Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

Again, Muhammad has a grave that has been guarded for 1400 years. There is physical evidence of his existence.

So does Abraham. We know he was made up. There is no evidence that Muhammad existed.

Like I mentioned, Muhammad has a grave that has been guarded since he died. We know it's there. We can see it. Comparing that to a story of where Abraham was purported to be buried, with no actual gravesite known, is a false comparison.

The Sunnah and the Hadith are historical records of both the life Muhammad, as well as his wives and friends, some of who are buried beside him. There is an actual verifiable history here.

You have no cause whatsoever to doubt his existence. None.

Tacitus wrote history according to the Romans, not Christians. Same for Josephus writing about the Jews.

Josephus worked for Vespasian. He would never say Jesus was the messiah as he promoted Vespasian as the messiah and there is nowhere else Josephus says Jesus was a messiah. If Josephus actually thought Jesus rose from the dead, and was the messiah, he would not have been promoting Vespasian as the messiah and a miracle-worker.

Assuming you understand the context here, we know Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews circa 93 CE. We also have records that Vespasian died in June of 79 CE. So are you trying to say that Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews so a dead man would be impressed?

Vespasian was long dead when Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews, therefore Vespasian had no influence whatsoever.

How the fuck can this not be any more obvious?

However, we do have enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion of tampering, but that suspicion simply isn't enough to warrant any claims of wholesale interpolation. Yes, if it was tampered with Eusebius appears likely to have been the culprit.

It's not up to you to decide what is or is not "enough". It's nothing but your opinion.

It's the consensus opinion, otherwise they wouldn't be agreeing on it's partial authenticity. Score one for common sense, huh?

But the bottom line is, I and virtually all others agree that the original almost certainly said something about Jesus being crucified by Pilate.

An exaggeration which you have no basis for claiming. Pious fraud was rampant everywhere. 
The only reason anyone was talking about any Jesus was not that anyone actually knew anything about him, but because believing communities had arisen and THAT was the route and reason they heard about him. There are no records of common criminals who were crucified and dumped into common graves, then or now. Tacitus had nothing to base anything on except the belief of believers which he HEARD ABOUT. The BELIEVERS said they BELIEVED Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead (no other Jewish hero was ever said to have been re-animated) and it was the BELIEFS that drove community formation and you have nothing except believing communities which is really all "historians" have to base anything on. You got nothing.

Nothing Eusebius said is reliable, and he even told us not to believe his own writing.
"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

You and your fixation with 'pious fraud' still brings a chuckle after all these years. Yet the one thing your claim has miserably failed to achieve is to bring up actual evidence of wholesale interpolation of the TF.

Making claims of pious fraud of this or that does not show evidence of pious fraud with the TF. That's not unlike saying, "We have direct evidence of Jack robbing a bank in Chicago, but no evidence of him robbing the bank in New York. But let's blame him for robbing the bank in New York anyways. What the hell, huh?"