I said that there are no contemporary references to Jesus. Perhaps, pete, you should borrow that dictionary of Keith's to look up "contemporary". When you think about it, considering that Jesus was supposedly a pain in the neck as far as the Romans were concerned, and it was the Romans who eventually saw him off, it's a bit odd that there isn't the teensiest mention. Those Romans were quite good at writing things down, pete. I'm not demanding greater evidence, pete. I'm asking for SOME evidence. Also, I have no a priori assumption (I've thought about it first) nor preference (why should I have a preference? He's either there or he isn't). As for the gospel records being rejected, well they're interesting documents, no doubt. But, let's face it, they were all written long after the death of Jesus (if he ever lived at all), yet are replete, in places, with direct and lengthy quotations of his. I find that a bit hard to swallow myself. There are plenty of inconsistencies, as even the most ardent theologians are obliged to acknowledge. If you gave me four history books about the second world war that contained loads of contradictions, you wouldn't be asking me to accept all four in full without demur, would you? Yet that's what you appear to be requiring in the case of the gospels. Finally, someone or other chose those four and rejected a number of others for inclusion in the Bible. I wonder why.

Keith, I listed the factors in the post with numbered points. Stop trying to daft-man it.