Reconstructing the Historical Jesus

Ok. Since it is relevant to the topic then we should discuss it.The jesus character is partially derived from previously established religions.
This weighs against the suggestion that there was an historic jesus.Perhaps you can actually bring something to the subject instead of wasting time with posts like the last couple.

Burden Of Proof fallacy...
http://www.nizkor.org/...ures/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

But that is not what you asked.
You asked "Who founded christianity?", and not "Why is your explanation better?"You are doing exactly the same as a someone claiming that if a physicist doesn't believe in god then he must be able to explain how the universe began - else god is trve and the physicist is wrong.And CF has explained why 'no historical jesus' is self-evidently more parsimonious than 'an historical jesus'.
Other than linking a definition of 'parsimonious', I see little more he can do to explain it to you.

Now you just need to understand what an analogy is. I guess you must be arguing with my analogy.

1) 'People made up the jesus character' is not "a vague hand-wavy idea". It is a very definite defined idea. Your understanding of it may be vague, though.2) 'People made up jesus character' is "a plausible naturalistic explanation" - so there is nothing wrong with choosing that argument over the less parsimonious argument you are putting forward.3) You are expecting someone to identify the originator of a religion when discussing the historical jesus - and when they say that they can't, you'll shout "I WIN!".
But you have also failed to identify the originator of the religion - instead you have asserted it was jesus and then claimed that an historical jesus existed, while providing no evidence.4) Your claim that arguments need to be applied equally is seriously flawed.
If you said unicorns existed, I could expect you to show me them. If you said unicorns did not exist, then I could not expect you to show me 'a lack of unicorns'.
You are asking to be shown 'a lack of historical jesus', when it is you making the claim that an historical jesus exists.

I'm sure you have a paper somewhere that actually gives the calculations for 'pure bollocks'.
Would you care to define what metric you are using to perform the necessary comparison?