I think we agree. A lot of the claims laterly came from Paul. In many ways Jesus and Mohammed (who certainly did exist) were very similair. Both had messages of love and peace, both messages were corrupted after they died. It was Paul who made all the conflicting and contradicting rules, you should be celibate to be a good christian or you should be family people. Which is it Paulus? Equally Mohammed's later followers corrupted his story, especially concerning women and education. I think like Mohammed, Jesus had a wonderful message of love and peace. Probably a bit unrealistic but lovely all the same.

Read the bible...read as many religious texts aa you can. It is the best way to confirm your lack of belief

@Amisja Was raised UU I have 'reviewed' the bible & other texts....I'm a free thinker who seems to feel eastern religions are more to my liking.

@Silverwhisper thank you !

The passage referring to Christ is a complete forgery, Josephus never wrote it. Stylistically wrong and far to brief for Josephus who always elaborates more on different sects, messiahs and what not. He doesn't even tell his readers what a Christ is and why it is significant. It would appear that a later Christian was disturbed by there not being any mention Jesus and just inserted a story in the available space.

Some other texts show that Jesus was known as The Nazorian (meaning has been lost), but later Christians mistook or made it fit to the town of Nazereth.

@Humanity4all It is the Testimonium Flavianum passage that is generally considered to be a later Christian insertion due to both stylistic and contextual oddities. I agree. The James Passage, however, is widely considered to be an authentic Josephus writing.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Even Bart Ehrman, a highly reputable non-believer bible scholar and author of the Historical Jesus, concedes this passage is most probably an authentic passage and testifies to the existence of Jesus.

@Silverwhisper You are making two totally separate arguments. One concerning the existence of Jesus the man and one concerning the existence of Jesus the Christ.
First of all, of course a story isn't true just because it says it is. The bible isn't true because it says it is, either. That goes without saying. And you could make that same agrument for thousands of historical figures and claim they never existed either.
Secondly, historiography does not deal in scientific proof but in historical evidence. These are two completely different things. Josephus, and Tacitus for that matter, are important simply because they are disinterested parties that testify to the existence of Jesus the man, not the so-called Jesus the Christ. But there are dozens of documents and testimonies to the existence of Jesus the man. Yes, you could claim that all these dozens of witnesses and testimonies and documents were all liars and forgerers who made up everything, even the mere existence of a man, as you could about thousands of other such historical documents.
Thirdly, why do you feel so threatened by the mere existence of a mere mortal named Jesus? So what? BTW, his name wasn't Jesus which is a Greek name. It was most probably Joshua ben Joseph. He was a rebel who was crucified as a criminal as were many others. This has absolutely nothing to do with stories of miracles and resurrection.
Fourthly, if you have no respect for historical evidence and the historical scholars of the world, then there is nothing more to be said.

@Silverwhisper Sorry that I misunderstood your position. Now that I read your clarification it appears that we more or less agree on everything.
A few clarifications on my position:

1. The question proposed was "Did Jesus Exist? I mean was he a flesh-and-blood person." I was never treating the question as if it was instead asking if Jesus was the Son of God. No comparison of the two totally different questions was ever implied or intended.
2. You have always been the one speaking in terms of proof, never me. I have only spoken in terms of historical evidence, some of which is more convincing than others, of course. What indeed can be proven beyond all doubt using just historical documents?
3. Yes, I am very much aware of the suspicion and existence of historical forgeries which are far more extensive than more people realize. Many are thought to be good-intentioned "corrections' made by clerks, often who were monks. Others, not so good-intentioned such as the Donation of Constantine. May I refer you the book FORGED, written by the same Bart Ehrman who is absolutely convinced that Jesus existed.
4. Yes, I understand the greater difficulties of the Tacitus reference, which is why I initially didn't even mention it, only the Josephus James passage as, which I consider to be, along with the vast majority of historical scholars, more convincing evidence. The Josephus Testimonium is far more problematic, and I agree with both Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman that it is most probably an inserted forgery.
5. There are, of course, about another two dozen historical "gospels" from various locations that also attest to the existence of Jesus, but these are problematic as they come from religious interested parties, and not from secular historical sources, so they are even more problematic. Nevertheless, their existence cannot be denied. Indeed, their suppression has been implemented by Christianity, not by historians.

I appreciate your contribution to this discussion and respect your Apatheism, though not everyone on this site does and will insist you are a closet Atheist. As you can see, I happen to think that distinctions are important.

@filthyMONKEYmen maybe just did he exist yes or no and why?