
Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the
Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical scholar I mean
an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let the
chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may otherwise be
defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find.  They are
not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).

Why an insert?  Read it - I have, a number of times.  The passage is glaringly
out of context, and Josephus, a superb writer, had no such problem elsewhere 
in his work.  The passage has *nothing* to do with the subject matter in which 
it lies.  It suddenly appears and then just as quickly disappears.

Until you can demonstrate how and why the scholarly community is wrong about
the Josephus insert, your "proof" is meaningless and it should not be repeated
here.  What's more, even if Josephus happened to be legitimate, it would "prove"
nothing.  Scholars speak of the "weight of evidence."  Far more independent
evidence would be required to validate your claim.  Until forthcoming, your
belief is based on faith.  That's OK, but you exceed your rights when you pass
faith off as fact.

As for the gospels, there are parallels, but there are also glaring
inconsistencies and contradictions.  Shouldn't a perfect canon be perfect? 
Shouldn't there be absolutely no room for debate?  I suggest you read _Gospel 
Fictions_ by Randel Helms, and _The Unauthorized Version_ by Robin Fox (for 
Herb Huston, no known kinship or familial relationship, but we do indeed share 
an evolutionary ancestry).

The fact that there are inconsistencies, gaps and contradictions does not deny
your position.  On the other hand, neither do the gospels "prove" your faith. 
Independent evidence is necessary, and I know of none (which we have already
discussed, and so far you have not provided any).  Until then, its faith. 
Moreover, you have committed a fundamental error in logic.  You have attempted
to "prove" your claim with that which you want to prove.  Its no different than
saying "I am right because I say so."  

Your logic is full of circles.  It reminds me a bit of the 1910 Presbyterian 
General Assembly.  The assembly defined five fundamentals (this is where
"fundamentalist" came from) of orthodox Protestant Christianity, to wit: 1)
Jesus performed miracles, 2) Jesus was born of a virgin, 3) Jesus was bodily
resurrected, 4) Jesus' crucifixion atoned for human sin, and - here is the
clincher - 5) the bible is the inerrant word of God.  Presbyterians construe
"inerrant" broadly as spritually inerrant.  Fundamentalists take the
first four as literally true, and then validate them with a literally inerrant
bible, which contains the first four, and which is the only thing known to 
contain the first four.  

Smoke and mirrors and wands and hand waving if ever there was!

Its faith, Bill.  You don't have any more or better truths than anyone else. 
Whatever works for you.  Just don't foist it on others. 

Regards,