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

[RoadRunner79]

---

Yes, I believe that is what I had said.  I find it interesting that I'm wrong, but you seem to agree with me.  The usefulness is in dispelling those who would claim late dating and legend.  It can be reliably shown that the Church was fairly well established early in the 2nd Century and prior across a large geographic area.  Lucian of Samosota was only born in 125 A.D.  and I'm unsure what time he wrote this, so it makes him specifically less useful for this purpose (and is probably why it is the first I have heard of him).  Others can be used more successfully to place Christianity as established earlier in the 1st century.  This goes to show that these events are reported during the time they are claimed, and unlikely the result of legend.   (Legends must distance themselves from the facts necessarily).  We have a number of accounts from multiple sources of Jesus.  And these are also backed up by others in the early 2nd century who quoted them, and attributed their Church founding to the Apostles and Jesus's disciples. 

However, if you have evidence or reason to believe that this is all myth or conspiracy theory, please do share!

---

My point is, which you seem to be so intent on missing despite it being obvious (I wonder why?), is that Lucian in no way proves the existence of Jesus, he only proves the existence of a cult of Jesus extant in 165CE. This is spectacularly bad evidence to be pointing at if you want to argue the existence of Jesus, equivalent to pointing out the existence of Jedism for the truthfulness of the Star Wars story, or the creation of neo-paganism for the reality of Thor. Cults have always existed around fictional people (including the biblical Jesus) and they probably will for a long time yet.

I feel as if we are carrying on two different conversations.  I'll agree again, so you can tell how I am missing it.