Did Jesus exist?

[Mudhammam]

Not really, but you wouldn't know that, since you've never managed to either accept or accurately describe my position despite having me relate it to you many times in many threads.  In any case, you're talking about attestation now as though it implied something, but what...we do have an explanation for why jesus is so well attested, I doubt it has anything to do with what you hope to imply by that statement.

You've stated your position many times. Some people (in the church, which apparently really did exist) made up some people (the authors, who may or may not have really existed), who made up some people (Jesus and his disciples), which then persuaded people (because the fictional authors were somehow credible authorities). You also once suggested that we read the New Testament like a modern work of fiction. I forgot the specific title you named but...Yeah, it was all pretty stupid. I don't know if your explanation is any different now... I'd sure hope so.

no..it isn't...it's a good indicator of the beliefs of the author.......it's completely irrational as a comment on historicity.

That's always the case... whether we're reading Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Cicero... your statement that "it's completely irrational as a comment on historicity" is absurd... no it's asinine. Do you understand that basically all of history is told from individual perspectives? 

You also get miracle stories from two three, even four separate sources.  This also, though, is irrelevant, as we know that correlation was one of the metrics these narratives were chosen for inclusion upon.  You are counting the hits - intentionally arrived at out of a wider pool, and ignoring the misses.

Wrong... again. It's not irrelevant. He had a reputation as a miracle worker, and the stories about his alleged healings spread unto the point of embellishment that we see in the written accounts. More importantly, and contrary to your beliefs, in introducing these anecdotes we see that nobody - the multiple, separate sources that you concede we do in fact possess (which is already pretty good for anyone from the first century, especially a Jewish rabbi) - doubted whether or not he actually existed.

That's not actually what happened.  Some greek speaking jews claimed to be followers...of the followers...of a man from galilee...about whom a great many fantastic stories have been written, including, ofc, that he was a god.  

If he came to atone he had to be offered up somehow, you think that the crucifixion speaks to historicity but I think it speaks to theology.  Those details you see as historical are, to me, still filler content in a work of fiction - because no one has given me any reason to take the story as anything other than what it is, a story.  You're putting those pieces together -assuming- there were events about which to be realistic in the first place.  You are assuming what you are being asked to demonstrate...this is also completely irrational.  You could glean just as much "history" this way as you could from reading stories about the miracle worker...and it would be equally "historical".

Please tell me where it is that you find Jews prior to the figure of Jesus awaiting a crucified Messiah. And unless you have anything to put forth that disputes the claim underlying all of these works - that Jesus was a real person - it is in fact you who is assuming what you need to demonstrate. The evidence is clearly on my side.