> There is no reason for Jewish historians to "make up" Christ.
Sigh. Nobody is saying that "Jewish historians" made up Christ. What I'm saying is that a Jewish historian writing two decades after Christ is supposed to have died is hardly likely to be able to "prove" that Christ did live. What Josephus siad, in effect, was, "There are a lot of Christians, and they believe X, Y, Z." Well, I can also write "There are a lot of Hare Krishnas, and they believe X, Y and Z," but that does not mean that X,Y, and Z are in fact true.
> Tacitus mentioned Him, Suetonius mentioned Him, and Phlegon, all mentioned Him, but no doubt, they are all liars
How many historians mentioned Mohammad?
I have read the complete works of Josephus, and I assure you, that is not "what he said". You don't seem to have read anything historical-- why dont you go read some History and then get back to us
Lucian of Samosata, a second century anti-Christian satirist of the second century, referred to Christ as "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world."
Flavius Josephus (born AD 37.....only a few years after the death of Jesus) was a Jewish Pharisee and historian, and in his Antiquities talkes about Jesus as a wise man, doer of wonderful works, condemned to the cross by Pilate, appeared to them alive again on the third day, and verified that he fulfilled the prophesies of the Jewish Scriptures.
Even the most hardened cynics, if they are educated, accept the historic existence of Jesus. He is by far the most credibly documented ancient figure.
The historic proof for the existence of Caesar falls FAR short of the historic proof of the existence of Jesus (it was centuries after Caesar that the first manuscript of the Gallic Wars appeared), yet you accept Caesar glibly, and stubbornly deny Christ.
It might cause one to question as to whether you are even remotely interested in the truth at all........