Originally Posted by davobrosia
I didn't miss it...and it wasn't so much a point as you pulling the rug out from under your own argument. I guess I should also mention that plenty of historians were alive during the time period who, at best, had a vested interest in the coming of the messiah (e.g., Philo) and, at worst, would have had no reason to not
mention the massive crowds, miracles, &c ad nauseum.
Oh, right, I asked you.
I will say I should have been more clear, I guess. But I did state it at the end, that I was giving you historians of that time period to show their belief in the man, not historians of today. Which is, or so I thought, the main point of the argument, historians believing or not believing that Jesus existed.
You are right about that, which is why I do find it a little odd that Jesus isn't mentioned more often, and I can't and no one person can argue that there is irrefutable evidence that Jesus existed. Obviously it adds to the mysticism of the man. But I can argue that there are accounts of him existing, athough, not first hand accounts (which I guess is what you thought I was posting) there are accounts from that time period written by historians. The problem lies with how some people have interpreted these historians. It depends on the answer your looking for and just like any religious text written from long ago, it can be translated differently. When I say translated, I'm also referring to how people take what it means.
Finally, I do apologize for that as well, I did immediately assume you were referring to me, and that was my fault. Made myself look silly a bit. Guess I should slow down from time to time.
By the way, thanks for actually knowing what you're talking about and not posting bullsh.t. I have gotten so used to it, I never really felt like there was a point in trying.