I think you misunderstood my point. I am not saying that the "Jesus myth" is in any way real under any argument.
I am saying that the idea that there was some guy similar to David Koresh upon whose memory all the myths were piled is simpler than believing that there was no actual person and that some people simply decided to make him up. Obviously, almost all the stuff they said about him was made up.
Just about the only parts that are true are probably the parts they try to so hard to fit into the Messiah prophecies. He was actually born in Nazareth, but because the Messiah was supposed to be born in Bethlehem his followers in later years had to make up a cockamamie story about a census, accidentally getting the dates wrong and overlooking the fact that such a huge undertaking would probably have been noted in Roman records, etc., etc.
I understood what you were saying just fine. It's a good argument and one that I've made in just about every post I've made in this topic (and that's quite a lot). The parts where we can see the gosel writers struggling to explaining something awkward (and usually failing rather miserably) are precisely the things we have good reason to believe have a historical basis.
Now that said, I think you are engaging in a little bit of rhetorical exagerration saying that almost all the stuff they said about him was made up. There are lots of little things that they have no reason to make up but are still well attested, meaning we can be pretty certain they did occur. The father of Joseph being a carpenter, for instance, or Jesus having siblings, or him being betrayed, or him being an apocalyptic preacher etcetera...
But as I said, I agreed with most of your post. I only took issue with the parts in the blog post you linked to that I think were false. The alleged (but overblown) simillarities with Krishna etcetera being one, and the inaccuracy concerning the references to Jesus in ancient historians being another.
You seem to have missed some pretty important aspects of those pages...
but that those words and phrases that correspond with standard Christian formulae are additions from a Christian copyist
the earliest surviving manuscript containing the passage is an 11th century Christian scribal copy
Confirming my point exactly... I was speaking of original documents, I give absolutely no weight to xtian copied documents.
"You seem to have missed some pretty important aspects of those pages..."
Oh the irony.
I've done my homework on this subject, pal. I suggest you do the same before you stumble into a discussion with no knowledge of the subject.
"but that those words and phrases that correspond with standard Christian formulae are additions from a Christian copyist"
And had you gone on to read the page in full, you would find out that most scholars agree that the Testimonium Flavianum has been altered to (that's what the word "additions" means), but that there was an authentic reference there to be altered in the first place.
But that's just talking about the TF. The other reference in Josephus is virtually uncontested, and the same goes for the reference in Tacitus.
Which means we have at worst two and most likely three references to Jesus in non-religious documents which were written within several decades of his death.
Which means your statements were garbage.
"Confirming my point exactly... I was speaking of original documents, I give absolutely no weight to xtian copied documents."
You never actually said that you were talking about original documents, actually.
But that's not even the point: the standard you've set is completely ridiculous. We don't have any original documents of anything that anyone has ever written in the ancient world. Not from Caesar, not from Cicero, not from anyone. All documents we have are copied at least several times (usually by Christians, though not always). So if you're going to dismiss the references to Jesus on the basis of the relevant documents not being original, you might as well dismiss the existence of anything and everyone in the ancient world.
Please do your homework and then try to make your case.
I have, it explicitely says year 1100...
We have original documents... we have the scrolls, many dating to the first century, THOSE do not speak of Jesus.