You misunderstood my point, just because one views him as a savior doesn't mean he's not ficitional and doesn't mean that saying bad things about him is anything special

Ah once again you missed the point, my point by using those semi-outlandish examples was to illustrate that nothing exists to substantiate his existence, outside of those second hand accounts, asking that some evidence is needed to support a second hand account is not unreasonably high.

Let me ask you this: When were the writings supposed to be written, then, to please you? If you take external writings, Jesus is mentioned around 93AD - 60 years after Jesus' death. If you take internal writings (such as the book of James) it drops to just 15 years (if that) after Jesus died. My question is how late does external writing need to take place to justify one's existance? If Jesus did in fact exist, why would a lot of people outside of his circle write about him until he had a larger impact on society (such as in the case of Josephus)?

As the influence of Christianity spread, so did the writings - they became far more prolific as time went on. Tacitus (born in 56ad) wrote at length about Chrisitanity, and it's persecution under Emperor Nero which agrees with the written accounts within the Bible. Tacitus was a well-known historian in his day, and wrote frequently about the Roman empire, and he is considered Rome's greatest historian - if your going to dispute Jesus's legitimacy as existing puts far more history than just mere Christianity into question. Suetonius (born 69AD) also mentioned the persecution of Christianity under Nero. This would lead one, logically, to believe that Christianity was well-established in his time, and was worth mentioning when it came to Roman history.

My next question would be: Do you doubt the existance of Buddah or Mohammed? 

See, but there are firsthand accounts of a man named Jesus (we'll just call him that for now, not the actual word) during that time. Several, actually. It was a common name. The problem is that while a few of them have grounding in this "mythos" (as you call it, I won't disagree), it's hard to extract the "real" Jesus from the group.

The problem lies in the horrible record-keeping of the time, the amount of lapsed time since he existed, and his real impact on the world. As a commoner, he wouldn't have made much of an impact and wouldn't have been given much regard by the establishment during that period.

IMO, he was just a guy. A peaceful guy who impacted many people during his brief time on Earth. But, that's just my opinion. I won't slight anyone who believes otherwise. I envy others' faith. I wish I had that kind of belief in anything. I think that's something to relish, not slight. Anything that gives comfort in this tumultuous world of ours is worth keeping in one's heart.

Hmm. Interesting thought for you, Avinash -

Do you care to explain how Christianity came into existance, then? Given the fact that it's well-documented by historians that it existed prior to 62AD. Where did it come from? Who established it? How did it manage to become so friggin' huge?

Just a few serious questions for you. I understand you like questioning the existance of Jesus, but I'd love to hear a plausible explanation to the formation of Christianity.

Excuse me but WTF are you thinking?  Did Rock_on_2008 go around spreading negative misinformation about the PS3?

Look no further than Mormonism if you want an explanation as to how a religion can be formed after the "messiah" is dead. It's easier to build a mythos around second and third hand accounts than it is to explain Joseph Smith in the time of the formation of media as we know it.

Christianity stuck. For some reason it did. That's the real question, IMO. Out of everything that came out of that time and region, why Christianity?

@Stick: The prevailing theory is that the religion was the result of an amalgamation of beliefs, Horus, Mithras, Prometheus, etc.

@Rocket: I don't know about that, the writings that are used to support the historicity of Jeuss, like the gospels, the epistles, the acts, and others were all second hand accounts written decades later. In addition as you state the record keeping was poor so what evidence do we have to support the existence of the man referenced as Jesus Christ

 Hunh?  I'm afraid I don't follow, where did the PS3 come in?

Why do you think it's likely that an early Christian would make up stories about a savior who was executed in a very humiliating way?  Why not a more prestigious form of death?  Why would these people who you speculate fabricated the existence of Jesus Christ put in bad things about their savior?

From what I read and learned earlier, there are firsthand accounts of Jesus. The problem is sorting out those "fake" Jesus' from the Christian Jesus. It's entirely ambiguous and frankly, up to each person's interpretation. Given the records of the time, there's so much in the open that it's not worth arguing on a forum.

You believe it or you don't. As I said earlier, I won't slight people for believing in something, even though I don't. That kind of comfort must be nice.