I don't have to look at your post, I have actually studied the evidence for Christ for many years and found it beyond any question. There are so many extra biblical references to Jesus Christ that we could piece together His entire life death and resurrection without ever opening the Bible. People such as Cornelius Tacitus "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome (55-120 AD), Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), Flavius Josephus court historian for Emperor Vespasian (37-97 AD), Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD, Emporer Hadrian in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul (117-138 AD), Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing from prison to his son (around 70 AD), Clement elder of Rome in a letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD), Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD), and many others.
We can also trust the Gospel accounts themselves. The sheer number of copies that come to us from all over the region which all date to within that first and second century when these events are claimed to have taken place. Had the claims been about a made up Jesus that never existed there would have been someone leaving a record as such. However not one such contemporary rebuttal to the claims of the Gospels exists.
There is the writings of Papias Hierapolis (125 AD) which confirms the authorship of the Gospels by the Apostles of Christ. Likewise Irenaeus of Lyons (180 AD) confirms the authorship. Even in your own post you admit to the authorship of Mark and hold to the liberal view of it being written in 70 AD. Most of the liberal scholars are forced to at least date Matthew and Luke in the 80's, and John in the 90's. But look, even if we accepted those dates, that's still well within the lifetime of various eyewitnesses to the time of the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who would have served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going around, yet as I said there are none. This tells us it was just not ever in dispute.
These late dates for the gospels really aren't all that late when you consider other ancient texts that historians regard as generally trust worthy. For example two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C., yet historians have no issues with them being trust worthy.
However there is reason to believe that the gospels were written down much earlier than the liberal scholars say. The book of Acts which was written by Luke, documents the ministry of Paul. However it ends without telling about his execution. Had it been written after his execution it certainly would have accounted it. We know that this event took place around A.D. 62 so the writing of Acts had to have ended before 62 when Paul was executed.
Also consider the fact that in 70 A.D. the Temple was destroyed just as Jesus had predicted, yet there is no mention of that in the text either. A Christian author writing after this would have certainly been excited to promote this fulfilled prophecy. The fact that it’s not there demonstrates it certainly was written in the sixty’s. Having established that, we can move backwards from there. Since Acts is the second of a two part work, Luke being the first part, then Luke must have been written earlier than that. Since Luke incorporates parts of the gospel of Mark, that means that Mark is even earlier. If you allow a year or two for each of these gospels to be written, you wind up with Mark being written in the 50's and not later than A.D. 60. If Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30 or 33 then we are talking about a maximum gap of less than 25 years. Compared with Alexander the Great, that's like a news flash.
Oh dear. I wish I had time for this Gish Gallop. I, too, have studied the "evidence" for Christ for many years, and find them not nearly as strong as do you. But there are a few whoppers of exaggeration in your post I'd like to point out:
1. "There are so many extra biblical references to Jesus Christ that we could piece together His entire life death and resurrection without ever opening the Bible."
Utterly false. For example, name ONE source which establishes, say, the temptation of Christ by Satan. Or even the first 12 years of his life (I'll even let you use the gospels for that one). In addition, all we do find is repetition of what Christians said when THEY opened the Bible, or repetition of the Bible itself. There is absolutely nothing about Christ's life from any source that can be found without SOMEBODY opening the Bible.
2. "The sheer number of copies that come to us from all over the region which all date to within that first and second century when these events are claimed to have taken place. "
This is a lie (not saying you are lying, just that whoever told you this is). There are ZERO copies which date to the first century, and the VAST majority of copies date from several centuries later. We have no copies of complete books before the year 200. A whole New Testament is not found until 400 (granted, the NT was not canonized until the early 4th century). MOST manuscripts are from the 9th and 10th centuries or later.
3. "There is the writings of Papias Hierapolis (125 AD) which confirms the authorship of the Gospels by the Apostles of Christ."
The gospels were not written by the Apostles. Heck, even Luke specifically states he was not an eyewitness. It's not just
liberal scholars who deny apostolic authorship, it is the
consensus of New Testament scholarship. Are there fringe scholars who claim the opposite? Yes, of course. But by and large, it is well understood that the authors of the gospels were not written by those for whom they are named.
4."... including hostile eyewitnesses who would have served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going around, yet as I said there are none."
How can you say that they WOULD HAVE written corrective documents, when THE most important historian of that time, Philo-Judaeus, who lived the entire lifetime, and more, of Jesus, says absolutely nothing about Jesus? If you can say hostile witnesses WOULD HAVE written something, I can say Philo-Judaeus WOULD HAVE written something, ANYTHING about Jesus. He gives no commentary whatsoever, pro or con. If you want to go absence of evidence, there is no bigger omission.
5. "For example two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C., yet historians have no issues with them being trust worthy."
Actually, there is ALWAYS issues with trustworthiness of ancient texts. Christians like to claim that other ancient works are just taken at face value, while the gospels are unduly interrogated. First of all, this is an exaggeration. The works of all ancient texts are scrutinized and with skepticism. Secondly, OF COURSE claims of magical events are going to be questioned. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's just common sense.
There is so much more wrong with your post, but I've spent all the time I'm going to spend on it for now.