Objective evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ?

[Mudhammam]

damn I must've hit a nerve.
Nestor's response was riddled with insults and no content.  Typical.


He's got the Drich the argument down pat ...

That's only funny because yours was nothing but a rant about my apparent religious devotion and need to believe in Jesus' historicity. Your inability to form cogent remarks relevant to the topic only goes to demonstrate the vacuous nature of your reasoning. Please keep using memes because you're not very good at engaging in thoughtful discussion.

---

Oh, trust me, I do know full well the can of worms that is opened up by the claim that 1Cor 15 was written "within 5 years of Jesus' death" and that it proves the existence of a creed and what that creed was. When I can do it justice, it will include a full discussion on:

1. When was the death of Jesus again? We'll have to take the Gospels seriously enough to try to pinpoint that date on a timeline which we'd have to do if we're seriously going to assert a narrow five year window. 
2. What did the early Christians believe again, taking in full consideration that there was no orthodox belief about Jesus.
3. A full verse-by-verse reading of 1 Cor 15 to show what a truckload of crap it is and even if we do take it seriously, it actually undermines the Historist's case. 
4. And who was Paul again? There's a can of worms in and of itself. He was originally discovered by Marcion as the poster child of his denomination of Christianity. Half his epistles are considered "inauthentic". He received a complete rewrite by the triumphant Orthodox Christians as evident by the stark contrast between Acts and his epistles. And taking him seriously enough to consider that he was a historical character and that he actually wrote what we have, he was apparently a schizophrenic who had hallucinations and heard voices. 

For right now, I'll just say that anyone who holds up the Bible and says "historical documents" should just be laughed out of the room. 

Laughing people out of the room won't get your ideas more attention in academic circles, and let's be honest, if there's more to them than pseudo-skepticism and elaborate conspiracies, that's desperately what they need.
1) Multiple sources attest to Jesus' crucifixion under Pilate. You'll find ways to dismiss them, and I might grant you one or two of those arguments, but just to say, "Nope, sorry, not enough," is basically just standard conspiracy theorist fare.
2) Really not a question that lacks adequate documentation to survey.
3) How so?
4) Oh, are we on to the "Paul was probably a made-up character too" bit? He wasn't originally discovered by Marcion. If half of Paul's epistles are fraudulent, and I'd grant that they are, you have multiple persons who believed Paul was a well-known enough figure in Christian circles to invoke his name as more authoritative and credible. Then you have Clement, who mentions Paul, the author of Acts, and perhaps others, though those are what I know off the top of my head. Maybe Paul was a typical mystic who suffered mental illness, but much of his writing is rather lucid and eloquent.