oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
This is just my opinion.......I suggest you watch the video. He speaks about other sources aside from Josephus that historians fairly unanimously agree are authentic, and he explains a probable reason why there was a lack of information about his existence until later.
Sadly the historians mentioned in the film never met with or saw Jesus, just heard about him, so their evidence is secondary, tertiary or hear-say.
However, the Gospel of Mark does seem to be a fairly solid deposition about Jesus and what he did, once the evangelical edits, manipulations and fiddlings have been discovered.
Matthew and Luke needed to copy Mark, so they weren't there or they would have written their own accounts, and the first and last sections of their gospels are junk.
Apostle John did have some useful bits of info, but he changed the person of Jesus, his mission and his real enemies in to a complete fabrication..... he was never there and didn't have a clue about what his namesake John-the-disciple really did.
Jesus was real........ the Christian spin was junk, but totally amazing in that it eventually duped and controlled hundreds of millions.
I'm always interested to hear about and read the early critics and supporters of Jesus because they can assist in a balance of possibilities, but the only balance of probability comes from G-Mark, snippets from the other gospels and early first century Palestinian history/archaeology.
