The fact that Jesus lived has already been proven.
Actually, Josephus in particular has pretty well been shown to have his writings added to by a later revisionist who was desperate to have some historical mention of Christ. You can look up that argument on your own.
There are also many statements in the Bible that have been proven by Archeology. So your argument has no legs to stand on.
Each datum in a collection of information stands alone and either is true or it isn't. Attempting to infer truth of some parts because the others have been show to have some historical basis is an egregious logical fallacy.
If I take a collection of random historical data and intermingle them with some random unprovable data that I've completely made up, and then I publish it, the fact that the facts are shown to have some accuracy makes the stuff I've completely made up true?
Of course not. But neither does the the truth or partial truth or historical accuracy of one claim (the existence of a certain city) prove anything else other than the historical accuracy of the claim that the city existed.
Recently, an archaeologist found what is now generally accepted to be Troy. Does this mean that rest of the story about Troy, including the part that the Greek gods played in the war, are true?
For one thing people back then didn't write very much because of their education level. They passed on information by word of mouth.
Now you're justifying. What you're saying is that it doesn't matter that there weren't any records, and yet you were the one who brought up the topic of how much Christ was mentioned in history. So... which is it? It's not like there weren't records made during that time.
They also had greater memories for this type of stuff. Look at the 3 music masters. Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms. They could go to a symphony, listen to it once and go home and play it. People could remember information just about word for word back then.
?!? You expect me to accept this argument? Was everybody at the time in question a musical master? Were Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms contemporaries of Christ? If it took us only 400 years or so to lose this magical eidetic memory that everyone had, as you claim, then how on earth could we expect to know what humans were like 2,000 years ago? Does this memory loss occur in cycles, or are we just doomed to get gradually more stupid? And what actual evidence do you have for this?
Also just because something wasn't written down, and proven by science, doesn't mean it's not true. Look at all the natural remedies promoted at curezone. And in the case with natural cures, science doesn't even want to look at it. Like I've always said, it's science that's flawed. So you can use science to prove or disprove God, or prove or disprove alternative methods. I will rely on personal experience over science any day.
And what do you think I'm using? I want direct experience that proves that Jesus lived. All Christians offer is the Bible and faith. Well... those scientists that won't look at "alternatives" are simply defending their beliefs just as furiously and illogically as anyone else defending a set of beliefs in the face of seriously contradictory evidence. Fault those scientists all you like, but as you judge, so too shall you be judged. It's your rule; try applying it to yourself for an eye-opening experience.
To quote one of the greatest scientific minds, Einstein.
You do realize that Einstein was Jewish, right?
"The only source of knowledge is experience"
What experience do you have in the existence of Christ? Not what experience do you have of the Bible telling you he existed, but what genuine, direct experience?
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
I don't know what you're trying to imply with this -- my opinion wasn't taught to me in school.
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
This is a fantastically brilliant statement. I still do not understand what this has to do with the existence or not of Jesus.
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
No argument here, but this doesn't answer any questions.
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
And religions in general, and Christianity in particular, are among the most complicated of institutions on the planet.
1/3 of the world population is Christian. You think this could be based on a lie?
ROFL! 2/3 of the world population is not Christian. You think this could be based on a lie? In informal logic, this is called the fallacy of large numbers. The facts are the facts, regardless of who believes in them, or how many people believe in them, or how flat you think the world is.
At least try to make a well-reasoned argument, please?