>>You were doing great-- demanding proof of Jesus' existence and rejecting most (all?) of what you were given.<<

I was given a Josephus quote that was unknown by any scholars that studied him until Eusebius some 3 centuries later. That's particularly difficult to maintain as genuine.

The other was a Tacitus quote that wasn't a historical reference but a quick retelling of the Christian belief which Tacitus could have learned by asking any Christian in Rome.

Beyond that, there is no evidence.

>>But then we have 26 May 2006 3:12 PM: "He (Jesus) was Julius Caesar redone by Roman royals to once again rule the masses." If that's the club you belong to, you won't find many to join it.<<

Actually, there is school of thought that has concluded this since the 19th century. You may want to look up Bruno Bauer.

>>If you start out with a serious assertion, descending to a ridiculous hypothesis will not help your cause.<<

What's ridiculous about it. All I get is this kind of thing from you folks. Dogmatic statements but no attempt to back them up.

>>Constantine certainly used Christianity as a unifying force--but that does not establish that Jesus was his invention.<<

I never said it was. I said he pushed it and made it the religion it is today. Certainly he didn't invent it as it was around before him.

>>And that's what you're alleging--(otherwise who are the "Roman royals?"). That puts the burden of proof on you. Bad move.<<

I never said Constantine invented Jesus Christ. As for who actually did, we'd have to go back to Josephus himself and his family. They were the Flavians with the Jewish connections. They had the most to lose by the Jewish revolts against the empire.