Archaleogical evidence.  Well, i guess that's not whom.  Arcaelogists?

Also.. historical writings...?

Also Joseph Atwill funny enough.  More on this later.

Constantine became emperor in 306 AD. 

Christian Art has been identified and dated as existing 2 centuries before that.

Let alone Nero's recorded prosecution of Christianity 

Tacitus writings on Jesus (116 AD)

and archaelogical finds that date possibly as far back as 70 AD.

Which is why,... if you had read your own source... (or i guess have an ancillary knowledge on roman history) you would of noted he doesn't claim Constantine created it.

Though he still suggests that invention of Christanity postdates Nero.  Which is just weird.

His website is hilarious though.

Join us for a one-day symposium that will provide a unique insight into how the ruling classes, from the Caesars of the past to the public relations firms working for governments and high finance today,*cough jews cough* have maintained power and an unending stealth class war by weaponising our own imagination against us.

If I had to guess I imagine his theory will be that Vespian, Josephus and Trajan concocted the idea after Josephus' betrayel and pushed it on people via ancient alien esque arguements.

How he gets around the whole Nero thing will be intersting though... considering the Great Fire of Rome predates the First Roman-Jewish war by 2 years.

Should be some interesting hand waving there. 

As well as explaining why the Romans would create Christianity, and then prosecute it worse then Judiasm for a couple hundred years even though it was supposed to be the repalcement of Judism.

Ignoranceand intolerence are the true diseases

The likelly hood of some messianic jewish figure in early 1st century pallestine and/or gallalee... pretty darn high.  Jesus was a common name at the time (Josephus mentions the name 20 or so times attributed to various individuals), so some figure combining the two is entirely possible.  Messianic jewish groups and early christians in the mid 1st century, that we have credible historical evidence of.  Speaking with certainty about life events and atriibuting them with certainty to a figure mentioned in passing 30 to sixty years post mortem, well that is what I have issue with.

When scholars consider the reality of pagan figures, even more recent ones like Ragnar Lothbrok  it is always with a certain scepticism as to the events surrounding the figure.  The two pagan historians in the quote were not writing religious texts but rather extensive histories of the Roman and Greek periods according to the standards of the time.  We don't atribute the same credibility to Homeric odysies or the Hyms of Orpheus for example in the helenistic period of Polybius. Nor are Plutarch's  works on Isis and Osiris given the same creedence as his Lives of the Roman Emporers.

The reason I chose ahistorical rahter than mythical as a term was because I don't consider the argument from absence to be substantive proof.  Calling a 1st century figure a myth requires much more proof than that line of reasoning.

The historian you quoted is very credible, but the work you quoted from Jesus: A Historians Review of the Gospels recieved this criticism from a christian historical critic who rather liked the work:

"By which I am certainly not arguing that there was no Jesus. I fully believe in Jesus and his ministry, although not entirely as it has come down to us through the Gospels. But I would be more comfortable with the work of an author designating himself a historian, calling his work a history, if he indeed relied on original sources. Of which there are none. Grant himself notes this, and seems to have realized the challenge any historian faces with this subject, as he ends his book with just such questions of validity as I am posing here. Any study of Jesus employing sources that come anywhere near to his own lifetime is limited to the Gospels. Moreover, we cannot even depend on the oldest versions of the Gospels as truly accurate evidence of the life of Jesus in that Jesus, his companions, and the people around him must have spoken primarily Aramaic, Hebrew, or Latin, while our oldest forms of the Gospels are in Greek. So already we have been as distanced from Jesus from a linguistic standpoint as we have been from a temporal one. Consequently, from my perspective at least, this book would have been better described as a literary analysis of the figure of Jesus within the Gospels rather than a history."

The difference between Grant and the guy you listed, is that he is more or less treating the bible as one source.

Believers take it as one source too. How else do you come up with a 6000 year old Earth?

The bible has a few historical events and people take it seriously. It's akin to stuffing today's newspaper into the middle of book of short stories and calling the collection factual.

I'm not seeing the relevence in your statement to the topic at hand.  Do you have something actual constructive and informative to say on the topic, or did you just come into the thread to try and troll religious people.  Aftearll we aren't talking about if the entire bible is factual,  just simply one aspect of it, the existence of jesus.

My comment was about the Bible. The topic is about a particular point of contention in the bible. Seems very relevant.

If you wanted my take on whether or not Atwill is correct, you could have asked. I side with the consensus of historians/biblical scholars as they have the appropriate credentials to make an intelligent, informed statement. Not forum posters.

So if we're talking about the battle of bunker hill, it's totally on topic to talk about how Ben Franklin liked to have sex with prostitutes, since both things are about the revolutionary war?

As for your take... so you believe in a historical jesus then.  Well either that or don't just generally know the consesnus. 

Though i'd actually point out that something like this needs a very strong consensus. (which thankfully it does).

Because quite honestly I wouldn't trust a lot of historians/biblical scholars.

Since most of the people who specialize in the area tend to be Christians.  Which seems to be ripe for bias, both intentional and subconsious.