Objective evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ?

[Mudhammam]

Then it  doesn't matter how much of it is factually accurate if you're not making the claim that one part's accuracy affects our view on the accuracy of the rest.  If that's the case, why did you bring it up in the first place?  It's funny how you keep making claims, have those claims shredded and then pretend you never made those claims in the first place.  We proved that Josephus and Tacitus were not credible sources.  Which other ones do you want to pretend are valid?  You want to claim Pliny the Younger?  Suetonius?  Julius Africanus and Thallus?  You want to pretend the Talmud mentions Jesus?  I'll save you the trouble because all of them can be entirely discredited, just like Josephus and Tacitus were.

So please, stop waving your arms around like anyone is going to be impressed.  You've got nothing.  You've got less than nothing and everyone here knows it.

Have you been following? Why did I bring what up in the first place? You're right that I never made "the claim that one part's accuracy affects our view on the accuracy of the rest." That's been the claim I'm (partially) arguing against. Got it? 

Funny, I haven't seen you shred any claims. Maybe you're just warming up to it? You did say,

You have to remember that for most believers, "fact" means "what I believe".  They don't really care if their beliefs are true, they'll just desperately twist and turn things to try to justify believing in it.  They always have a double standard in play.  I've pointed out that credible historians demand multiple independent accounts for historical tales...  There are standards for a reason, they cannot meet the standards, but neither can they admit that their belief system fails in any test.

I guess by "believers" you meant "mythicists because---shit, the irony is gold---"credible historians" with "standards" unanimously agree with me here (sorry if that is difficult to accept, though I can't see why it should be). There is no universal dismissal of Josephus and Tacitus. In fact, most historians accept those as authentic (minus the obvious interpolations in the Testimonium). So, maybe if you want anything you say to be taken seriously, you should stop making unsupported assertions at me and take your argument (if you have one) to the academics who spend their lives combing through the texts and teaching others how to do so (but you might want to first set aside your blind faith in Richard Carrier and Robert Price or whoever of the six serious mythicists you're trying and failing miserably to parrot).

And where is your evidence for that? 

Sorry, allow me to clarify for those with poor reading comprehension skills: What Cephus is referring is called blatant sarcasm.