What needs to be understood, again, is the atmosphere or setting of Jesus' time. Judea was ruled by the Roman's, and the Roman's were concerned about power, and they always had bigger issues than what Jesus was teaching or doing. So the writers of that time, who were not followers of Jesus, would not have had any interest or concern in recording what He was doing or saying. Just as people today who aren't believers won't care what the Bible says or if they do care, it's only to attempt to discredit it. If someone says "show me proof," but then proceeds to tear down whatever evidence is given because it doesn't fit their criteria for proof, then it would seem that that person doesn't really care about the answer that's given or that they should ask themselves; is what I'm aking for even reasonable?? I've given examples of secular writers that at least reference Jesus, pointing to his existence, and their genuineness is called into question, I've quoted scripture, which I'm not surprised was rejected as circular.

Perhaps you simply fail to understand what it is to both have the burden of proof and actually provide evidence. The authors you mention are not unknown to most here as they have been trotted out in the past and have failed to make a case based on those questionable claims alone.

That having been said, to prove something as fact requires more than just making the quote from someone of the time. It requires corroboration of those statements as being authored by the people in question, and none of the authors were even alive when the events were said to have taken place. In the case of any statements about miracles and such it requires actual outside witnessing to even give it a shred of worth (not evidence) and even then it would be under a great deal of scrutiny for a number of very good reasons.

You conflated the historicity of events in known history with the highly questionable events of biblical history in your earlier post, and to add further confusion made the statement that it was a matter of faith that we take these things as being true. Here in essence is the problem. No one accepts Napoleon, Washington or any other historical figure that lived centuries before us on a matter of faith. It is a matter of evidence. A matter of written correspondences, of written record, of archaeological research that gives us our understanding of history. It has absolutely nothing to do with faith.

You are still basing every one of your claims on the bible and not on the issues of the time outside of its text. If the writers of the time were as concerned as you say, why are there only the small handful of them even making a vague reference years after the fact and not a single one during? Why are none of the major miracles or the life of Christ himself upon which you wish to make your case a matter of any record outside of the bible during the time in which he was said to have lived?

We're not merely dismissing the claims, we're demonstrating why the rather old claims have never had any veracity to begin with.

So, once again, where is your evidence?