First let me say that your perspective on the shortcomings within the historicity of Christianity is quite refreshing, and does more to address the legitimacy of your arguments than any fervency in defense of them ever could. When skeptics know that you recognize the weaknesses in your own arguments it gives them a reassurance that you won't just blindly dismiss the legitimate concerns of others either. That's a very constructive position from which to begin any exchange. So kudos on your honesty.
Now, as for specific texts it's difficult to compare early Christian texts on a level playing field with other historical texts, because from at least the third and forth centuries onward the Catholic Church held such sway over what was and wasn't approved dogma that whatever history has been preserved has to be filtered through the lens of the Church's influence. Many later texts, and indeed many claims about saints, and martyrs, and holy artifacts have to be taken with a grain of salt. For well over a thousand years the Catholic Church decided what was and wasn't historical. I can think of no other instance of historical texts that have such an institutionalized foundation.
However, neither will I dismiss any legitimate early Christian texts, I just believe that such texts are far fewer and less definitive than most Christians are willing to admit. But the later that Christian texts get, and the more that they tend toward Church dogma, the more skeptical that many people become, and rightly so in my opinion.
I think Christians often oversell the historical evidence that they claim to have for their beliefs, and I also think that this tendency to fervently defend that questionable historicity harms the legitimate historical evidence that may indeed exist.
At least that's my opinion, but I'm open to any arguments to the contrary. But trust me, I've been around awhile, I've heard most of them.
