>>You state that Jesus did not exist but he was Julius Ceasar. The opening post states quite clearly that, in someones book, there is more to prove that Jesus existed then Julius Ceasar. You, in your last post, say Jesus was Julius Ceasar. If they are one and the same person how can there be more evidence for one to exist than the other?<<

What is the evidence that Caesar didn't exist. All kinds of people wrote about him during his life, coins were minted in his name and image while he ruled. Sounds like he existed to me.

>>Forget paraphrasing others works.<<

I didn't paraphrase other works. I quoted them verbatim.

>>For every peice of 'evidence' you give in such a manner there are more giving the opposing viewpoint. We could spend all day quoting and counter quoting.<<

I would be more than willing to do that if you think you can beat me at it.

>>You may well say that all the evidence for his existance are from Religious works. So what? All the evidence to the contrary is from those who are anti-religious. Would you expect it any other way?<<

We're talking about writings contemporary to Jesus and the generation after. The only writings of that period to mention are Church literature. There has to be more than that. Inevitably, they fall back on Josephus but that raises more questions than it answers. The especially damning silence comes from Philo since he came up with John's Logos-Made-Flesh and was contemporary to Jesus. He never wrote a word about Christians or Jesus. He was supposedly living in Jerusalem when the trial and crucifixion took place. The man who came up with the concept of the Logos Made Flesh promptly failed to recognize it when it came riding into Jerusalem on the back of an ass.

>>So lets hear YOUR 'proof' that Jesus did not exist. Not someone elses 'proof'. Yours. I guess that you cannot supply any. Just as I cannot supply any for his existence. All the evidence both for and against is heresay and uncorrobarated. Neither side would stand up in a court of law.<<

This is a disingenuous attempt to discredit my argument. When I ask for your proof, I'm not asking for "yours." I'm asking you for any at all. The Josephus quote is a forgery. It was not known before Eusebius quoted it some 300 years later. The Tacitus reference is a retelling of the Christian story and certainly not being quoted or culled from historical documents. Odd also that Roman historians of that period never heard of "Jesus Christ" but "Christ" only.

>>What I can do though is show my reasons for supposing he did exist. I can draw and give sound logical reasons for those suppositions and am quite happy to do so. Will you do the same for your suppositions? Remember my earlier point about the difference between fact fiction and supposition? If not please refer back.<<

I will not fall for this. I have given you the evidence already and I am still waiting for your refutation.

>>And please don't cut and paste any more long boring passages. Lets hear YOUR OWN reasoning for drawing your conclusions.<<

Once again, a disingenuous attempt to discredit my argument. You have no evidence for any of this--quit jerking me around. If you had it, you'd spill it. You're once again trying to get me to repeat myself. I've already given you my argument and I'm waiting for you to attack it instead of me.