JOHN:
I might also suggest you read the complete works of Josephus.  He was an historian in the era of the birth of Christianity.  He wasn't a believer, but he does document the reality of Jesus.

BRUCE:
John, I have the complete annotated works of Josephus in my personal library both in hard copy and on CD-ROM.  I have read The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews and I refer to them frequently in my theological and historical studies, and that includes especially in regard to the "Jesus" debacle.

First, Josephus was not even born  for five to ten years after Jesus is said to have been executed!  Thus, he was not a witness to any such events proclaimed about Jesus.  Philo, however, was a contemporary and yet he is completely silent on any reference to Jesus whatsoever; nothing, nada, zilch.

Second, it's important to understand that we are addressing two different questions here: (1) whether or not Jesus was a real historical person in 1st c. Palestine; and (2) whether there is any supporting evidence for any of the miraculous claims made about such a Jesus figure.  Even if (1) is true (and I'm not saying it is) that in no way makes (2) true. 

On point (1) some argument can be made that there was an historical figure on which these myths were wrought.  However, that is by no means certain and to claim such is the case is rife speculation that cannot be confirmed by any historical evidence available today. 

Josephus himself mentions more than a dozen different persons who went by the name "Jesus" and even the New Testament mentions three (cf., Elymus Bar-Jesus in Acts 13; and of course, the thief Barabbas' first name was "Jesus"--Matthew 27:16); it was a common name at that time.  But even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Jesus of the Gospels was an historical person in 1st c. Palestine that does not even remotely prove the truth of the dramatic, miraculous, claims made about him in those Christian apologetic texts.

Third, after Constantine established Christianity as the "official" religion, Christians were given free reign to save and destroy pagan texts at their discretion (and destroy they did).  They also had copies of the works of Josephus and they produced their own copies.  The earliest (oldest) copies we have date to the 11th century and come from Christian archives.  As such, a critical question comes to fore in regard to the acknowledged CHRISTIAN interpolations in Josephus' Antiquities:

If such references to Jesus really existed in Josephus' original writings then why is it that they are never mentioned by any writer, Christian or otherwise, until the FOURTH CENTURY(!)?  Let me repeat that because it sounds vaguely important. 

These references to "Jesus" are not mentioned by any writer until the FOURTH CENTURY, when the Christian apologist Eusebius suddenly produces it out of no where.

In their debates with Jews, Christians would have found the disputed passages very useful as evidence of what had been conceded by an orthodox Jew, and yet no one noticed it?  Are you kidding me!  In fact, no fewer than ELEVEN church fathers prior to or contemporary with Eusebius cite various other passages from the works of Josephus, including Origin who cites Josephus on multiple occasions,  and somehow all of them overlooked this crusher? How Likely is that? 

Honestly, John, do you really think you have considered the evidence with any degree of objectivity here?  Would you be just as uncritical of other ancient historians recording the miraculous events, feats and divinity of other god-men characters?  What about others mentioned by Josephus?  What about others mentioned by early Christian writers?  Homer's classics, the Iliad and Odyssey were considered "divinely inspired" from the gods; as such, are we to discount the miraculous feeding of 4,500 by Odysseus but accept the feedings of 4,000 and 5,000 by Jesus?  Shall we deny other tales of miraculous events portrayed in Homer, such as walking on water, healings, and transfigurations, but accept those of Jesus?  Why the double-standards? 

Somehow I suspect your critical thinking skills would be sharp as a tack in discounting the divine births, miracles, resurrections and divinity of other ancient heroes and "saviors" that were exalted and prayed to by the masses centuries before Jesus came on the scene, but when it's your own "savior" under fire you will do anything you must in order to avoid having him relegated to a comfortable spot in the mythology bin alongside all the others of his ilk before or since.

Something to think about.

Bruce Monson