this world will be without pain and suffering and everything else bad in this world. My faith in my beliefs is no different than the faith you have in your family, friends, and humanity.

I think this is they way it goes.
1.(worst case scenario)
2.(best case scenario)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have faith and hope in humanity.

1. Humanity will eventually destory itself. All life ends.
2. Humanity will advance in all aspects and make life more enjoyable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have faith and hope in God and his Son

1. Saviour never returns. Life goes on.
2. Saviour returns, Life is restored to its original perfect state.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just decide what you want to believe, its up to you.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by tylersch]

Originally posted by tylersch
It has nothing to do with "leaving your brain at the door" or lack of logic. It gives hope to people that hope one day this world will be without pain and suffering and everything else bad in this world.

and certain people (ie me) see religion as hampering the possibility for a better world

My faith in my beliefs is no different than the faith you have in your family, friends, and humanity.

no, it is quite different
i have an enourmous amount of first hand experiences with my family
i have just as many first hand experiences with my friends
and even more experience with humanity

you can research humanity, find reasons and logic to have faith in it

You have faith and hope in humanity.

1. Humanity will eventually destory itself. All life ends.
2. Humanity will advance in all aspects and make life more enjoyable.

ummmmm
no, see, that isn't how it works
life doesn't work in one or the other examples
it isn't black and white like this

I have faith and hope in God and his Son

1. Saviour never returns. Life goes on.
2. Saviour returns, Life is restored to its original perfect state.

but see, when you open up the door of religion, there is another problem
you have hope in YOUR god and his "son"
there is also the chance that other religions are right
you're making it into pascal's wager, which is logically bankrupt

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by tylersch
It has nothing to do with "leaving your brain at the door" or lack of logic. It gives hope to people that hope one day this world will be without pain and suffering and everything else bad in this world.

and certain people (ie me) see religion as hampering the possibility for a better world

I actually agree with you to a certain extent, but let me ask you, do you think an atheist world would be any better than our world now. Do you really think its gonna "fix" things, or make things better?

My faith ,in my beliefs is no different than the faith you have in your family, friends, and humanity.

no, it is quite different
i have an enourmous amount of first hand experiences with my family
i have just as many first hand experiences with my friends
and even more experience with humanity

you can research humanity, find reasons and logic to have faith in it

Ok sure, if you want to bring in "first hand experiences" then do you believe anything existed before your first memory?

I, also, have faith in my family, friends, and humanity to an extent.
Humanity doesn't seem to be getting any better. After thousands and thousands of years, we're STILL fighting pointless wars, there is STILL world hunger, there is STILL genocide, there is still disease... actually probably more now...

You hope things will get better.
I hope things will get better.

Correct me if i'm wrong but it seems, We have that in common

You have faith and hope in humanity.

1. Humanity will eventually destory itself. All life ends.
2. Humanity will advance in all aspects and make life more enjoyable.

ummmmm
no, see, that isn't how it works
life doesn't work in one or the other examples
it isn't black and white like this

Why not? I was saying WORST case and BEST case scenario. Why can't it be black and white? (I'm not saying that tomarrow, one or the other is going to happen)

I have faith and hope in God and his Son

1. Saviour never returns. Life goes on.
2. Saviour returns, Life is restored to its original perfect state.

but see, when you open up the door of religion, there is another problem
you have hope in YOUR god and his "son"
there is also the chance that other religions are right
you're making it into pascal's wager, which is logically bankrupt

I'm not familiar with pascal's wager, i'll look it up later, but I know what you are saying. If everyone says they are right but all are so different, who's right?

Well thats for the individual to find out. I'm on that search myself. Some people don't want to go on that search, that's their choice, the problem is, if God really does exist they could run into some problems when you know who comes back.

Choose sides



[edit on 7-2-2007 by tylersch]

Well I checked out both Pascals Wager and Atheist Wager.

After reading both wagers, I think that being a good person is the best thing to do.

Other than that.

Atheist wager - the main downfall is it assumes that God will reward good actions with or without belief in God.

Pascals wager - the main downfall is it assumes that God will reward faith, opposite...being rewarded for skepticism and punishing "blind" faith


Personally I think it's best to be a good person with a belief in God. It is difficult to be a good person at times, but it's really not that hard to believe in God.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by tylersch]

Originally posted by tylersch
Atheist wager - the main downfall is it assumes that God will reward good actions with or without belief in God.

well, here's the thing
the atheist's wager rests on the possibility that:
1: a single religion is right but it would be impossible to know for sure
2: none of them are right because there is no god
3: none of them are right because they are all simply wrong

and many faiths reward those who are both good and faithless

Pascals wager - the main downfall is it assumes that God will reward faith, opposite...being rewarded for skepticism and punishing "blind" faith

actually, the main downfall is that pascal pretty much argued "either christianity is right or there is no god"

you could always believe in the wrong god

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
JJ, hold that thought
i'm going to come up with a long, thoughtful response to your post, because i honestly respect that you are actually talking about the article

Well, I'll give you another shot, and if I missed the response somehow, please link me to it and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Originally posted by junglejake
The article attempts to dispute the authenticity of scripture...I addressed that in one of those massive threads a while back, and I think you had read it, Madness, though I'm not 100%.

In his book "Why I Am Not A Christian", Bertrand Russell states,

Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him.

Russell, it seems, has either turned a blind eye to the extra-biblical information (information outside of the Bible that speaks of Jesus), or he also doesn't believe Queen Elizabeth, Alexander the Great, Ramses the Great, Cleopatra nor Agustus Caesar ever existed or, if they did, that we know nothing about them. Kind of an audacious claim...Let's see what information is out there that talks of Christ.

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian who was typically seen as the greatest historian of ancient Rome, according to Gary Habermas in The Verdict of History. Tacitus wrote two histories, one called The Annals that talks about the time from Augustus's death, 14 AD, to the death of Nero in 68 AD. The other book, The Histories, follow from 68 to 96 AD. In the Annals, he writes,

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus [common pagan misspelling of Christ], the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.

So in a rather unflattering manner, Tacitus notes that Jesus did exist, and had been put to death by Pilate. Norman Anderson even suspects that this passage alludes to Jesus's resurrection, when it notes that the superstition was checked for a moment before again breaking out.

Lucian of Samosata, a Greek satirist who lived in the latter half of the second century, spoke rather sarcastically of Christ and Christians in his The Death of Peregrine, never doubting Christ's existence, but rather mocking Christians for their worship of Him.

The Christians, you know, worship a man who to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.

Then there's Suetonius, yet another Roman historian under Hadrian. He stated in his Life of Claudius,

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.

This event was described in Acts 18:2:

There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them,

I expect you've heard of Pliny the Younger, a familiar name to any who have seriously researched Christ in secular and anti-Christian accounts. He was the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112. He was writing a letter to the emperor Trajan to find how to treat the Christians, noting he'd been killing them left and right, male and female, adult and child, but so many were being put to death he wondered if he should stop killing them all and instead only kill certain ones. He went on to write of their crime:

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 do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falisfy their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it us.

This was a mere 80 years after Christ's crucifixion. There may have still been some first hand accounts of what took place on that hill several years ago, and many who had heard of it from first hand accounts. The fact that Christianity had spread to Asia Minor alread validates Paul's travels, among others. Were they telling of this when people who had witnessed the crucifixion were around, such as when Paul took the gospel to Asia Minor, people would have stepped in and denied Christ's existence, or at least said it happened a different way.

What about earlier, though? Around the time of Christ's death, during the period spoken of in the book of Acts. It would be foolish to think that a carpenter would be spoken of in any histories during his life, or even an influential rabbi who had only been preaching for 3 years, but what about after? Thallus is one of the first secular historians who mentions Christ, around 52 AD. His writing has been quoted by others, but, sadly, does not still exist today. One such individual who quotes him is Julius Africanus. He quotes a passage in Thallus' work that talks about the darkness enveloping the land in the late afternoon when Jesus died on the cross. Africanus writes in his Chronography,

Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died).

And already in 70 AD, philosophers were trying to call Jesus a philosopher instead of who He claimed to be during His life. Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian philosopher wrote his son from prison,

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 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.

So to say there is no extra-Biblical source showing Christ ever existed is to turn a blind eye to all of history and essentially claim nothing existed before your memory. These were the secular, pagan writers speaking of Christ. I didn't even mention Josephus, nor any of the other Jewish or Christians who wrote about Him extra-Biblically. That will be for another time when I have more time

Originally posted by junglejake
A remarkable phenomenon I’ve seen when discussing the existence of Christ is that Christian sources are not allowed to weigh in because they’re biased. Let’s apply this mentality to another ongoing debate that I’m sure many here are familiar with, evolution. If we were to hold the evolutionary debate to the same standard, that would mean that as soon as you come to accept evolution as being true, the only opinions and information you have that would be considered valid to the debate would be in regards to supporting creationism, because you’re biased towards evolution.

I summarily dismiss this attempt to discredit valid opinion and information simply because the individuals believe what they are saying is true, so in this part, we’re going to explore some Christians that supported the existence of Christ.

First, there’s the big one. Emperor Nero became Caesar in 54 AD, and lasted 14 years, to 68 AD. It is widely accepted that, assuming He existed, Christ died around 33 or 34 AD. It was probably in 64 AD, after the great fire in Rome, that Nero began his passionate persecution of Christians. This is 30 years after Christ’s death; you have living eye witnesses who could corroborate Christ’s existence, as well as the accuracy of what Christians believed. Yet, by the droves, Christians were willing to be killed in the name of Christ. If Christ were a myth, those sources in my previous post would be mocking Christians not for the superstition that Christ rose up from the grave, but rather that they believed He ever existed. Yet these people, including 10 of His 12 disciples, were willing to die for Him. Would you die for a lie? Would you be able to get 10 people to die for a lie, none of which would say anything to the Roman authorities after being tortured? If Christ’s existence was a lie, those who were spreading the lie were so committed to it that they were willing to be tortured and killed for it without every detracting it. As Josh McDowell puts it,

These early Christians had nothing to gain and everything to lose for their testimony that these things had actually happened. For this reason, their accounts are highly significant historical sources.

There were many extra-biblical sources of a Christian nature that spoke of Christ. For example, Clement of Rome, a bishop of the church in Rome near the end of the first century wrote a letter called Corinthians (not the Biblical letters Paul wrote) trying to settle a dispute. In the letter, he said,

The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore receivevd a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.

So about 60 years after the fact, Clement believed Christ to be an historical figure.

There is also an individual who was the bishop of Antioch named Ignatius. He was condemned, and on his way to be executed in Rome when he wrote 7 letters. In his letter titled Trallians, he wrote,

Jesus Christ who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe in Him.”

In his letter titled Smyrneans, he wrote,

He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptized by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we – that is, of His most blessed passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all ages through His resurrection.

Then, in the letter titled “Magnesians”, he said,

Be ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the resurrection, which took place in the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate; for these things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ our hope

This man, on his way to be killed for his belief in Christ (though, like that scene in Braveheart, escaping this fate was simple – just deny Christ), professed with his last words Christ’s existence. He is thought to be a disciple of Peter, Paul and John, so his account is most likely second hand, if not first.

Another church bishop, this one of Athens, Quadratus was one of the first apologists and a disciple of the apostles. Eusebius, a church historian, preserved the only remaining lines of Quadratus’s defense of the faith to Hadrian, the emperor of Rome in 125AD. He said, as quoted by Eusebius,

The deeds of our Savior were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on Earth, but likewise when he had left the Earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times.

Here he just stated that not only those who were healed and risen were, in fact, healed or risen, but that many of them were still alive in 125 AD, able to give account of what they experienced. You do not say that unless it can be backed up! That was a challenge, and one I’m sure the emperor, just as many had done before, took him up on it and questioned those who claimed some kind of healing from Christ.

There are, of course, others, including Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, and Aristides, but this gives you an idea. We have those who care little, if at all, about Christ’s existence verifying it in my previous post, and now we have those who have staked their entire lives on Him verifying His existence. Next time, I’ll get into those who had a motive to cover up and destroy any belief in Christ due to it shattering their religion. Next time, we’ll talk about Jewish references to Christ from around Christ’s time.


[edit on 1/4/07/04 by junglejake]

(Both these posts can be found on page 2 of this thread)

jj, here's my thought filled response

give me a source contemporary to "jesus" that verifies the existence of said man who claimed to be a deity

i'm not saying that "jesus" didn't exist
my statement is that it is perfectly valid to call into question the existence of "jesus" due to a lack of contemporary evidence

personally, i'm 50/50 on the issue