@Jason Proudmoore,
To your first paragraph--the fact that early church proselytizers used popular myths does not constitute evidence that the man to whom they referred did not exist, not simply because they fudged the story. Your "fountain of knowledge" is chimerical.
To your second--you have provided no evidence. You've said that because the early proselytizers lied about that attributes of the putative Jesus then therefore he likely did not exist. That is not evidence, it is only an argument, and it is not a logically founded argument.
To your third--this is not different from the argument i've referred to above, and, tediously, i will point out once again that the lack of honesty by proponents of the sect does not argue one way or the other for the question of whether or not the putative Jesus existed.
To your fourth--none of that is germane to the question of whether or not the putative Jesus existed, except, inferentially your remarks about Pilate. The fact that a Judean carpenter alleged to have been executed 2000 years ago in Palestine does not appear in the historical record is not evidence that he did not exist. All of the rest of the carpenters in Judea are not mentioned, either. In about 1961, Israeli archaeologists working at the site of Caesaraea Maritima, the capital of the province if Iudaea, found an inscription in the arena they uncovered which shows that arena being dedicated to Tiberius by the Prefect Pontius Pilate. It is completely false to claim that there is any doubt about Pilate exercising power in the first century CE.
To your fifth--either you are not very bright, or you just haven't been paying attention. I've never claimed that Flavius Josephus or Tacitus were contemporaries of the putative Jesus. I've just pointed out that that is no good reason to dismiss them as sources. There are other better reasons to doubt the veracity of what most scholars now consider interpolations in the works of those authors. But the fact that they would not have been contemporaries is not one of them.
Sixth--it's a silly statement because you assert that Jesus could not have existed, and therefore to object to someone's testimony because they weren't contemporary of someone you claim never existed is both stupid and silly. Once again, one dismisses the passages in Flavius Josephus and Tacitus for other, better reasons.
To your last question, i will give you no answer. I've already given detailed examples of at least three reason for dismissing the passages for each author as interpolations. I see no reason why i should be obliged to repeat them again and again just because you've been too damned lazy to read my post.
Finally, i will repeat myself on this--there is no reliable historical evidence that the putative Jesus existed; nor is there any evidence that he did not.
