Blacknad wrote:
"You seem to bring issues to the party that don't concern real scholars"

They may not concern self-annointed Christian scholars but they concern a whole lot of other people.

Blacknad wrote:
"I don't think any serious scholar doubts the veracity of the Josephus passage."

No serious scholar would make a determination about the veracity of something without knowing that it exists. Can you point me to Josephus's original written text? Of course not. Is what he wrote plausible? Quite another story. But it is not evidence of a virgin birth nor of a resurrection. Without those two elements you have no religion.

Blacknad wrote:
"- Tacitus' writings prove the existence of Christians and the fact that they were being tortured and killed by Nero in 67 AD."

Which in what way proves that a virgin birth and resurrection took place?

Blacknad wrote:
"Christ was probably crucified between 30 and 33 AD.
"

Which in what way proves that a virgin birth and resurrection took place?

Blacknad wrote:
"I cannot believe that a movement that was growing so quickly (large enough for Nero to feel he had to launch a persecution) was utterly without basis,"

Then apparently you've never heard of Scientology. Does Islam ring a bell? Ever here of Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King? How about Moses or Mohammed? Your statement just impaled itself.

Blacknad wrote:
"Why is this silly?"

Now you have your answer.

Blacknad wrote:
"There is a difference between persecuting and conquering."

So the blacks in South Africa were persecuted or conquered? So the Moslems in Bosnia were persecuted or conquered? So the American Indians were persecuted or conquered? Shall I continue.

Blacknad wrote:
"But I am only showing that it is unreasonable to doubt the existence of a historical Jesus figure."

You are fighting the wrong battle. No one denies someone with that name existed at about the time in question. It is the question of "trouble maker" versus "son of god" that is the crux of the matter.

Blacknad wrote:
"We are not debating here whether he is a deity."

Why not? It is the only issue possible. Lets apply some Boolean logic. Which statements are impossible?

1. Jesus existed and was the son of god.
2. Jesus didn't exist and was the son of god.
3. Jesus existed and was a decent guy.
4. Jesus didn't exist and was a decent guy.

You are trying to argue against 2 and 4. Why? If you prove 1 then 3 is included by definition.

DA Morgan