> 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.
The term 'contemporary evidence' is not found at all in the article extract I posted - so please don't misrepresent my posts. If it does, please extract the quote, remembering my post is still present for all to see. It dealt specifically with the historical manuscripts.
But the arguement totally fails to recognize that written documents are not the sum total of what's called "evidence."
Very good, you must have gleaned that from the last line of my post. However, while not the sum total, it provides the basis for placing the individual into their historic context.
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.
Nope, sorry, doesn't wash. Provide the great readers here with a reasonable theory that can account for the teachings of Jesus, the faith of the disciples and the early church after the cruxifiction and persecution that followed, the dynamic change in the life of Saul, and the cultural change Christianity eventually exerted over the world, then you might have credability with that arguement.
The same historical methodology that has you riled up over Caesar's existance, when applied to Jesus provides the same supporting documentation of His life. Remember, in the case of Jesus we are dealing with a substantial number of eyewitness accounts. Secondly, the 'faking' of Jesus' existance, given the eyewitness testamony, even testamony that resulted in persecution and even execution (an action that most sane persons would not follow - if it wasn't true) was the strength of the early church. And this was recognized immediately outside of the early Christian community as evidenced by Jewish writings of the era.
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.
Those who deny or doubt the simple fact of His existance I would term "moonbat". They are not applying common sense logical approaches that reasonable persons would. The details of His life will always be a matter of debate (even His Divinity) and I have no problem with that. However, when the challenger has to restort to subjective evidence or interpretation of historical documents - just like your reference to Apollonius - to try to discredit the historicity of Jesus by infering that Apollonius was really Jesus stretches credability to the breaking point.
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.
I do not fear those who would question Jesus' divinity because I have a rational understanding the arguements both pro and con and know the objective evidence my faith is based upon. Those who question the divinity of Jesus do so at their own risk. So being one who will challenge the challenger makes me one of weak and paranoid faith? LOL, thought you like those who challenged opinion?