Previously what I used to think on the topic of existance of jesus was
Absolutely not. I don’t think Jesus was anything other than a mortal man.
Every person on here who says they believe in Jesus is basing their belief on either one or two factors. First, you have the New Testament. Without getting off the subject, let me say that without a doubt the NT is not a reliable source of information when it comes to history. For one, no one knows who actually wrote it, especially the first four gospels. They sometimes contradict one another. There are inconsistencies. These issues cannot be overlooked. Why accept the NT as “truth” when it has these issues?

My perspective really changed about jesus when you said to believe in him for few days and really from that day 1 I have experienced a lot of changes in me ie
I have started believing in his existence and now my perspective is
Jesus was an historical person. Anyone who tries to deny this is on the lunatic fringe of anti-theism and not to be taken seriously. Not just any worthy biblical scholar or historian, but atheist biblical scholars and historians are convinced of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Those who deny it do so entirely for an anti-theist agenda, are expressing a recent phenomenon which has no grounding in historical accuracy, are biased to the extreme, and are more loony than the most hair-brained of religious nuts. Jesus is mentioned by Roman and Jewish historians, by the emperor Claudius, and yes, by the New Testament. One can claim that the Bible is biased evidence, but claiming it is "no" evidence diverges from all other examples of a contemporary writing being scrutinized historically. I'll say it again. Historical Christ-denial is more farcical than any religious lunacy......... Thanks a lot everytime I see your videos on dtube it brings a lot of positive energy in me and It's just because of you my life has changed I will always be standing with you sir!!