The reason why Jesus (of the bible) isn`t mentioned much among contemporary historians, isn`t so difficult to figure out. He made a very small splash while he lived. He was born in a little shit-hole, he had some followers that went along with him as he walked around and preached, and he died in what to the romans was another little little shit-hole. The hung him up on that cross, and thought that that was that. They had probably done that allready to countless other blasphemers, and they never expected that this one would be different, that his legend would grow the way it did. And that`s probably why they didn`t mention him much. But it`s not true that no contemporary sources doesn`t mention him.
Josephus mentions him:
Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18:3.3 ยง63-64): "At this time [i.e., the rule of Pontius Pilate as prefect of Judea] there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin."
Jesus is also mentioned in Rabbinic litterature and among greco-roman writers:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mq12.html
Yes we know rex, anybody who does'nt agree with your; "neo-fascist-psycho-jesus" world view must be a liar, right? "You're either with shining one, or you're with the terrorists"
...and anyone who doesn`t agree with atheists, agnostics (I am one, btw), and participate in every womens rights, anti-war, pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage- parade, and believes in Jesus and the Bible and all that, is automatically neo-fascist Bush-worshipper, right?
And that is why I fucking hate politically correct people.