You must have reading comprehension difficulity, as I said nothing about contemporary evidence, but was citing historical manuscript evidence relating to the history surrounding the actions of Jesus(I know it was a long post, but take your time and re-read it). However, it would be educational if you researched your posting to include the dates when the items were made? Were they made when the individual was actually living or some years later, and which individual is depicted.
I too could post a lot of images of Jesus, including recently found 2d or 3d century coin. One could also post statues of Zeus, Mithras or other clearly mythical personages, and coins bearing similar images. That does not define by itself the historicity of the personage the image is trying to represent.
So it comes back around to whats your point anyway. The historicity of Jesus has been easily proven and accepted by nearly all but moonbat scholars. The written documentation about Jesus' life are just one line of evidence. Many others on this thread have touched on some of the other lines of evidence.
> I said nothing about contemporary evidence
The text you cut-and-pasted *did*, though. That was the bulk of it's arguement, that the most recent editions of Caesars works and those described Caesar are substantially newer thatn extant works describing Jesus. But the arguement totally fails to recognize that written documents are not the sum total of what's called "evidence."
> Were they made when the individual was actually living or some years later, and which individual is depicted.
All are of Julius Caesar, taken from life. The coins were minted within his lifetime or within a few years of it.
> I too could post a lot of images of Jesus, including recently found 2d or 3d century coin.
The difference being, unlike the Caesar images, that one would not have been taken from life. The difference being, faking the existence of Caesar would have required a vast conspiracy, while faking the existence of Jesus would ahve required a few. The difference being, Julius Caesar was just a man who was proclaimed a god for political purposes, while Jesus... well...
> The historicity of Jesus has been easily proven and accepted by nearly all but moonbat scholars.
If you defien "moonbat scholars" as those who raise doubts, then, sure. But then, by doing so, you've turned "moonbat" from an insult to a term of honor. Rather a lot of scholars have debated the historiocity of Jesus, everything from his divinity to his mere existence. If you choose to view those who dare question his divinity to be insane (i.e "moonbat") that is of course your choice, but it marks you as being a man of very weak and paranoid faith.