Forgetting Jesus Freak Bullshit, Let's Stick To History:

[Pat Mustard]

This is actually the first time I have heard of Samosata, and I haven't found, that he is normally brought up, when discussing early testaments concerning Jesus.   But none the less, I think you are missing the point of bringing up a hostile witness.  It isn't that they agree with the persons case (as then they would not be a hostile witness).  They are brought into question, because even though they are hostile, they do confirm particular evidence in regards to what is being said.  In this instance and others, it confirms that Christianity was known at this point in time.  This goes against the mythers, and those claiming legend.

You're wrong on this, because all Lucian of Samosota does is confirm that the christian cult existed at a date after 125CE. Nobody disputes this. What he categorically does not do, and what christian apologists essentially lie in portraying him as doing, is show that Jesus existed, started a religion, and that that religion is based off the "one true" god.

Bringing up a "witness" claiming christianity existed in 125 CE is as useful for christians claiming it existed in c33CE as a defence team in a murder case where the defendant said he was dining in Restaurant X on 12:15 on the 15th September (the time of the murder) bringing up a witness who says "yeah he was there on that date, I saw him with my own two eyes, eating there on 12:15 on the 24th September". About as useful as shit on a stick frankly.