Of philosophers: "They spoke of the gods allegorically. It is extremely obvious they were never asserting these gods were for real. I believe it was the denial of gods that led to Socrates taking the hemlock." This is not "extremely obvious", and the mere fact* that Socrates* was convicted of denial of gods certainly doesn't mean it was true. We Christians tend to overplay the extent to which we were persecuted by the Roman Imperial government in the early days of the movement, but there was clearly some actual persecution (even actual martyrdoms) and the charges, not infrequently, included "atheism".

Now, I realize that this does not answer your notion of what this thread is about. But all this side stuff (both that you have brought up, like the Flavian thing and indeed the whole idea that the title / should be an =, and the things others of us have brought up like the elephant and Mary Magdalene) is quite pertinent to the assessment of the evidence (such as it is, and there ain't much that would "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" any of our points).

I certainly don't have any proof that would convince you of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth let alone that of Jesus the Anointed One of God and God's unigenitus Son. It's all speculative stuff, because what we have to do with history at this remove is to speculate as to what concatenation of prior realities is most likely to have eventuated in the reality we think we can prove. I think Josephus (without the interpolations) provides some evidence (not proof) of the existence of Jesus. I think this is buttressed by Origen. I think if Eusebius had wanted to create the Testimonium Flavianum he would also have changed his Origen citations. From what I think I know of the history of the early church (and there is a fair amount of archæological evidence that there was Christianity prior to both Constantine and Eusebius, and some evidence as to what beliefs were current at various points) it seems to me more likely (indeed, much more likely) that there was an itinerant rabbi, almost certainly named (not just titled) Jesus (Yeshu or Yeshua, if you prefer a semiticized spelling), some time prior to Saul of Tarsus, whom I likewise take to have existed despite the fact that some of the letters canonized in his name seem unlikely to have been his, and despite the fact that the Acts of the Apostles is not "history", on whom (antecedent: Jesus) the later Christianities that are documented were dependent. Having said all that, please be aware that the Jesus I believe in and through whom I believe I am being saved is not subject to historical proofs or disproofs; the history involved is my own life, the Jesus I believe in "lives within my heart" (using "heart" in a non-anatomical sense, I hasten to clarify) and acts within my life experience. The connection between this living Savior and the itinerant rabbi is not a matter of proof, but of faith. Paul (né Saul) wrote (I Cor. 15, KJV)

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."

Now, I believe that Paul was referring to Jesus here when he wrote "Christ", and that he was referring to some sort of relatively recent event in the way of a resurrection of Christ Jesus, but my own faith in Christ Jesus is not actually dependent upon Paul's testimony. For that matter, since I am of a universalist bent, I believe that you, too, AR282, are being saved—again a point upon which Paul and the historical rabbi Yeshu might have words with me. I don't believe there's anything you can do to thwart the salvific intent of God. (This is, I suppose, based on my effort to step back and imagine the whole elephant.)

Haruo

*fact...Socrates — am I to take it that you believe Socrates was historical?