Evidence for historical Jesus is very weak:
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/evidence-for-jesus-is-weaker-than-you-might-think/Before the European Enlightenment, virtually all New Testament experts assumed that handed-down stories about Jesus were first recorded by eye witnesses and were largely biographical. That is no longer the case.
...
None of the four gospels claims to be written by eyewitnesses, and all were originally anonymous. Only later were they attributed to men named in the stories themselves.
While the four gospels were traditionally held to be four independent accounts, textual analysis suggests that they all actually are adaptations of the earliest gospel, Mark. Each has been edited and expanded upon, repeatedly, by unknown editors. It is worth noting that Mark features the most fallible, human, no-frills Jesus—and, more importantly, may be an allegory.
All of the gospels contain anachronisms and errors that show they were written long after the events they describe, and most likely far from the setting of their stories. Even more troubling, they don’t just have minor nitpicky contradictions; they have basic, even crucial, contradictions.
...
Despite generations of apologists insisting Jesus is vouched for by plenty of historical sources like Tacitus or Suetonius, none of these hold up to close inspection. The most commonly-cited of these is the Testimonium Flavianum... Today historians overwhelmingly recognize this odd Jesus passage is a forgery. (For one reason, no one but the suspected forger ever quotes it – for 500 years!) But Christian apologists are loathe to give it up, and supporters now argue it is only a partial forgery.
...
As historian Robert M. Price notes, just as Superman comics spun off into stories of young Superboy in Smallville, Christians wrote stories of young Jesus in Nazareth using his divine powers to bring clay birds to life or peevishly strike his playmates dead.
...
Some of our familiar New Testament epistles like 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude were rejected as forgeries even in ancient times; today scholars identify almost all of the New Testament books as forgeries except for six attributed to Paul (and even his authentic letters have been re-edited).
...
Generations of Christian apologists have pointed to the existence of Christian martyrs as proof their religion is true, asking “Who would die for a lie?” The short answer, of course.
...
Best-selling New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman believes that the biblical stories about Jesus had their kernel in the person of a single itinerant preacher, as do most New Testament scholars. Historian Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald (co-author of this article) take an opposing position—that the original kernel was a set of ancient mythic tropes to which unsuspecting believers added historical details.
----------
I have to say, the lack of surviving evidence does not surprise me in the least, given the long time-span and the cultural context.
For example:
The Roman Empire had a bureaucratic, orderly, cold-blooded culture. There are loads of political, philosophical and educational texts preserved from those ancient times. But very, very little is known about everyday-life in Ancient Rome.
* Archeologists have found a detailed list of the regular supplies a roman legion needed to stay operational. But they don't know what those supplies were actually used for and, for example, WHY roman legionaires needed ox-sinew.
* Gladiator-fights were a huge spectacle, with professional fighters, with many different fighting-styles, with main-events that attracted huge audiences... with advertisements and action-figures... But nobody bothered to write all this down. Very much is still unknown, for example the names and fighting-styles of several types of gladiators. Or whether female gladiators were something ordinary or extraordinary.
= new reply since forum marked as read
You must not be too confident in it, I guess. 
I apologize for "wasting your time," although it was your choice whether to respond at all. I didn't force you to do a thing.
Take care! 
She's been pursuing this new career for some time now and has no training in history. This article is Raw Story clickbait and a rehash.
https://valerietarico.com/about/
David Fitgerald is a self-published internet scholar with no sense of typography. I don't know why he's credited at the end of this article unless it's to prevent a plagiarism lawsuit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Fitzgerald_(author)
Mythicism has made valiant efforts to acquire authority but is stll relegated to pockets of the internet. Fitzgerald is a prime example. The article is repackaged comments from mythicists. They are hardly "some important facts about the history of the Bible" at all, much as they'd like tem to be.
Tarico may have been a competent psychologist but, since her self-decribed journey from evangelicalism to atheism, she's consciouskly donned the roll of antireligionist, really without the cred to carry it off. She's been around awhile. Google her.
Meanwhile, I saw no mention of Ftzgerald in the article or the byline. Did you? Why is his name there then?
"Nailed" is mildly amusing, though obvious.
The typography is godawful though. At least the quality of the cover is a fair warning about the quality of the contents.
Yes, disadain is the word I would use.
...
All of the gospels contain anachronisms and errors that show they were written long after the events they describe, and most likely far from the setting of their stories. Even more troubling, they don’t just have minor nitpicky contradictions; they have basic, even crucial, contradictions.
A Visual Representation of Biblical Contradictions
https://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/a-visual-representation-of-biblical-contradictions/
dragged out every Spring.
Creations and he knows it fell.
Argument for the sake of argument.
You'll come around...take heart
God believes in you.
1.
By extension, your comparison means that God must exist because God knows that God exists. Wow. That's really helpful. 
Just a quick question:
How do you know whether God knows that God exists?
Or does God believe that he exists?
And even if this can be constructed into a theological proof that God exists with respect to himself, that does reveal nothing whether God exists with respect to us.
2.
"God believes in you."
That's merely your belief.
You know what really pisses me off about believers? You have this fascinating and interesting cosmology, but instead of investigating and challenging it and trying to understand it, you declare it to be off-limits. You construct circular, self-referential arguments that have no connection to the rest of the world and explain nothing. And then you declare that this is how it's supposed to be.
