[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[EgoDeath]

It's worth mentioning that several historians have been quoted as saying that, "most historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed"... for whatever that's worth. Personally, I'm not so convinced, as no historian ever claimed to have seen Jesus themselves - and none of them could have, as they wrote about Jesus long after he was gone.

I find it to be, mostly, a non-issue anyway. So what if the Jesus of the Bible was real? It means virtually nothing, other than lending some legitimacy to some of the stories of the Bible. It says nothing of Jesus' supposed magical powers or the existence of any sort of divine creator. It's almost inconsequential.

edit:

At best, I think we can say it's very possible that Jesus of Nazareth existed. But once again... my question is... who cares?

---

Let me mention what Josephus said about Jesus... I have a copy of The Works of Josephus in front of me... Here, in book 18, Chapter 3, 3, it says:

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

I bolded the two statements above to illustrate a few things.

1. It seems that Josephus believed Jesus to be more than a man, saying, "if it be lawful to call him a man"...

2. It seems that Josephus accepts that account of Jesus rising from the dead on the third day.

3. It seems that Josephus does not consider himself to be a Christian, but still accepts Christs divinity as a fact.

Now, are we to believe a person, who seemingly thought of Jesus as more than a man, and believed that this being, Jesus, actually rose from the dead, seriously? Is this what we're supposed to consider a reliable source? Many people will cry, Yes! This is a reliable source! But why? Why should we take the word of a man who seemed to believe in miracles and thought of Jesus as a divine being? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I think, if anything, scholars are bending over backwards to give some credence to the stories espoused by Christianity.