I think I have a way to really put this discussion to bed. Let's concede that there is this tiny amount of secular evidence to support the theory that Jesus of Nazereth actually existed. Let's just concede that the sources, Josephus and one or two others perhaps, are the most credible historians to have ever existed. Where does that leave us? Christ as fact? Hardly.
Well, I believe that the spirit of the original question on this thread really was asking for rock solid evidence. Rock solid evidence woud have to address both the quantity and quality of the evidence. If we are lacking in quantity, even as we have conceded that the one or two brief mentions of this alleged person was reported by the highest quality of historian, it still makes one wonder why all the thousnads of other historians at the time completely ignored this marvelous miracle worker, even said to be God himself. In other words, one or two of the most marvelous historians ever reporting, very briefly, on an alleged person that thousands of others didn't know about doesn't settle the matter of Jesus' existence. It still leaves room for doubt. (Snowbird, why are you bothering to read this? You are wasting your time here. You believe on faith, so all evidence of a non-biblical kind should not be of any interest to you. This thread is about evidence, not faith, besides I am using reason here, and you have admitted that reason just doesn't get you there. Curiosity will only weaken your faith.)
That is why I subscribe to the percentage of belief system. I don't disbelieve in Jesus of Nazareth 100%. I openly admit, as an atheist even, that sure, Jesus of Nazareth COULD have existed. I believe in Jesus as directly corresponded to by the amount of evidence CURRENTLY available. So, I end up believing in Jesus with about 1% of my person. I lack belief in Jesus 99%. This is because we have about 1% of the evidence needed to solidly establish his existence in historical terms.
So there, problem solved! Everyone should believe in Jesus equivalently to the amount of secular objective evidence. (This is assuming that one understands that the gospels, for example, are religious evidences and therefore apologistic in nature and not reliable evidence for all people. It is highly subjective and therefore should be doubted seriously by all rational people, as all apologistic writings should be, even if they are written by so called scientific persons. If you accept scripture as evidence then this wouldn't apply to you. But, even accepting scripture as evidence shouldn't necessarily put you at "100% believer in Jesus." At best you could only get to 99%. That last 1% you are going to have to fudge with the "faith excuse.")
The problem is that, I would be willing to bet my life that every single person who has posted on this thread in support of the theory of Jesus, doesn't just believe in the physical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Most if not all here believe that not only did he exist but: he performed miracles, is God or God's son, died and came back, raised the dead, spoke a message straight from the creator of the universe, represents the "true way," born of a virgin...
So, in other words, our Jesus apologists in this thread aren't really being totally honest with us. They are not revealing the fact that their belief in Jesus is not a cold scientific or historical belief at all; it is a religious belief that is influenced not simply by secular facts but by deeply emotional love and worship of this person that we don't seem to have much solid evidence that he even existed. How did we get from simply nodding our heads at Jesus' existence, to bowing down with our faces to the ground begging forgiveness of our sins to this, not dead, but ALIVE invisible superman in the sky who will punish you for all eternity if you don't believe in him based on flimsy evidence? Now, that should be the real discussion.
Anybody who does not leave at least (and this is being astoundingly generous) 1% doubt about Jesus' existence, I am sorry, but I just can't view you as a rational person, and this is by your own admission. When did you admit that you are not a rational person? The moment you fudged that last 1% with the "faith excuse." You then admitted that logic and reason are not really necessary to believe something. You have a mechanism that ultimately is capable of destroying even the most solid evidence out there, faith. If your eyes tell you, Snowbird, that the Bible is wrong on some small point, actually it is your eyes that are in error because the Bible is truth. What eyes see and ears hear are thus rendered irrelevant. The Bible is truth; all else be damned.
I bring in the Bible here because that is where we get the idea of faith. I do not know of this concept from anywhere else, though it may have had some pagan origin I don't know. So, you have faith that the Bible is true because the Bible says to have faith that it is true. Let me say that again to make sure I got it right. You have faith that the Bible is true because the Bible says to have faith that it is true.
You believe in Jesus not because the evidence is so overwhelming, but because the Bible says that you should have faith that the Bible is true because the Bible says that you should have faith that the Bible is true and the Bible says that Jesus existed and performed miracles blah blah blah. Circular logic, true, but that doesn't bother the Jesus believer at all because it is not logic, reason or evidence that ultimately convinces a person to believe in Jesus, it is faith! why faith? Because the Bible says that you must have faith, and believe on faith. Why believe the Bible? Because the Bible says that you must believe the bible (it is god's word) and that you should ignore disconfirming evidence and just believe on faith. I could keep this up forever. It just goes around and around and around. Not a problem for Snowbird at all. She believes on faith. Why? Because the Bible says to believe in Jesus on faith.... why believe the Bible? The Bible says to. That really can be the only legitimate reason to believe in the Bible in fact. Because the Bible says so.
If one even mentions that the Bible is true because, say for example, archaeology has uncovered and veerified some individual facts about the Bible then it becomes an archaeological discussion at that point and not a religious or faith based discussion. Then we'll have to really get into the archaelogical facts, all Christians would have to actually become archaeologists so they could prove the Bible true. But then Snowbird will come along and remind us all that it just doesn't matter what archaeology uncovers or doesn't uncover. If it uncovers something that supports the Biblical, fine. But if archaeology uncovers something that contradicts the Bible, well, the faithful just ignore it because if it is true, then the Bible isn't infallible. This of course is what makes it a complete waste of time to refer to any other disciplines, scinces, facts, etc. Only supportive facts are going to be accepted, why bother trying to get archaeology to support the Bible? You believe on faith let's not forget, not on evidence. This makes evidence completely irrelevant to the truly faithful. Only a person with weak faith or doubts would need any kind of physical confirmation whatsoever.
Personally, I think if we are having a discussion on Jesus, people who believe in Jesus to the point of "religiosity" and who actually worship him should identify themselves as apologists at the start of the doscussion so the more scientifically minded can ignore their comments. Why is this fair? It is because we already know what the faithful believer is going to come up with. No surprise there! They are only going to bring up evidence that supports their faith. It is not just a matter historicity or scientific facts for them, it is a matter of the salvation for their eternal soul. So, can the word of someone who believes they are going to be tortured forever if they don't believe in the conclusion they have already reached possibly be trusted? Can we trust that person under the threat of torture to really just look at the evidence and objectively formulate beliefs based on available evidence and nothing else without regard to his strongly emotional beliefs and worship? Of course not. That is why forced confessions are not regarded as legitimate. Anything believed under the threat of torture is not really believed at all.
My conclusion is that even if we doubt only 1% that Jesus of Nazareth existed, that is already enough doubt to make actua;lly worshippin him utterly ridiculous. You can't or at least shouldn't worship something unless you are 100% sure of its existence. There just isn't enough evidence that Jesus existed to warrant 100% belief and subsequently, not enough evidence to warrant worship of that person.