Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

I most certainly am not. You made that up. And you yourself just made my point. 
We don't know about other messianic pretenders as their followers/believers died out. 
Were Josephus and Tacitus talking about him when he was executed ? No they were not. 
They talked about him later, after his believer group had grown. Their discussion of him is belief based ... on the believer base that had arisen.
If he had no believers, they would not have even mentioned him, as he would have been just like all the other messianic pretenders, which you brought up. Thank you !

Yes you are making that argument by implication alone. You suggested that if "a Roman had executed a Jew who was said to be the "King of the Jews" ..." then that implies obvious fame. 

So where do you get this historical information from where Jesus was regarded as "King of the Jews?"

The Gospels? You know ... those books that were purportedly written at least 3 decades after Philo was long dead?

lol

True believer.

LOL

You should stop telling me what I'm saying, and make your own argument. 
I said nothing of the sort ... you made that up, yet again. You create dishonest straw-men when you're cornered.
I mentioned the King of the Jews with respect to Philo. You made the rest up. I did not say (another dishonest straw-man) I believed the gospels.
What I said was what those who are educated in English, would know, is a "conditional". "If a Roman executed ... " etc.

You have your head so far up your ass here, it's not even worth wasting time with this. 
You obviously have no interest in the *question*.
Buh bye.

No way, dude. You implied your belief that IF Jesus was referred to as "King of the Jews" that Philo would have heard about him. The quote is in black and white below.

Hw was involved with Rome in a number of issues with respect to the Jews in Jerusalem. 

If in fact, a Roman had executed a Jew who was said to be the "King of the Jews", one would expect he would have mentioned it.

You attempted to insert a faith based argument directly out of the Gospels to qualify a point. Isn't that what the braindead Christians do? That's why your argument sucks.

But you can deny that etched-in-stone quote if you want.